Age of Marijuana Use and Psychosis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Exactly. We were talking about kids accidentally consuming marijuana cookies and candy because they didn't know better. We weren't discussing someone going around and injecting a child full of THC via a needle.

---

Yeah, looks like I read that one wrong. 37 pages of catching up on this runaway train.

Quote:

---

Pretty sure that stuff comes with child resistant caps now. Also it doesn't usually smell or look like candy. I think.

---

The point was you were looking for statistics on accidental alcohol consumption. You said you weren't able to find much of anything on that topic. I believe that's the case because people know about the dangers of children drinking alcohol and they're probably concerned with keeping their goods rather than having a kid ingest some, dump it out, drop and break the bottle (likely getting hurt in the process), etc. I don't think we can say there's a lack of accidental alcohol incidents with children because they take a swig and think it tastes disgusting. Bleach, drain-o, glue... maybe it tastes good. I've never tried it, but a lot of kids have and were sent to the hospital or morgue as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Over 1000 years. You're talking about stuff like BHO and shatter?

---

Yes (shatter is BHO).

"Congrats, you are a fucking druggie. Lets hope your supplier is the rollerboys so the world isn't subjected to more of you."

Can someone explain this 'rollerboys' thing to me? I must have missed something. Do they poison weed or something? If that's the case, sorry to disappoint you, but I won't be going anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subzero

A girl in town stabbed and killed herself while on LSD when we were in high school. I had some of the same LSD and managed to not freak out and kill myself as did a whole lot of other people I know. I get that LSD and cannabis are very different, but you simply can't regulate people doing stupid shit away. I assume we're all ok with how alcohol is regulated (no Latrin, you don't count) and none of us are under the impression that DUI-related incidents or people just being drunken assholes/idiots have been regulated down to zero. Does anyone believe that more regulations on alcohol would prevent more DUIs? I doubt it. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against regulations on this stuff, but "more" isn't always the answer.

---

When the BAC level for DUI was reduced from .15 to .10, DUIs went down. When the BAC level for DUI was reduced from .10 to .08, DUIs went down. With that in mind, why wouldn't you believe more regulations would prevent more DUIs?

Quote:

---

I trust that most people are out for themselves and looking to enrich their lives. That may often come at the expense of others. If you want to trust anyone who claims to be a professional based on nothing other than, "That's what they do, of course they know better"... good luck.

---

Paranoia is a symptom of psychosis, you know. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leifastagsweed

I don't think the government or anybody else is the 'bogeyman.' I am not afraid of the dark. My body is more than my house or my car or my nationality or my beliefs. It is my whole self, the sum of all my parts, not just it's physical mechanics that can be quantified by science. Nobody knows it like I do. This feels really deep. I think I am going to go look at shoes now.

---

Okay, but returning to the question: how specifically would your knowledge have protected you from manufacturing errors in empagliflozin? or almond milk? or bottled water?

Wtf are rollerboys?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Wtf are rollerboys?

---

Fuck you're out of touch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD6tLfGlRRc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

When the BAC level for DUI was reduced from .15 to .10, DUIs went down. When the BAC level for DUI was reduced from .10 to .08, DUIs went down.

---

More regulations would be additional rules. Altering a value in an existing rule does not add to the regulations.

Quote:

---

With that in mind, why wouldn't you believe more regulations would prevent more DUIs?

---

Because people will still easily get alcohol and act like idiots thereafter.

Quote:

---

Paranoia is a symptom of psychosis, you know. :)

---

An accepted risk. I'm enjoying my psychosis-filled life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackWhisper

Fuck you're out of touch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD6tLfGlRRc

---

That looks really gay. Could you maybe just hit us with a synopsis?

Teenagers take over the synthetic drug world in a beachside city. Their trademark is rollerblading. This movie came out when rollerblading was hip and new. End of synopsis.

PS: There are gloriously fuckin epic mullets in the movie. LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackWhisper

Teenagers take over the synthetic drug world in a beachside city. Their trademark is rollerblading. This movie came out when rollerblading was hip and new. End of synopsis.

PS: There are gloriously fuckin epic mullets in the movie. LOL.

---

Well... there's a reason it's available in full on youtube, I guess. I was wondering more how having my devil-man drug dealer being the rollerboys would put an end to me. From the looks of things though, it can't be worth knowing.

The movie was out when I was barely growing pubes. It's worth a watch, just for the OMFG THAT PERSONS IN XXXXXXX NOW and then laugh because they were in this movie. Wearing rollerblades. And a mullet. And probably a trenchcoat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackWhisper

The movie was out when I was barely growing pubes. It's worth a watch, just for the OMFG THAT PERSONS IN XXXXXXX NOW and then laugh because they were in this movie. Wearing rollerblades. And a mullet. And probably a trenchcoat.

---

I'll put it on right after the Kina Granis concert!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subzero

Well... there's a reason it's available in full on youtube, I guess. I was wondering more how having my devil-man drug dealer being the rollerboys would put an end to me. From the looks of things though, it can't be worth knowing.

---

Just watched the movie. Apparently they add stuff to their drugs to make the users of their drugs sterile so as to get rid of the genetics of the people that use drugs. Eugenics, they must be liberals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

When the BAC level for DUI was reduced from .15 to .10, DUIs went down. When the BAC level for DUI was reduced from .10 to .08, DUIs went down. With that in mind, why wouldn't you believe more regulations would prevent more DUIs?

---

Following the pattern, a BAC of 0.0 would remove all DUIs. Huzzah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subzero

More regulations would be additional rules. Altering a value in an existing rule does not add to the regulations.

---

That seems kind of arbitrary, but I can work with that too. States have recently started introducing ignition interlocks, devices that prevent the car from starting without a negative BAC test. They are super effective.

Quote:

---

Because people will still easily get alcohol and act like idiots thereafter.

---

Some, sure, but not as many. That's all a law is ever expected to do by a reasonable person.

Quote:

---

An accepted risk. I'm enjoying my psychosis-filled life.

---

Oh. Nevermind then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

Following the pattern, a BAC of 0.0 would remove all DUIs. Huzzah!

---

Hm, that's not what my regression says. Are you using x^a or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

That seems kind of arbitrary, but I can work with that too. States have recently started introducing ignition interlocks, devices that prevent the car from starting without a negative BAC test. They are super effective.

---

Start the car before you do any heavy drinking. Problem solved.

Quote:

---

Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say

New study: We should stop fighting marijuana legalization and focus on alcohol and tobacco instead

---

Quote:

---

Compared to other recreational drugs -- including alcohol -- marijuana may be even safer than previously thought. And researchers may be systematically underestimating risks associated with alcohol use.

Those are the topline findings of recent research published in the journal Scientific Reports, a subsidiary of Nature. Researchers sought to quantify the risk of death associated with the use of a variety of commonly-used substances. They found that at the level of individual use, alcohol was the deadliest substance, followed by heroin and cocaine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-app...isk.png&w=1484

And all the way at the bottom of the list? Weed -- roughly 114 times less deadly than booze, according to the authors, who ran calculations that compared lethal doses of a given substance with the amount that a typical person uses. Marijuana is also the only drug studied that posed low mortality risk to its users.

These findings reinforce drug safety rankings developed 10 years ago under a slightly different methodology. So in that respect, the study is more of a reaffirmation of previous findings than anything else. But given the current national and international debates over the legal status of marijuana and the risks associated with its use, the study arrives at a good time.

It's important to note here that "safer than alcohol" doesn't mean "safe, full stop." Indeed, one of the more troubling lines of thought I see in some quarters of the marijuana legalization movement is that because marijuana is "natural," or because it can be used as (non-FDA approved) "medicine," it is therefore "safe."

But of course, rattlesnake venom is natural too, and nobody would call that safe. And prescription painkillers are both medicinal and responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year.

There are any number of risks associated with marijuana use. Most of these risks involve mental health issues, and most increase the earlier you start using and the more frequently you use.

That said, there are risks associated with literally anything you put in your body. Eat too much sugar and you're on the fast track to tooth-rot and diabetes. Take in too much salt and you're looking at increased odds of a stroke. Psychoactive substances, like marijuana and alcohol, aren't at all unique for having risks associated with them.

What is unique is how these substances are treated under the law, and particularly the way in which alcohol and nicotine essentially get a free pass under the Controlled Substances Act, the cornerstone of the nation's drug policy. This study's authors note that legislative classifications of psychoactive drugs often "lack a scientific basis," and their findings are confirmation of this fact.

Given the relative risks associated with marijuana and alcohol, the authors recommend "risk management prioritization towards alcohol and tobacco rather than illicit drugs." And they say that when it comes to marijuana, the low amounts of risk associated with the drug "suggest a strict legal regulatory approach rather than the current prohibition approach."

In other words, individuals and organizations up in arms over marijuana legalization could have a greater impact on the health and well-being of this country by shifting their attention to alcohol and cigarettes. It takes extraordinary chutzpah to rail against the dangers of marijuana use by day and then go home to unwind with a glass of far more lethal stuff in the evening.

---

Something for everyone to be happy about with this article. The schizophobics will be happy about the mention of risk to mental health, and everyone else will continue to make note of how much safer marijuana is than everything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tisket

Start the car before you do any heavy drinking. Problem solved.

---

You have to blow into them every 15 minutes or something while the car is on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

You have to blow into them every 15 minutes or something while the car is on.

---

Just drive as fast as you can in those 15 minutes. Problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Just drive as fast as you can in those 15 minutes. Problem solved.

---

Or have a sober designated blower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

Or have a sober designated blower.

---

Great word choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

Or have a sober designated blower.

---

"You have to blow to keep me sober!"


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BcnpPjgCAAAYmss.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

You have to blow into them every 15 minutes or something while the car is on.

---

Somehow, I'm not ashamed that I am not knowledgeable about the technicalities of ignition locks.

There is also a camera that snaps a pic every time you blow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

There is also a camera that snaps a pic every time you blow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

"You have to blow to keep me sober!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeril

Great word choice.

---

That's what she said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

Something for everyone to be happy about with this article. The schizophobics will be happy about the mention of risk to mental health, and everyone else will continue to make note of how much safer marijuana is than everything else.

---

I encourage everyone to read the actual study, even recognizing that that will never ever happen. They aren't actually comparing toxic dose to effective dose, obviously, because 1 dose of alcohol isn't deadly. They also draw a distinction between risk to individual and risk to population and quantitatively weigh both, an approach that is quite interesting, although they bizarrely claim they couldn't identify a dose-response curve for mental health problems caused by cannabis, which undermines their analysis quite significantly. The more I read it, the more I think they're hamstrung by relying on animal testing.

All in all, I'm not surprised you drew the conclusion you did, but I am disappointed. I am greatly cheered by your coining of schizophobic, though! It is of course inaccurate, but that's to be expected in this context, at least it's an act of creation. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tisket

Somehow, I'm not ashamed that I am not knowledgeable about the technicalities of ignition locks.

---

There's really no reason to expect that you would have, you or subzero or anyone else. Nobody knows everything about anything, but when we work as a team our knowledge base grows. Oh, the humanity!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

I encourage everyone to read the actual study, even recognizing that that will never ever happen. They aren't actually comparing toxic dose to effective dose, obviously, because 1 dose of alcohol isn't deadly. They also draw a distinction between risk to individual and risk to population and quantitatively weigh both, an approach that is quite interesting, although they bizarrely claim they couldn't identify a dose-response curve for mental health problems caused by cannabis, which undermines their analysis quite significantly. The more I read it, the more I think they're hamstrung by relying on animal testing.

All in all, I'm not surprised you drew the conclusion you did, but I am disappointed. I am greatly cheered by your coining of schizophobic, though! It is of course inaccurate, but that's to be expected in this context, at least it's an act of creation. :)There's really no reason to expect that you would have, you or subzero or anyone else. Nobody knows everything about anything, but when we work as a team our knowledge base grows. Oh, the humanity!

---

How many doses of pot are deadly?

I'm also curious what caused your mental health problems...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

How many doses of pot are deadly?

I'm also curious what caused your mental health problems...

---

He has mentioned before that even just 1 dose is deadly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

How many doses of pot are deadly?

---

A prohibitively high number for adults. It is strange to answer the same questions over and over as mine go unanswered.

Quote:

---

I'm also curious what caused your mental health problems...

---

Me too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

A prohibitively high number for adults.

---

Such as? What is the lowest amount of doses you believe to be deadly for an average adult?

Quote:

---

It is strange to answer the same questions over and over as mine go unanswered.

---

That's what happens when only 10% of your posts get read by people other than Latrinsorm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Such as? What is the lowest amount of doses you believe to be deadly for an average adult?

---

Doesn't matter, for two reasons:
1. Things that are prohibitively unlikely to happen are irrelevant.
2. Our food/drug policy isn't based on lethality, and it would be silly if it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Doesn't matter, for two reasons:
1. Things that are prohibitively unlikely to happen are irrelevant.
2. Our food/drug policy isn't based on lethality, and it would be silly if it was.

---

In other words, you can't die from a pot overdose.

Latrin finally confirms that pot is safer than alcohol. Finally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Latrin finally confirms that pot is safer than alcohol. Finally.

---

That only took 430ish posts.

Hmm. Pretty fast, for Latrine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

In other words, you can't die from a pot overdose.

---

You certainly can, but you'd pretty much have to do it intentionally and even then you might not manage it. Prohibitively unlikely is the best phrasing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Latrin finally confirms that pot is safer than alcohol. Finally.

---

Not true. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

You certainly can, but you'd pretty much have to do it intentionally and even then you might not manage it. Prohibitively unlikely is the best phrasing.Not true. :)

---

Yes, true. No backsies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

A prohibitively high number for adults.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tisket

Start the car before you do any heavy drinking. Problem solved.

---

Or have them removed/rigged.

Pesky pediatricians.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...peds.2014-4146

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...peds.2014-4147

They think legalizing it for adults makes it more likely that kids will get it... and they think kids are the issue.

BUT they think it should be reduced in class so it's more like methadone or oxycodone for research purposes because they think it might have the potential to change the lives of countless Americans, particularly children with seizures, ADD/ADHD, schizophrenia and the like.

It's already easy for kids to get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

It's already easy for kids to get.

---

Tends to be. They did make this point that some folks seem to forget too.

Quote:

---

Citing the lifelong negative effects of a criminal record on adolescents, the AAP strongly supported reducing penalties for marijuana possession and use to misdemeanors. This policy statement, The Impact of Marijuana Policies on Youth: Clinical, Research and Legal Update is a recent revision to its previous 2004 report about the drug.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

It's already easy for kids to get.

---

Well as long as pk says so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Well as long as pk says so.

---

I teach. Quite a number of my students smell like weed on a regular basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

I teach. Quite a number of my students smell like weed on a regular basis.

---

I don't know if that proves marijuana is as easy for them to get as it would be if marijuana were legalized. Also exactly what age group are we talking about here?

Pediatrics covers ages 1 day to 18 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I don't know if that proves marijuana is as easy for them to get as it would be if marijuana were legalized. Also exactly what age group are we talking about here?

Pediatrics covers ages 1 day to 18 years.

---

Look where its legal. Colorado and Washington. Two places where it was widely available before it was legalized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Look where its legal. Colorado and Washington. Two places where it was widely available before it was legalized.

---

Given your penchant for totally ignoring news articles when it doesn't suit you I don't know why I'm bothering but what can I say, I'm stubborn.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...e-legalization

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Given your penchant for totally ignoring news articles when it doesn't suit you I don't know why I'm bothering but what can I say, I'm stubborn.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...e-legalization

---

What does that have to do with what I said?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

What does that have to do with what I said?

---

/forehead smack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

/forehead smack

---

Hit yourself a little bit harder. Maybe you can knock some sense into that troll head of yours.

I did a bong once. When I awoke, I had stapled a baby to my face. To breath, I had to chew through the baby.

Totes legit guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Given your penchant for totally ignoring news articles when it doesn't suit you I don't know why I'm bothering but what can I say, I'm stubborn.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...e-legalization

---

Get back to me when you have a news story that isn't just assumptions and anecdotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

Get back to me when you have a news story that isn't just assumptions and anecdotes.

---

Here you go:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

It's already easy for kids to get.

---

Oh wait...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Here you go:



Oh wait...

---

It is already easy for kids to get. First time I saw weed was in middle school, and that was 20 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

It is already easy for kids to get. First time I saw weed was in middle school, and that was 20 years ago.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

Get back to me when you have a news story that isn't just assumptions and anecdotes.

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

.

---

Yeah, see how much anecdotes matter for anything? Exactly.

Sometimes when I wake up in the morning Mr McCracken is already there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

You certainly can

---

Has this been proven?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I don't know if that proves marijuana is as easy for them to get as it would be if marijuana were legalized. Also exactly what age group are we talking about here?

Pediatrics covers ages 1 day to 18 years.

---

When I was in high school, everyone that didn't have a sibling old enough to get them alcohol could get weed a lot easier than they could get alcohol.

Know why? Because weed was sold on the streets, and alcohol required you to go into a store and show your ID.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

.

---

When I was in high school, everyone that didn't have a sibling old enough to get them alcohol could get weed a lot easier than they could get alcohol.

Know why? Because weed was sold on the streets, and alcohol required you to go into a store and show your ID.

Kids at tgo's school only handed out friendship bracelets and purity rings.

I don't know a lot of toddlers who could cop weed on the streets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

I don't know a lot of toddlers who could cop weed on the streets.

---

Clearly you're not from the streets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Yes, true. No backsies.

---

The best analogy occurred to me. What's safer, an MLB game or an NFL game? Obviously an MLB game, but a person has died from an MLB game, and none ever have from an NFL game. (Chuck Hughes died from hamburgers.) Declaring that any chance of death is worse than any chance of any not-quite-lethal injury is silly, and as you are well aware I am not a silly fellow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Has this been proven?

---

Yes. That's why the most recent article we're talking about doesn't just put a question mark for marijuana.

Quote:

---

Clearly you're not from the streets.

---

If you were (as I can only assume waywardgs is) you would know that toddlers SELL weed on the streets, not BUY it. That would be ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

The best analogy occurred to me. What's safer, an MLB game or an NFL game? Obviously an MLB game, but a person has died from an MLB game, and none ever have from an NFL game. (Chuck Hughes died from hamburgers.) Declaring that any chance of death is worse than any chance of any not-quite-lethal injury is silly, and as you are well aware I am not a silly fellow.Yes. That's why the most recent article we're talking about doesn't just put a question mark for marijuana.If you were (as I can only assume waywardgs is) you would know that toddlers SELL weed on the streets, not BUY it. That would be ridiculous.

---

Shitty analogy is shitty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Yes. That's why the most recent article we're talking about doesn't just put a question mark for marijuana.

---

Who died from a pot overdose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Shitty analogy is shitty.

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Who died from a pot overdose?

---

Nobody, on account of it being prohibitively unlikely, just like nobody died from getting sucked into a black hole or vacationing on the surface of the sun. And yet science tells us how all three situations work.

Plenty of people have died from getting sucked into a black hole.

You just don't know about it CUZ THEY GOT SUCKED INTO A BLACK HOLE.

Pot

Black Hole

Surface of the Sun

One of these kids is not like the other...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mbBbFH9fAg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Nobody, on account of it being prohibitively unlikely, just like nobody died from getting sucked into a black hole or vacationing on the surface of the sun. And yet science tells us how all three situations work.

---

http://i.imgur.com/HwQxdhv.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Nobody, on account of it being prohibitively unlikely, just like nobody died from getting sucked into a black hole or vacationing on the surface of the sun. And yet science tells us how all three situations work.

---

You really need to post some peer-reviewed studies on sun-surface vacationers.

Quote:

---

After many years of dialogue about the culturally entrenched drug, and emboldened by changes to drug laws in U.S. states, Jamaica's Parliament on Tuesday night gave final approval to an act decriminalizing small amounts of pot and establishing a licensing agency to regulate a lawful medical marijuana industry.


The historic amendments pave the way for a "cannabis licensing authority" to be established to deal with regulating the cultivation and distribution of marijuana for medical and scientific purposes. Both houses of Jamaica's legislature have approved the legislation.

---

Alaska's recreational MJ policy just went into effect, along with DC's decriminalization policy this week as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6751000.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackWhisper

Plenty of people have died from getting sucked into a black hole. You just don't know about it CUZ THEY GOT SUCKED INTO A BLACK HOLE.

---

I know everything, duh. Haven't you ever read one of my posts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

You really need to post some peer-reviewed studies on sun-surface vacationers.

---

Gladly!

https://vimeo.com/82124078

Obviously this is an artistic reenactment that takes some liberties: for example the sun uses halogen bulbs, not incandescent. But you get the idea.

City leaders declared Tuesday that marijuana possession will become legal in the District at 12:01 a.m. Thursday — but warned the public that many pot-related activities will remain illegal, including selling the drug, growing it outdoors, possessing it in federally subsidized housing and smoking it anywhere in public.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...9a9_story.html

I *LOVE* that it's going to be illegal to grow weed in Section8 housing. That is just fucking funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackWhisper

I *LOVE* that it's going to be illegal to grow weed in Section8 housing. That is just fucking funny.

---

Someone will be along soon to declare how racist it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackWhisper

I *LOVE* that it's going to be illegal to grow weed in Section8 housing. That is just fucking funny.

---

Totally. Fuck those poor people who are entrepreneurs... trying to make a better life for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Totally. Fuck those poor people who are entrepreneurs... trying to make a better life for themselves.

---

Well, as you're not allowed to sell it, I wouldn't quite say that's the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Someone will be along soon to declare how racist it is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Totally. Fuck those poor people who are entrepreneurs... trying to make a better life for themselves.

---

Methais is a mind reader! :O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Methais is a mind reader! :O

---

Yet another reason why I should be mayor!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Methais is a mind reader! :O

---

Note how I said poor people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Note how I said poor people.

---

Poor is code for black.

TGO. You're not poor. And you're black.

BUT YOU TOTES RUINED GEMSTONE WITH YOUR SILVER SELLING TO GET RICH!

DAMN YOU ENTREPENEUR!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Poor is code for black.

---

Weakest encryption ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Poor is code for black.

---

I'm not from a major metropolitan area. The cross section of Section 8/marijuana growers tends to be white and somewhat country.

You're just biased against more rural areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

Weakest encryption ever.

---

They can't afford better codes. Duh.

Marijuana claims another life.

Quote:

---

A raid on the country’s largest manufacturer of maraschino cherries had a sad ending Tuesday.

Arthur Mondella, the 57-year-old owner of Dell’s Maraschino Cherries, committed suicide after authorities raided his Brooklyn factory, according to the New York Post. The factory was suspected of being used to grow marijuana, sources told the Post.

Authorities allegedly removed a false door in the facility and smelled weed, at which point Mondella excused himself to use the bathroom and shot himself.

Dell’s sells the sugary cherries, used in drinks both hard and soft, to restaurants including Red Lobster and TGI Fridays.

Technically, the raid was not to search for drugs, as authorities couldn’t get a warrant to do that. Instead, the official reason for the visit was to investigate illegal dumping of waste.

---

When will the madness end?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Marijuana claims another life.



When will the madness end?!

---

You do realize that you've trolled yourself all the way around to Latrinsorm's position on this topic, right? I'm not sure what comes after that, although I do admit to being morbidly curious about what it might be.

Eta: confirmed Latrinsorm = tgo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

You do realize that you've trolled yourself all the way around to Latrinsorm's position on this topic, right? I'm not sure what comes after that, although I do admit to being morbidly curious about what it might be.

---

He is Latrinsorm. It was never much of a distance.

Authoritarian Republicans with a fascination and love for liberal policies.

Cannabis is 114 times safer than alcohol, which is the most harmful recreational drug, according to a new study published in the research journal Scientific Reports, and published online by the National Institute of Health!

Comparative risk assessment of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and other illicit drugs using the margin of exposure approach:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311234/

Tear it apart, Latrin!

Deaths don't matter. Alcohol related diseases by the millions don't matter. Only schizophrenia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

Deaths don't matter. Alcohol related diseases by the millions don't matter. Only schizophrenia.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg7MAacSPNM

f

I want my name changed to Steve French.

Psychosis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardCranium

f

I want my name changed to Steve French.

Psychosis.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox3lqBkFuJ4

WTF did I just watch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

WTF did I just watch?

---

trailer park boys. Best.

Since I don't watch Trailer Park Boys, can someone explain why that bobcat didn't just maul the living fuck out of four-eyes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackWhisper

Since I don't watch Trailer Park Boys, can someone explain why that bobcat didn't just maul the living fuck out of four-eyes?

---

He was too high on weed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

He was too high on weed.

---

So you're saying weed saved bubbles' life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

So you're saying weed saved bubbles' life?

---

Perhaps. But didn't the bobcat like anally rape someone in that episode?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Perhaps. But didn't the bobcat like anally rape someone in that episode?

---

Someone OTHER than the female bobcat he ran off with, you mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Marijuana claims another life.



When will the madness end?!

---

When niggas don't get tossed in jail for weed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Perhaps. But didn't the bobcat like anally rape someone in that episode?

---

Was it a black bobcat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

Cannabis is 114 times safer than alcohol, which is the most harmful recreational drug, according to a new study published in the research journal Scientific Reports, and published online by the National Institute of Health! Comparative risk assessment of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and other illicit drugs using the margin of exposure approach: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311234/ Tear it apart, Latrin!

---

We already talked about this study in this thread, but I'm happy to reiterate! :) Looking back at it now, though, most of it had to do with a newspaperkin's interpretation of the study. Here are the important points:

1. They bizarrely claim they couldn't identify a dose-response curve for mental health problems caused by cannabis, which undermines their analysis quite significantly. The more I read it, the more I think they're hamstrung by relying on animal testing.

2. They blame drunk driving deaths on alcohol, which you can see from the way they use "alcohol related deaths" and the general differences between individual and population MOE (e.g. why heroin/ecstasy have much larger margins between the two). This is a straw man because I do not advocate for the legalization of DUI. I have in fact advocated for stricter enforcement of DUI laws and supported the proposed lowering of the BAC level required.

.

In a larger sense, I dispute the notion that the response to any study should or can be "tear it apart". All studies are equally likely to be right, they just don't all talk about the same things. For instance, I have repeatedly requested a longitudinal study demonstrating safe marijuana or dangerous alcohol for casual use. What I get back are population studies, including the one we are currently discussing. These models don't talk about the same things, and don't claim to. By way of contrast, please also note how I have given people exactly what they ask for, often from their own sources!

Consider those who declare that only deaths matter, yet gladly cite a source that says MDMA is ten times more dangerous than diazepam to the individual. Why would they do this? Because they don't really think that only deaths matter, and why would they? That would be openly silly. It's just a useful bit of rhetoric when comparing marijuana to alcohol. If they were making the claim that ecstasy should be legal because Valium is, they would no longer believe this study.

Or consider yourself. You wept for humanity when I said I believe what one scientist told me about your body, but you are quite happy to believe what this other scientist tells you about your body. I am glad your tears have dried so quickly, but hopefully you can understand my puzzlement. My scientists followed people for 35 years. (With their consent.) (As far as I know.) They checked up on them every year for drug use and mental health, and found that this specific kind of drug use preceded specific mental health issues to a statistically significant degree for all ages. How is this not real science? How is Dr. Fergusson telling you about your body any different from Dr. Lachenmeier doing so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

We already talked about this study in this thread, but I'm happy to reiterate! :) Looking back at it now, though, most of it had to do with a newspaperkin's interpretation of the study. Here are the important points:

1. They bizarrely claim they couldn't identify a dose-response curve for mental health problems caused by cannabis, which undermines their analysis quite significantly. The more I read it, the more I think they're hamstrung by relying on animal testing.

2. They blame drunk driving deaths on alcohol, which you can see from the way they use "alcohol related deaths" and the general differences between individual and population MOE (e.g. why heroin/ecstasy have much larger margins between the two). This is a straw man because I do not advocate for the legalization of DUI. I have in fact advocated for stricter enforcement of DUI laws and supported the proposed lowering of the BAC level required.

.

In a larger sense, I dispute the notion that the response to any study should or can be "tear it apart". All studies are equally likely to be right, they just don't all talk about the same things. For instance, I have repeatedly requested a longitudinal study demonstrating safe marijuana or dangerous alcohol for casual use. What I get back are population studies, including the one we are currently discussing. These models don't talk about the same things, and don't claim to. By way of contrast, please also note how I have given people exactly what they ask for, often from their own sources!

Consider those who declare that only deaths matter, yet gladly cite a source that says MDMA is ten times more dangerous than diazepam to the individual. Why would they do this? Because they don't really think that only deaths matter, and why would they? That would be openly silly. It's just a useful bit of rhetoric when comparing marijuana to alcohol. If they were making the claim that ecstasy should be legal because Valium is, they would no longer believe this study.

Or consider yourself. You wept for humanity when I said I believe what one scientist told me about your body, but you are quite happy to believe what this other scientist tells you about your body. I am glad your tears have dried so quickly, but hopefully you can understand my puzzlement. My scientists followed people for 35 years. (With their consent.) (As far as I know.) They checked up on them every year for drug use and mental health, and found that this specific kind of drug use preceded specific mental health issues to a statistically significant degree for all ages. How is this not real science? How is Dr. Fergusson telling you about your body any different from Dr. Lachenmeier doing so?

---

Except your response to every study BUT the ones you post is to "tear it apart."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Except your response to every study BUT the ones you post is to "tear it apart."

---

Not true. :)
When your source said longitudinal studies provided proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", I parroted that.
When Fallen's source said drug courts cost more overall than drug jails (so to speak), I parroted that.
When Terrence's source said aspirin caused death at a rate of 1 per 10,000, I parroted that.
When Fallen's source did not address withdrawal symptoms, I pointed that out.
When Andy's source had a sample size of several hundred, I pointed that out.
When Fallen's source was not longitudinal as I explicitly requested, I pointed that out.

I have not drawn the conclusion you wanted me to. That is not sufficient to demonstrate that I disagree with your sources, and since I explicitly embrace your sources you couldn't make an empirical case even if you wanted to. You believe I ignore/dispute your sources anyway, because that is more comfortable than entertaining the belief that you might be wrong.

.

Here is a bottom line. I asked you what specifically a study would have to say to convince you that marijuana wasn't safe. You answered, and I provided a study that said that. I volunteered what specifically a study would have to say to convince me that marijuana was safe. No one has provided that study.

Drug courts are not definitively more expensive.

http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/f...web%5B1%5D.pdf

"Moreover,although up-front costs fordrug courts were generallyhigher than for probation,drug courts were found tobe more cost-effective inthe long run because theyavoided law enforcementefforts, judicial case-processing, and victimizationresulting from future criminal activity."

"In the ensuing years, researchers have continuedto uncover definitive evidence forboth the efficacy and cost-effectiveness ofdrug courts."

"In line with their effects on crime rates, drugcourts have continued to prove cost-effective"

I could do this with a dozen more papers. Something tells me it would be an entirely fruitless effort.

Regardless of any actual benefit to those going through the program beyond cost (which again I could provide study after study), it just FEELS better to say, "Nah, lets continue to throw people in prison!"

I just love how the argument goes from helping people to saving money, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Not true. :)
When your source said longitudinal studies provided proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", I parroted that.
When Fallen's source said drug courts cost more overall than drug jails (so to speak), I parroted that.
When Terrence's source said aspirin caused death at a rate of 1 per 10,000, I parroted that.
When Fallen's source did not address withdrawal symptoms, I pointed that out.
When Andy's source had a sample size of several hundred, I pointed that out.
When Fallen's source was not longitudinal as I explicitly requested, I pointed that out.

I have not drawn the conclusion you wanted me to. That is not sufficient to demonstrate that I disagree with your sources, and since I explicitly embrace your sources you couldn't make an empirical case even if you wanted to. You believe I ignore/dispute your sources anyway, because that is more comfortable than entertaining the belief that you might be wrong.

.

Here is a bottom line. I asked you what specifically a study would have to say to convince you that marijuana wasn't safe. You answered, and I provided a study that said that. I volunteered what specifically a study would have to say to convince me that marijuana was safe. No one has provided that study.

---

Note how you specifically try to hide your second 3 points. That's a very non scientific trick.

You still haven't grasped that I now believe that marijuana is unsafe to people who's brains have not completed development because I did my own research.

You, in turn, try to seize facts from studies on your "epic quest" and shoot down everything else. You even list yourself doing it after you say that it is bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

Drug courts are not definitively more expensive.

http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/f...web%5B1%5D.pdf

"Moreover,although up-front costs fordrug courts were generallyhigher than for probation,drug courts were found tobe more cost-effective inthe long run because theyavoided law enforcementefforts, judicial case-processing, and victimizationresulting from future criminal activity."

"In the ensuing years, researchers have continuedto uncover definitive evidence forboth the efficacy and cost-effectiveness ofdrug courts."

"In line with their effects on crime rates, drugcourts have continued to prove cost-effective"

I could do this with a dozen more papers. Something tells me it would be an entirely fruitless effort.

---

Look man, it's not like I went searching for some obscure source to come up with my objections to the conclusion you drew. All the figures in your new source are per-client. I have never disputed that drug courts are cheaper per-client! Net-widening is still a significant phenomenon, as is capacity... based on what YOUR source said! As your new source says, and I recognize that directly quoting from your source will somehow count as me ignoring it, "67% of states and territories report that state appropriations and/or budgets fail to meet the demand for drug court services." This is exactly like your belief that citing side effects suffered while using an anti-psychotic is relevant to side effects suffered while withdrawing from them. You're answering a question nobody asked, and then you get mad at me for repeating the question you didn't answer.

Quote:

---

Regardless of any actual benefit to those going through the program, it just FEELS better to say, "Nah, lets continue to throw people in prison!"

---

I explicitly say I want to reform the prison system, you say I'm motivated by feeling good about the prison system. Will you never tire of defeating straw men?

So you admit then that drug courts are better for offenders than prisons? Just fucking admit that and you'll look like far less of an asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Note how you specifically try to hide your second 3 points. That's a very non scientific trick.

---

I tried to hide something... by explicitly typing it out... WHAT???

Quote:

---

You still haven't grasped that I now believe that marijuana is unsafe to people who's brains have not completed development because I did my own research.

---

Yes yes, this famous research that you've never been able to elaborate on in any way other than that it means that I and Dr. Horwood are still wrong. Let me guess, the proof is marvelous but you've just run out of room in the margins? That story's been tried, buddy.

Quote:

---

You, in turn, try to seize facts from studies on your "epic quest" and shoot down everything else. You even list yourself doing it after you say that it is bad.

---

I very successfully seize facts from my studies and everyone else's, although I like to think of it as more of a plucking motion. Fallen's study did not address withdrawal symptoms, that's a fact. It is therefore useless when it comes to discussing withdrawal symptoms. If I ask you for a hammer, you can give me the best screwdriver in the world, it's still not a hammer. My pointing out that it's not a hammer in no way means that I am criticizing its utility as a screwdriver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

The fact that he is against drug courts because they can in some scenarios cost more money...No mention at all of them actually being beneficial over incarceration for the people involved, should be all you need to know about Latrinsorm, WB.

---

It makes me wonder about those prison reforms.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...d-1591700.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

I tried to hide something... by explicitly typing it out... WHAT???

---

When you want to conceal something you put it in the middle of a document rather than the beginning or end. I don't normally call you hypocritical. Saying that "picking apart studies is bad" and then citing yourself doing it? Yeah.

As for what changed my mind? I did some actual research rather than having a foregone conclusion. It's something I'd suggest you trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

So you admit then that drug courts are better for offenders than prisons? Just fucking admit that and you'll look like far less of an asshole.

---

I have already agreed that drug courts are better for an offender than our current prisons, explicitly and implicitly. If you have been unable to see that, I suspect that your emotional investment is to blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

So you admit then that drug courts are better for offenders than prisons? Just fucking admit that and you'll look like far less of an asshole.

---

I've used his own nonsense against him so many times its not even funny...doesn't matter. You've been Latrined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

I have already agreed that drug courts are better for an offender than our current prisons, explicitly and implicitly. If you have been unable to see that, I suspect that your emotional investment is to blame.

---

Was it here you did that?

"It depends on the cost, and this was the big problem with Fallen's drug courts. If the cost of one prisoner is three law-abiding citizens not being able to go to rehab, that's a dilemma. If the cost of one prisoner is nothing, that's a lay-up. These are matters that must be determined empirically, and Fallen's data demonstrates that they're closer to the former than the latter."

or here?

"I read all the points with great interest. If jail time is an acceptable deterrent for people in drug court, why isn't it for people in no court? Surely the best possible outcome is for people to not become involved with our justice system at all."

or here?

"As I said, those points failed to take into account the larger picture in two ways that were described in your source. First, a less (apparently) draconian penalty leads police and prosecutors to arrest more people for drug offenses: if a drug court graduate only costs 50% of a prisoner but you have three when you'd otherwise have had one, the drug court costs more. (Point 41.) Second, there are only so many beds in the hospital, so to speak. If I spend that bed on a drug court participant we agree it saves me money over sending that participant to prison, but I could have spent that bed on a drug user who wasn't involved with the criminal justice system... yet. That's a cost. (Point 33.) Again, these are points from your source, yet you accuse me of ignoring things that don't support my argument."

Where is this explicit and implicit statement of your endorsement of drug courts? All I see is you doing anything in your attempt to justify continuing to throw people in prison for drug offenses. I suspect you don't know what the words explicit and implicit mean.

I didn't say I endorsed drug courts. I said that drug courts are better for AN offender, hence the 50% comment... but as an overall system it costs more, hence the three vs. one. Again, this distinction is from your own source.

I've told you over and over that I favor a total overhaul of our justice and prison systems, yet you keep roaring that I want to throw people in prison, and somehow I'm the a**hole. How is that, seriously? Why is it so hard for you to address what I actually say, and not some caricature of a totalitarian? Why are you so invested in this issue that your emotion blinds your reason? It really puzzles me. I've seen a lot of religions, but this is the most inexplicable I can remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

I didn't say I endorsed drug courts. I said that drug courts are better for AN offender, hence the 50% comment... but as an overall system it costs more, hence the three vs. one. Again, this distinction is from your own source.

---

Let me help you out, bud.

Explicit: Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

Implicit: with no qualification or question; absolute.

I'm going to back to largely ignoring your posts now.

"niggas? really?"

That's what I said. I know it's hard for you, but that doesn't mean "black people".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

Let me help you out, bud. Explicit: Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt. Implicit: with no qualification or question; absolute. I'm going to back to largely ignoring your posts now.

---

I was using implicit in the sense of the #1 definition: implied though not plainly expressed. I thought this was obvious from the context. As for explicit, I don't see how you can get much more explicit than a drug court graduate only costs 50% of a prisoner. To be absolutely clear I even cited the points from your source that I was referring to, including this rather damning indictment by Judge Hoffman:

"Reductions in recidivism are so small that if they exist at all they are statistically meaningless. Net-widening is so large that, even if drug courts truly were effective in reducing recidivism, more drug defendants would continue to jam our prisons than ever before."

I can't make you pay attention to what your own source says. You have the power to ignore it and me. But you also have the power to accept the truth, even when it comes in a package you dislike. I have faith you'll get there someday. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

When you want to conceal something you put it in the middle of a document rather than the beginning or end. I don't normally call you hypocritical. Saying that "picking apart studies is bad" and then citing yourself doing it? Yeah.

---

I have never once criticized a study. In the cases you claim I did, I criticized you people for misunderstanding the various studies' purpose and scope, in the same way I would criticize you for using a hammer as a wrench or vice versa. A study that does not reference withdrawal effects is not a useful tool in a discussion about withdrawal effects. How this is a matter of contention is beyond me.

Quote:

---

As for what changed my mind? I did some actual research rather than having a foregone conclusion. It's something I'd suggest you trying.

---

I'll be happy to ask you again, then.

1. Can schizophrenia develop after the age of 25?
2. If so, do environmental factors have an impact?
3. If so, does marijuana specifically have an impact?

My research answers these specific questions with three yeses. You have yet to specify whether your research does or doesn't, for reasons that remain unclear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

I was using implicit in the sense of the #1 definition: implied though not plainly expressed. I thought this was obvious from the context. As for explicit, I don't see how you can get much more explicit than a drug court graduate only costs 50% of a prisoner. To be absolutely clear I even cited the points from your source that I was referring to, including this rather damning indictment by Judge Hoffman:

"Reductions in recidivism are so small that if they exist at all they are statistically meaningless. Net-widening is so large that, even if drug courts truly were effective in reducing recidivism, more drug defendants would continue to jam our prisons than ever before."

I can't make you pay attention to what your own source says. You have the power to ignore it and me. But you also have the power to accept the truth, even when it comes in a package you dislike. I have faith you'll get there someday. :)I have never once criticized a study. In the cases you claim I did, I criticized you people for misunderstanding the various studies' purpose and scope, in the same way I would criticize you for using a hammer as a wrench or vice versa. A study that does not reference withdrawal effects is not a useful tool in a discussion about withdrawal effects. How this is a matter of contention is beyond me.I'll be happy to ask you again, then.

1. Can schizophrenia develop after the age of 25?
2. If so, do environmental factors have an impact?
3. If so, does marijuana specifically have an impact?

My research answers these specific questions with three yeses. You have yet to specify whether your research does or doesn't, for reasons that remain unclear.

---

When was the last time you took a dump in your pants?

https://igcdn-photos-g-a.akamaihd.ne...51804309_n.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

When was the last time you took a dump in your pants?

---

Not sure how I missed this gem. :lol:

This reminds me... Have the rates of schizophrenia risen in conjunction with the rise in marijuana use? Has this been discussed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

This reminds me... Have the rates of schizophrenia risen in conjunction with the rise in marijuana use? Has this been discussed?

---

Yes and yes.

Schizophrenic rates in DC have skyrocketed.

Before marijuana:

http://www.newsareweird.com/wp-conte...nald-poppo.jpg

After marijuana:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...e29n-1-web.jpg
http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/y...i-m-hungry.png
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/643174/thu...PHIC-570.jpg?4

Just saying.

Fuckin' hell dude.

plus I think you screwed up the order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

Fuckin' hell dude.

plus I think you screwed up the order.

---

Naww. Before marijuana the white dude had a face. Post marijuana the black dude ate the white dude's face. I edited the post to try and clarify.

The guy was on bath salts. And yeah, that's Ronald Poppo. He's the guy who got his face ate in Florida.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackWhisper

The guy was on bath salts. And yeah, that's Ronald Poppo. He's the guy who got his face ate in Florida.

---

oh right, I remember that story.


Florida.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackWhisper

The guy was on bath salts. And yeah, that's Ronald Poppo. He's the guy who got his face ate in Florida.

---

They found marijuana in his system! Marijuana = psychosis confirmed!

Dude! It was bath salts!

I'm not one to advocate weed usage, but when this happened, I actually looked up the ingredients of bath salts. That shit will fuck you up.

The bath salts are to blame.

The weed just gave him the munchies.

The highly motivated, severely indiscriminate munchies.


:whistle:

Bath salts are a crazy thing, speaking of which.

It's a chemical compound tenuously related to MDMA that back alley chemists alter as needed whenever the feds ban the latest version.

A couple of years ago a store nearby was busted with $100k worth of bath salts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

A couple of years ago a store nearby was busted with $100k worth of bath salts.

---

Must've been an old batch. They just keep changing the formula to keep ahead of the laws. You can still find that crazy shit in stores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

This reminds me... Have the rates of schizophrenia risen in conjunction with the rise in marijuana use? Has this been discussed?

---

Half the country is in a state of emergency thanks to medicinal and recreational weed being sold in shops. They out there snatchin all your people up.

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

Population studies of schizophrenia over time are not as useful for several reasons.

1. The diagnostic criteria of schizophrenia have changed significantly over time. You can try to back out with one set of criteria but obviously that gets a little hazy, which is why you see some studies that say it's gone way up and others that say it's pretty much the same, and even a few that say it's gone down recently.

2. Marijuana use on the population level hasn't changed much in the past 30 years. If marijuana use does cause schizophrenia at 5 per 1000 and the base rate of schizophrenia is 10 per 1000, then we would expect schizophrenia rates to go from...
.33 * 15 + .67 * 10 = 11.65 per 1000 in 1985
...to...
.38 * 15 + .62 * 10 = 11.90 per 1000 in 2013
...and that .25 difference is about one-tenth the error bar in population studies even though (for America) that .25 difference means 75,000 schizophrenics. "How can that be statistically insignificant?", you might ask. Science is hard, that's why.

Longitudinal studies are more useful because you can control for a lot of the things population studies can't, and you can find cause and effect. Even if you believed the population studies that say schizophrenia has increased, there's no way of knowing from that whether the schizophrenia was caused by marijuana use, vice versa, or whether the two are totally unrelated. With a longitudinal study, you follow your people from time A to time B to time C, and you keep track of which person is which. Consider...

Person A and person B are born.
Fifteen years later, person A smokes marijuana.
Five years after that, person B develops schizophrenia.
Two years after that, person B begins smoking marijuana in a (mistaken) attempt to mitigate their symptoms.
Three years after that, both participate in a population study, which finds that in this sample there is 100% marijuana use and 50% schizophrenia incidence.
Had they each been participating in a longitudinal study, the authors would have instead recorded person A as user -> no schizophrenia and person B as non-user -> schizophrenia -> user.

You can hope these distinctions average out over a large enough sample in your population study, but I don't see why you'd bother when the longitudinal studies have already been done, and continue to be done many times over by many authors.

.

Thread: Age of Marijuana Use and Psychosis
You're a joke.

At least it doesn't take me a month to get a punchline. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Population studies of schizophrenia over time are not as useful for several reasons.

1. The diagnostic criteria of schizophrenia have changed significantly over time. You can try to back out with one set of criteria but obviously that gets a little hazy, which is why you see some studies that say it's gone way up and others that say it's pretty much the same, and even a few that say it's gone down recently.

2. Marijuana use on the population level hasn't changed much in the past 30 years. If marijuana use does cause schizophrenia at 5 per 1000 and the base rate of schizophrenia is 10 per 1000, then we would expect schizophrenia rates to go from...
.33 * 15 + .67 * 10 = 11.65 per 1000 in 1985
...to...
.38 * 15 + .62 * 10 = 11.90 per 1000 in 2013
...and that .25 difference is about one-tenth the error bar in population studies even though (for America) that .25 difference means 75,000 schizophrenics. "How can that be statistically insignificant?", you might ask. Science is hard, that's why.

Longitudinal studies are more useful because you can control for a lot of the things population studies can't, and you can find cause and effect. Even if you believed the population studies that say schizophrenia has increased, there's no way of knowing from that whether the schizophrenia was caused by marijuana use, vice versa, or whether the two are totally unrelated. With a longitudinal study, you follow your people from time A to time B to time C, and you keep track of which person is which. Consider...

Person A and person B are born.
Fifteen years later, person A smokes marijuana.
Five years after that, person B develops schizophrenia.
Two years after that, person B begins smoking marijuana in a (mistaken) attempt to mitigate their symptoms.
Three years after that, both participate in a population study, which finds that in this sample there is 100% marijuana use and 50% schizophrenia incidence.
Had they each been participating in a longitudinal study, the authors would have instead recorded person A as user -> no schizophrenia and person B as non-user -> schizophrenia -> user.

You can hope these distinctions average out over a large enough sample in your population study, but I don't see why you'd bother when the longitudinal studies have already been done, and continue to be done many times over by many authors.

.

Thread: Age of Marijuana Use and Psychosis
You're a joke.

At least it doesn't take me a month to get a punchline. :D

---

Is it Latrin trying to shoot down science again? Why yes it is.

There will be many more N's to work with come 2016 and beyond. Another 5 states or so should fully legalize within the next few years, along with the continued expansion the of medical marijuana and likely rescheduling of the drug itself. The only thing which could possibly lower those numbers is if we elect Christie or perhaps Bush to office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Is it Latrin trying to shoot down science again?

---

No, that's not at all what-

Quote:

---

Why yes it is.

---

...drat!

Seriously though, ask your department head person deal about it. Cohort is just better than population for these purposes. This goes back to the hammer vs. screwdriver thing. If I say your hammer can't drive in screws, I'm not disputing your hammer's worth as a hammer; I'm not addressing it in any way! I'm just pointing out its hammerness.

https://i.imgur.com/TOuJbNF.jpg

Marijuana decriminalization bill passes the House, with all Dems for and 5 Republicans for. It also includes provisions to federally tax sales of Marijuana at 5% and to expunge records of offenders of the previous law. It isn't expected to make it through the Senate.

Too bad this won't make it out of the Senate, but hopefully Mitch's failure to legislate, especially on an issue so important to black families, will bite him in the ass in GA in January.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

Marijuana decriminalization bill passes the House, with all Dems for and 5 Republicans for. It also includes provisions to federally tax sales of Marijuana at 5% and to expunge records of offenders of the previous law. It isn't expected to make it through the Senate.

---

Time to invest in cannabis stocks.

More than anything this about opening up the banking system (and taxes of course) to the legal states. The owner of the dispensary I used to frequent in WA was having to rent a separate building to keep his cash in. He couldn't even roll that cash over into property or anything of great value in fear of federal seizers.

This still isn't the legislation most of us are looking for but it should open up the door to bring states to federal court.

Colorado, which as many may recall legalized marijuana in 2014, has seen marijuana arrests increase in every year since, an epoch when national arrests have decreased (eat your heart out Jeff Sessions!) (...if you had one)

Folks who are legitimately concerned about the racist justice system, check the fine print.

Folks who want to get "high" with "Trevor" and "Chad" in the "dorm" "room" with impunity, feel free to celebrate.

.

Thread: Age of Marijuana Use and Psychosis
sorry I don't believe in gaylords and science bitches who hate fun

Surely we can agree that I have at least demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt my own existence, OKAYYYYYYY????????

Interesting. Are these DWI related arrests?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keller

Interesting. Are these DWI related arrests?

---

thank you for this opportunity to clarify, the arrests i am citing are listed in the fbi ucr as "possession" only, dui is in an entirely different category, altogether

on the same topic that different category also includes "drunkenness" which is easy to imagine being exploited to go after the reefer addicts, but turns out to be an order of magnitude lower than marihuana possession, so that's not it either

Any theory for why there are more arrests post legalization? I honestly stopped messing with the weed drugs once I had a family. So even though I'm very, very pro legalization, I put no effort into understanding what the kids (and old losers) are doing these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keller

Any theory for why there are more arrests post legalization? I honestly stopped messing with the weed drugs once I had a family. So even though I'm very, very pro legalization, I put no effort into understanding what the kids (and old losers) are doing these days.

---

i've got one

the justice system is racist, to the point where its members will murder people in broad daylight if they have the wrong skin color. (this isn't the theory part, it's a fact)
therefore, merely arresting people for behavior that may be to the letter but not spirit illegal, or to the spirit but not letter illegal, or not in any way illegal, is not a terribly high barrier for them to clear
therefore, being cute with the laws has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how the justice system behaves
and in this case, the cute little act passed by the House demands that the Attorney General remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances, but they don't actually have any power to enforce that, and since nothing in the act touches or even references 21 US Code 844 people in possession of marijuana could still be legally arrested on federal charges indefinitely

guess what'll happen

the feds won't say "golly gee whiz, we cain't be a-racist no moar, gosh shucks y'all done got us"

they'll keep arresting people of color on federal charges indefinitely, even while Connor and Logan are getting baaaaaaaaaaaaked lol 420 let's blaze it man B-) oops what was that institutional thing we pretended to protest lol wahtever lol

.

when one apple is rotten in a bushel, you can go to the orchard
when every apple is rotten, you can go to the orchard or you can go to Hell, makes no difference
the only meaningful difference comes when you get rid of all the apples and try a different kind of fruit entirely
and as the above rep indicates, if you want to know fruits, i'm your man, baby

universal surveillance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Folks who want to get "high" with "Trevor" and "Chad" in the "dorm" "room" with impunity, feel free to celebrate.

---

This might be the most boomer sounding thing I've ever heard you say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

i've got one

the justice system is racist, to the point where its members will murder people in broad daylight if they have the wrong skin color. (this isn't the theory part, it's a fact)
therefore, merely arresting people for behavior that may be to the letter but not spirit illegal, or to the spirit but not letter illegal, or not in any way illegal, is not a terribly high barrier for them to clear
therefore, being cute with the laws has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how the justice system behaves
and in this case, the cute little act passed by the House demands that the Attorney General remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances, but they don't actually have any power to enforce that, and since nothing in the act touches or even references 21 US Code 844 people in possession of marijuana could still be legally arrested on federal charges indefinitely

guess what'll happen

the feds won't say "golly gee whiz, we cain't be a-racist no moar, gosh shucks y'all done got us"

they'll keep arresting people of color on federal charges indefinitely, even while Connor and Logan are getting baaaaaaaaaaaaked lol 420 let's blaze it man B-) oops what was that institutional thing we pretended to protest lol wahtever lol

.

when one apple is rotten in a bushel, you can go to the orchard
when every apple is rotten, you can go to the orchard or you can go to Hell, makes no difference
the only meaningful difference comes when you get rid of all the apples and try a different kind of fruit entirely
and as the above rep indicates, if you want to know fruits, i'm your man, baby

universal surveillance

---

Colorado is an extremely white state though. So you're probably wrong again, like you usually are when you talk about weed. Although I would never question your knowledge when it comes to cold cuts, now that you're a big boy and all. So I'm still proud of you.

https://i.imgur.com/uBJEOp9.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Colorado is an extremely white state though. So you're probably wrong again, like you usually are when you talk about weed. Although I would never question your knowledge when it comes to cold cuts, now that you're a big boy and all. So I'm still proud of you.

https://i.imgur.com/uBJEOp9.png

---

Saying that a state is largely white, is no argument at all against racial bias in policing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo

Saying that a state is largely white, is no argument at all against racial bias in policing.

---

Perhaps Latrin should provide some more detailed information then, like a source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Perhaps Latrin should provide some more detailed information then, like a source.

---

You guys use this argument a lot around here. As if not providing a source makes it untrue. It doesn't. Most of the time it appears that you just want a source provided so you can attempt to discredit the source as part of your rebuttal. It's disingenuous.

Law Enforcement in the US is built on the framework of slave patrols. However much we try to build a better policing system through policies and reforms, that will still always remain true. Here, I'll even provide you with a source so that you can argue against it as if it's all fiction. https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook...rican-policing

In addition to that unforgettable fact above, in modern times law enforcement or really any job that provides the employee with force and authority as part of their job (Prison guards, military, policing, etc) is inherently attractive to the type of person that will abuse it. I'm not saying that the only people that choose to be law enforcement are racists, or violent, or prone to commit crimes in support of their viewpoints. No, rather what I am saying is that those who are racist, violent, or prone to commit crimes in support of their viewpoint are drawn like bees to honey when it comes to jobs in law enforcement. Combine that with a "look the other way" and "code of silence" policies many police adopt off the books with regards to seeing their co-workers break rules and laws, and what you've got is a fine institution primed to trample on targets of choice with impunity.

I feel that this is common knowledge, and that people who act as if it isn't are either for it or just uninformed. Change my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo

...Change my mind.

---

That's quite a strong assumption you are making, that you actually have a mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Perhaps Latrin should provide some more detailed information then, like a source.

---

You guys use this argument a lot around here. As if not providing a source makes it untrue. It doesn't. Most of the time it appears that you just want a source provided so you can attempt to discredit the source as part of your rebuttal. It's disingenuous.

Law Enforcement in the US is built on the framework of slave patrols. However much we try to build a better policing system through policies and reforms, that will still always remain true. Here, I'll even provide you with a source so that you can argue against it as if it's all fiction. https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook...rican-policing

In addition to that unforgettable fact above, in modern times law enforcement or really any job that provides the employee with force and authority as part of their job (Prison guards, military, policing, etc) is inherently attractive to the type of person that will abuse it. I'm not saying that the only people that choose to be law enforcement are racists, or violent, or prone to commit crimes in support of their viewpoints. No, rather what I am saying is that those who are racist, violent, or prone to commit crimes in support of their viewpoint are drawn like bees to honey when it comes to jobs in law enforcement. Combine that with a "look the other way" and "code of silence" policies many police adopt off the books with regards to seeing their co-workers break rules and laws, and what you've got is a fine institution primed to trample on targets of choice with impunity.

I feel that this is common knowledge, and that people who act as if it isn't are either for it or just uninformed. Change my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caelric

That's quite a strong assumption you are making, that you actually have a mind.

---

This, from the guy who couldn't be bothered to even capitalize the first letter of his username. The guy who makes no attempt to refute an intelligent argument and instead just goes low. Good job Bubba. You did it. You acted like a dumb sumbitch.

Edited to add: Your obvious refusal to even acknowledge the above makes you for it. In my mind if nothing else. Go ahead. Make another mind joke.

https://i.gifer.com/WNfS.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

This might be the most boomer sounding thing I've ever heard you say.

---

oh yeah well if i wasn't "hip" then how would i know who let the dogs out? huh? ROTFL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Colorado is an extremely white state though. So you're probably wrong again, like you usually are when you talk about weed. Although I would never question your knowledge when it comes to cold cuts, now that you're a big boy and all. So I'm still proud of you.

https://i.imgur.com/uBJEOp9.png

---

the population of Colorado is 5.8 million, which when multiplied by your stated percentages means there are hundreds of thousands of Black Coloradans, more than enough to cover the thousands of marihuana arrests made each year

there's also the fact that a major Colorado police department has paid out tens of thousands of dollars for being racist and had their chief publicly admit they're racist

as always with you, it would have taken 10 seconds of googling to find out your guess was unequivocally wrong, and even after seeing the indisputable evidence you're still going to be pretty sure you're right

and so they'll keep on murdering people of color. why wouldn't they? as long as people like you have their back, they'll never face consequences for it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo

You guys use this argument a lot around here. As if not providing a source makes it untrue. It doesn't. Most of the time it appears that you just want a source provided so you can attempt to discredit the source as part of your rebuttal. It's disingenuous.

Law Enforcement in the US is built on the framework of slave patrols. However much we try to build a better policing system through policies and reforms, that will still always remain true. Here, I'll even provide you with a source so that you can argue against it as if it's all fiction. https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook...rican-policing

In addition to that unforgettable fact above, in modern times law enforcement or really any job that provides the employee with force and authority as part of their job (Prison guards, military, policing, etc) is inherently attractive to the type of person that will abuse it. I'm not saying that the only people that choose to be law enforcement are racists, or violent, or prone to commit crimes in support of their viewpoints. No, rather what I am saying is that those who are racist, violent, or prone to commit crimes in support of their viewpoint are drawn like bees to honey when it comes to jobs in law enforcement. Combine that with a "look the other way" and "code of silence" policies many police adopt off the books with regards to seeing their co-workers break rules and laws, and what you've got is a fine institution primed to trample on targets of choice with impunity.

I feel that this is common knowledge, and that people who act as if it isn't are either for it or just uninformed. Change my mind.



This, from the guy who couldn't be bothered to even capitalize the first letter of his username. The guy who makes no attempt to refute an intelligent argument and instead just goes low. Good job Bubba. You did it. You acted like a dumb sumbitch.

Edited to add: Your obvious refusal to even acknowledge the above makes you for it. In my mind if nothing else. Go ahead. Make another mind joke.

---

Christ on a cracker that professor piled a whole load of misinformation into what's literally a memo expounding on their bias against law enforcement.

For society to exist, there must be a common set of beliefs, tenants or rules to help guide members of that society to peaceably coincide. Archeological studies have traced this back to groups predating modern homo sapiens. This is a concept predating slavery.

Taking a step back, even biological studies of animal herds and groupings show a rudimentary enforcement of boundaries enforced collectively, whereupon members who don't conform are cast out from group protection.

Fast forwarding to modern days, humanity has collectively formed nations which are organized under collectively decided sets of rules or laws. Individuals living outside of those boundaries (and are caught doing so) face a prescribed punishment or in some countries, summary judgment by the 'authority'. These laws a mutable to the extent that as beliefs change, as promoters of change or reform obtain influence and sway the majority of society, those laws are formally changed or the leaders responsible for enforcement of the outdated laws choose to not enforce them. But collectively, each of these countries possesses either a formalized body responsible for ensuring adherence to laws, or their societies unfortunately condone summary judgment.

Now, slavery is repugnant. Wrong. Outlawed. Taboo. The idea of forcibly bonding another, without compensation or benefit for the enrichment of another (or collective) is a concept almost universally held to be verboten on our planet. But for our country this has only been the case for the last hundred and fifty years, give or take the State. This means that there are second, third and fourth generations whom still disagree with the outlaw of slavery or had ancestors who passed down this antagonism. Yes, sometimes these people are in positions of authority or strive for positions of authority, however this doesn't change the majority belief that their wish for reversion 'to the good ole days' is held as morally repugnant to the majorly of our country.

What does this have to do with law enforcement? Simply put, our country no longer practices the slavery of a hundred and fifty years ago and there are no laws being enforced which propagate that practice. Yes, the usage of prisoners who are made to provide benefit to society encroaches, but does not wholly revert to true slavery. It's worth noting that even this practice is now being examined.

Racism still exists in our country and some would abuse the authority invested in them to practice an unequal enforcement of our societies laws benefitting one ethnicity over another. When this is found, proven and tried, those involved are punished accordingly. Why? Because our society's beliefs evolved to the point where discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or skin color is illegal. This is why police reform is so important, people of the old school mindset should not be the enforcers of our collectively chosen laws. This rings true to your central point that people who wish promote an agenda seek power and authority.

At the end of the day, law enforcement is required for a society to exist and grow. Laws will inevitably change as the beliefs of the society evolve, but the need to have enforcers and arbiters of that collective will will not change for humanity. Anyone who thinks laws and law enforcement are needed have never experienced anarchy or are proponents of the destruction of society.

I'm shocked, but Seran said it much, much better than I could. Bottom line: some means of enforcing laws is necessary. Sure, there are some problems that come along with individuals having power over other individuals, but to function as a society, we need this, but with strict controls on them to prevent abuses of power.

Right now, we have some problems with law enforcement abusing power. More problems than some would admit, much less problems than others would admit. We need to fix these problems without totally dismantling law enforcement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

oh yeah well if i wasn't "hip" then how would i know who let the dogs out? huh? ROTFL

---

That song is about ugly women at the club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo

You guys use this argument a lot around here. As if not providing a source makes it untrue. It doesn't. Most of the time it appears that you just want a source provided so you can attempt to discredit the source as part of your rebuttal. It's disingenuous.

---

It's funny because you say that as if people on both sides here don't do that constantly. Pretty sure the leftists here are way worse about that. Unless it's an anonymous source that they agree with, then it's gospel and becomes racist to ask for a source.

Either way, that's not what I was asking for a source for. I just wanted to see some actual numbers, and what exactly cops are doing in Colorado in regards to weed and black people with a little more detail than "they're arresting people and are racist!" like Latrin's post, but I'm really not interested in it enough to go digging for it myself. And Latrin is a bit of a drama queen who's afraid of everything too and buys into at least some of the whole Reefer Madness thing, so there's also that.

Quote:

---

Law Enforcement in the US is built on the framework of slave patrols. However much we try to build a better policing system through policies and reforms, that will still always remain true. Here, I'll even provide you with a source so that you can argue against it as if it's all fiction. https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook...rican-policing

---

I'm too lazy to read through that, but I doubt it has anything to do with what I was asking from Latrin. Everyone knows the history of slavery and cops being dicks. But woke points for you posting a link about it anyway, or something.

Quote:

---

In addition to that unforgettable fact above, in modern times law enforcement or really any job that provides the employee with force and authority as part of their job (Prison guards, military, policing, etc) is inherently attractive to the type of person that will abuse it. I'm not saying that the only people that choose to be law enforcement are racists, or violent, or prone to commit crimes in support of their viewpoints. No, rather what I am saying is that those who are racist, violent, or prone to commit crimes in support of their viewpoint are drawn like bees to honey when it comes to jobs in law enforcement. Combine that with a "look the other way" and "code of silence" policies many police adopt off the books with regards to seeing their co-workers break rules and laws, and what you've got is a fine institution primed to trample on targets of choice with impunity.

---

I'm not saying that's untrue either. Too many cops are out there projecting their small dick energy on innocent people.

Quote:

---

I feel that this is common knowledge, and that people who act as if it isn't are either for it or just uninformed. Change my mind.

---

Thanks for the history lesson that was already known I guess? Let me know when you have some info on these arrests in Colorado though. Seems like it might be an interesting read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

as always with you, it would have taken 10 seconds of googling to find out your guess was unequivocally wrong, and even after seeing the indisputable evidence you're still going to be pretty sure you're right

---

Know what else most people do when they make a post claiming something? They take 10 seconds to CTRL+V the link. Like if I posted something about how to buy cold cuts, I would have included a link with it.

I'm not interested in it enough to go googling it and hope what I click on just happens to be exactly what you're referring to, like that one link from 2018 you posted, and then another from August of 2020.

Completely related: What prevented you from googling how to buy cold cuts like a big boy before 2020 though?

TLDR: Nobody is disputing that racist dickhead cops are a problem in most places to some degree or another.

Feel free to explain how I "Have their back" though. I'm generally not a fan of cops for the most part, especially when it comes to victimless "crimes" like weed, but I get why they're still necessary. They just need to stop policing bullshit that doesn't matter like weed and other victimless crimes. Not that you'd know anything about that, because your existence exists 99% on paper and in spreadsheets and not in the actual real world.

You thinking I'm some Blue Lives Matter fanatic because I don't vote democrat is kinda hilarious though. And not surprising at all, coming from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

That song is about ugly women at the club.

---

As if Latrin's ever been to a club. He'd shit his pants. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caelric

I'm shocked, but Seran said it much, much better than I could. Bottom line: some means of enforcing laws is necessary. Sure, there are some problems that come along with individuals having power over other individuals, but to function as a society, we need this, but with strict controls on them to prevent abuses of power.

Right now, we have some problems with law enforcement abusing power. More problems than some would admit, much less problems than others would admit. We need to fix these problems without totally dismantling law enforcement.

---

There are too many Andraste cops out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

When this is found, proven and tried, those involved are punished accordingly.

---

[citation needed]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caelric

I'm shocked, but Seran said it much, much better than I could. Bottom line: some means of enforcing laws is necessary. Sure, there are some problems that come along with individuals having power over other individuals, but to function as a society, we need this, but with strict controls on them to prevent abuses of power.

Right now, we have some problems with law enforcement abusing power. More problems than some would admit, much less problems than others would admit. We need to fix these problems without totally dismantling law enforcement.

---

We have always had problems with our systems of law enforcement. Always.

Does law enforcement necessarily mean police as we understand it? What about sheriffs? Marshals? Rangers? Troopers? Agents?

If one of those versions is superior to another, why not disband the inferior ones? When it turned out witch doctors were inferior to doctor doctors, we got rid of witch doctoring, and now it's illegal to be one, and that worked out great for everyone.

The slogan isn't "defund the law enforcement", folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Feel free to explain how I "Have their back" though.

---

all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

and that you are so ashamed you have to claim you aren't "a Blue Lives Matter fanatic" proves the point

these are the breaks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

---

What are you doing about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

We have always had problems with our systems of law enforcement. Always.

Does law enforcement necessarily mean police as we understand it? What about sheriffs? Marshals? Rangers? Troopers? Agents?

If one of those versions is superior to another, why not disband the inferior ones? When it turned out witch doctors were inferior to doctor doctors, we got rid of witch doctoring, and now it's illegal to be one, and that worked out great for everyone.

The slogan isn't "defund the law enforcement", folks.

---

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ConcernedP...wing-small.gif

https://i.imgur.com/wZmTZjd.gif?noredirect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

What are you doing about it?

---

Hiding under his bed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

What are you doing about it?

---

voting for reform and staying active in my communities on the same behalf

and that's literally all it takes. the saddest part about our pandemic response and other terrible societal failures like it is it would have been so, so, so, so, so easy for us to do it right, and so, so, so many of us did, do, and will continue to do what is needed

but a few percent of us would rather be lazy, and a few percent of us would rather be smug, and a few percent of us are too attached to our bitter resentment (see the above responses)

and they'll tell us there's nothing we can do, when weeeeeeeeeeeeee are already doing it and if they would just stop with their b***crap that would be enough

but they won't, because no one will make them, and that's the extent of their moral compass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

[citation needed]

---

DOJ: POLICE INTEGRITY LOST: A STUDY OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARRESTED circa April 2016

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

voting for reform and staying active in my communities on the same behalf

and that's literally all it takes. the saddest part about our pandemic response and other terrible societal failures like it is it would have been so, so, so, so, so easy for us to do it right, and so, so, so many of us did, do, and will continue to do what is needed

but a few percent of us would rather be lazy, and a few percent of us would rather be smug, and a few percent of us are too attached to our bitter resentment (see the above responses)

and they'll tell us there's nothing we can do, when weeeeeeeeeeeeee are already doing it and if they would just stop with their b***crap that would be enough

but they won't, because no one will make them, and that's the extent of their moral compass

---

Do you think Methais doesn't vote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

voting for reform and staying active in my communities on the same behalf

and that's literally all it takes. the saddest part about our pandemic response and other terrible societal failures like it is it would have been so, so, so, so, so easy for us to do it right, and so, so, so many of us did, do, and will continue to do what is needed

but a few percent of us would rather be lazy, and a few percent of us would rather be smug, and a few percent of us are too attached to our bitter resentment (see the above responses)

and they'll tell us there's nothing we can do, when weeeeeeeeeeeeee are already doing it and if they would just stop with their b***crap that would be enough

but they won't, because no one will make them, and that's the extent of their moral compass

---

Can we just agree that lockdowns haven't worked?

And I loved your response to Gelston regarding what are you specifically doing.... you voted.

That was probably very taxing on you. You ok?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

Do you think Methais doesn't vote?

---

That's the thing... you have to vote the "right" way, or you are just ruining everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

and that you are so ashamed you have to claim you aren't "a Blue Lives Matter fanatic" proves the point

these are the breaks

---

Latrin: You have the backs of racist cops who murder black people for fun!

Me: I don't give a shit about Blue Lives Matter, there are too many piece of shit cops abusing their authority, and they all need to fuck off over victimless crimes.

Latrin: YOU'RE SO ASHAMED THAT YOU BACK RACIST COPS THAT YOU SAY YOU SAY YOU DON'T BACK RACIST COPS, WHICH IS PROOF THAT YOU BACK RACIST COPS!!!!!

Also you: Mommy taught me in my 30s how to take food off the shelf at the grocery store and put it into a shopping cart all by myself! She was so proud of me for being a big boy that she bought me some new eye shadow and mascara to celebrate! Yay!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meth

I am one of those people. I have a friend who is cultivating it and I’m able to buy from him at a reduced price. As long as you know what you’re doing and how much to use then you’re a-okay. Weed is also said to possess pain suppressant effects, but unfortunately for me that is not true. My chronic back pain is something I’ve carried with me for a while and I’m really worried about getting addicted to painkillers. So I’ve been looking around and found some vendors to buy the stuff at herbiesheadshop, and it has lessened the pain for me so far, but without gaining the high that you usually get with weed.

---

CBD is extremely popular in the US. Being in NYC I can see booth selling it almost at every corner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Culem Winston

CBD is extremely popular in the US. Being in NYC I can see booth selling it almost at every corner.

---

Thank you Culem, for your insight.

You are a scholar and a gentleman.