Colorado making so much money from drugs they don't know what to do with it all!

[Ceyrin]

You can cut potency with poor growing techniques.

I actually had some plants as a roommate once, for like half a year. Guy rents a bedroom in this group house, and basically just sets up a couple of grow closets and just stops by every few days to check on them. He didn't live there or spend really any time around other than to upkeep his plants. Shit was pretty funny, because it was mostly discreet until the plants obviously hit maturity. Then it was like getting slapped in the face as soon as you walked in the house.

[waywardgs]

I actually had some plants as a roommate once, for like half a year. Guy rents a bedroom in this group house, and basically just sets up a couple of grow closets and just stops by every few days to check on them. He didn't live there or spend really any time around other than to upkeep his plants. Shit was pretty funny, because it was mostly discreet until the plants obviously hit maturity. Then it was like getting slapped in the face as soon as you walked in the house.

You let some stranger grow weed in your house?

Why?

[Methais]

I actually had some plants as a roommate once, for like half a year. Guy rents a bedroom in this group house, and basically just sets up a couple of grow closets and just stops by every few days to check on them. He didn't live there or spend really any time around other than to upkeep his plants. Shit was pretty funny, because it was mostly discreet until the plants obviously hit maturity. Then it was like getting slapped in the face as soon as you walked in the house.

Did the plants masturbate loudly?

[Ker_Thwap]

Did the plants masturbate loudly?

You win the PC today.

[Latrinsorm]

Er… 100% of alcoholism begins with casual use… That's like… That's how it… I mean… what?

And all heavy marijuana use starts with casual marijuana use, but it would be incorrect to claim all the ills of heavy marijuana use as consequences of casual marijuana use.

And as far as revolutionizing mental health and reforming the prison system, those are things that need to be dealt with concurrent to reforming our drug policies. They aren't the same thing, but they're damn well connected.

Why? The point of reforming the prison system is because the prison system is bad. That has nothing at all to do with what laws lead to prison time.

There are no studies on these things. I say we give it a shot in the name of science and then we can study it.

We did give it a shot. Prohibition gone, Mafia thrives. Boom. Now you can (try to) find a case where a prohibition was repealed and organized crime diminished.

If "studies" are the only proof you'll take, this argument is pointless.

Not at all. We may be no closer to resolving the central point, but we have learned a lot. We've learned which people don't care about science at all (e.g. Methais, subzero), we've learned which people care about science but can't be bothered to read the science I link (e.g. yourself, Warriorbird), we've learned which people care about science but can't be bothered to read the science they link (e.g. Fallen). Heck, we've learned what specifically the central point is! It's useful both for this discussion and discussions in general to recognize ways people can get sidetracked.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that one...how is marijuana more dangerous than alcohol? By what measure?

By the measure of casual use carrying long term (post-intoxication) risks for the entire population, putting themselves and those around them at risk of harm.

So you're willing to admit that marijuana is safe for 995 people out of 1000, yet you need additional proof it is safe?

I'm willing to restate what I have repeatedly said in the past, sure. As I've also repeatedly said in the past, no matter how small this rate of risk appears at face value, it is higher than the one we tolerate for all other legal drugs.

You don't care that alcohol is directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people, and causes disease in millions of people, due to the fact that in small amounts it hasn't been proven dangerous. This makes no sense, as a GUARANTEED amount of the populace will not use it responsibly. What difference does it make that it CAN be consumed responsibly if it is an absolute certainty that it won't be? Don't you see how arbitrary and stupid that logic is?

Alcohol is not directly responsible for that many deaths. Alcohol poisoning is a risk of only 1 per 1,000,000 (and please note that this is alcohol poisoning, not alcohol and a bunch of other stuff at the same time poisoning). A guaranteed amount of the populace will abuse anything: alcohol, aspirin, paint thinner, glue, high fructose corn syrup. The only sensible path is ban those things that are dangerous in themselves, and rely on robust, invasive regulations to restrict people to appropriate use for those things that can be used safely. You bring up that 12 year olds shouldn't drink, pregnant women shouldn't drink, drivers shouldn't drink, and my response is that I never advocated for open season on alcohol. I actually find the current system of alcohol regulations that ban all those things pretty in tune with current science... just like I find the current federal system of marijuana regulations. A guaranteed amount of the populace will break those laws and regulations, too, but the same reasoning applies. We're not going to abandon the rule of law any more than we're going to ban everything.

Let's see if we can spot the error in Latrinsorm's chain of logic:

1. Latrin argues from a stance of harm reduction.
2. Latrin believes that prohibition is effective in reducing the prevalence and availability of illicit substances.
3. Alcohol directly kills nearly one hundred thousand people per year.
4. Latrin does not believe alcohol should be prohibited.

Neither (2) nor (3) are correct. I believe prohibition has a causal force downward on drug usage, but that only implies that drug usage will go down in the absence of all other forces. I think that if you did a large enough study on prohibitions you could control for these other forces, but such sample size might not yet be available. Think of prohibition like hitting the brakes. If you hit the brakes at 70 mph (113 kilohectares per fortnight for our metric friends), you're not going to stop for quite a long time. If you've got the gas pedal floored and are gently riding the brake for some reason, you're not going to slow down at all. The only way to evaluate your brakes is to take into account these other factors, as I have done for marijuana -> schizophrenia with family history of mental illness and quantity used among many other things.

[Tgo01]

Did Latrin reply to my post that disagreed with his assertion that there is a "safe" dosage of aspirin?

[Latrinsorm]

I would like to make one more point not directed at anyone in particular. The only science is falsifiable. Put most simply: if you can't be wrong, you are wrong. My position is falsifiable, and for convenience I will restate how, and for further convenience let us define "study" as [published in a peer reviewed journal, of sample size 1000 or greater, cohort or longitudinal methodology, controlling for family history and other drug use].

Claim 1. Marijuana causes schizophrenia.
Falsified by: a study finding no evidence that casual use does.

Claim 2. Alcohol is safe.
Falsified by: a study finding evidence that casual use is linked to some specific disease.

Claim 3. All other legal drugs (save tobacco) are safer than marijuana.
Falsified by: a study finding evidence that casual use of X drug is linked to some specific disease at a rate greater than or equal to 5 per 1000.

Claim 4. Repealing prohibitions does not negatively impact organized crime.
Falsified by: a study finding evidence that a specific repeal did or repeals in general do.

I feel these are reasonable requests, because they are the ones specifically made of me that I successfully satisfied. If these data are produced I will begin to change my mind more or less depending on how much evidence I have seen already, which varies significantly from claim to claim. I encourage everyone else to make a list of their claims and how they can be falsified. I think doing so will make our discussion much more precise, and if you find yourself saying there is literally nothing that will change your mind, that will help too.

[Wrathbringer]

And all heavy marijuana use starts with casual marijuana use, but it would be incorrect to claim all the ills of heavy marijuana use as consequences of casual marijuana use.Why? The point of reforming the prison system is because the prison system is bad. That has nothing at all to do with what laws lead to prison time.We did give it a shot. Prohibition gone, Mafia thrives. Boom. Now you can (try to) find a case where a prohibition was repealed and organized crime diminished.Not at all. We may be no closer to resolving the central point, but we have learned a lot. We've learned which people don't care about science at all (e.g. Methais, subzero), we've learned which people care about science but can't be bothered to read the science I link (e.g. yourself, Warriorbird), we've learned which people care about science but can't be bothered to read the science they link (e.g. Fallen). Heck, we've learned what specifically the central point is! It's useful both for this discussion and discussions in general to recognize ways people can get sidetracked.By the measure of casual use carrying long term (post-intoxication) risks for the entire population, putting themselves and those around them at risk of harm.I'm willing to restate what I have repeatedly said in the past, sure. As I've also repeatedly said in the past, no matter how small this rate of risk appears at face value, it is higher than the one we tolerate for all other legal drugs.Alcohol is not directly responsible for that many deaths. Alcohol poisoning is a risk of only 1 per 1,000,000 (and please note that this is alcohol poisoning, not alcohol and a bunch of other stuff at the same time poisoning). A guaranteed amount of the populace will abuse anything: alcohol, aspirin, paint thinner, glue, high fructose corn syrup. The only sensible path is ban those things that are dangerous in themselves, and rely on robust, invasive regulations to restrict people to appropriate use for those things that can be used safely. You bring up that 12 year olds shouldn't drink, pregnant women shouldn't drink, drivers shouldn't drink, and my response is that I never advocated for open season on alcohol. I actually find the current system of alcohol regulations that ban all those things pretty in tune with current science... just like I find the current federal system of marijuana regulations. A guaranteed amount of the populace will break those laws and regulations, too, but the same reasoning applies. We're not going to abandon the rule of law any more than we're going to ban everything.Neither (2) nor (3) are correct. I believe prohibition has a causal force downward on drug usage, but that only implies that drug usage will go down in the absence of all other forces. I think that if you did a large enough study on prohibitions you could control for these other forces, but such sample size might not yet be available. Think of prohibition like hitting the brakes. If you hit the brakes at 70 mph (113 kilohectares per fortnight for our metric friends), you're not going to stop for quite a long time. If you've got the gas pedal floored and are gently riding the brake for some reason, you're not going to slow down at all. The only way to evaluate your brakes is to take into account these other factors, as I have done for marijuana -> schizophrenia with family history of mental illness and quantity used among many other things.

I actually started out as a heavy user so I'm pretty sure everything you said after that is empirically invalid.

[Latrinsorm]

Did Latrin reply to my post that disagreed with his assertion that there is a "safe" dosage of aspirin?

I've had you on ignore for decades. And my assertion is not that aspirin (or alcohol or anything else) is absolutely safe, but that the long term risks they pose are smaller than 5 per 1000. If you can put a number to your stomach thing, we can talk about it.

[Wrathbringer]

Did the plants masturbate loudly?