Latest drug addict loons.

[JoeP]

I could understand shifting the intention of this thread from simply acknowledging the latest wonky drug addict nonsense as it was intended, to having a real drug prohibition debate, if people would stop dragging that issue into every other thread in this forum. . . .

GI, I like your technology and science posts, but you let this get to you a little too much, although the bit I quoted above I agree with. But the personal attacks are a little to much "foaming at the mouth" level of passion, don't you think? After all, you do not know for sure that MSimon is an addict. All I see is that he cares deeply about the subject. But that does not mean that he is addicted. And his posts in other non-General threads are almost always on-topic.

Yeah I realize that MSimon is guilty in provocation -- passive-aggressive one might say -- by consistently and methodically spamming General with his pet obsession. I posted about this once in the Admin forum just hoping that a subforum in General could be created to discuss drug legalization specifically, and then have all threads that are related there pro-actively moved there. Or at least getting Joe and Simon to openly talk about it there. I see is nothing wrong with a passionate series of threads and discussion on this topic, but having it completely color TP as a hangout for drug arguments and useless spam threads on it each day isn't helping the overall reasons for the forum to exist -- and the participants to be here at all. Personally, I really dislike it and it is the main thing that I do not like about this place. I'm sure it drives people away. I also think it is an abuse of his moderator role. A moderator should do just that, moderate and keep a forum essentially about its stated purpose overall.

The forum is primarily about energy-science related topics and, most specifically, Polywell fusion related issues.

But it is also ultimately the forum owner who gets to decide what is tolerable and what isn't. And judging from the evidence I have seen here as a reader, and occasional poster, is that General is "anything goes." Even hundreds of threads about pot. Which sucks, but there you go. It seems to be allowed.

[Diogenes]

You might thinks so, but I keep having to pay this tax bill over here, and that doesn't even address the number of times i've had to run interference for some of my dope smoking buddies getting caught in the consequences of their own dope smoking behavior. One of my dope smoking buddies just got arrested yesterday, and I'm pretty sure he's going to be calling me for bail.

And what was your "buddy" arrested for? Murder?, Mayhem? If I had to hazard a guess it was possession of narcotics; in other words a consequence of your WOD, not the drug use itself

Nope. His problem is not knowing when to shut up.

It also doesn't address the people i've known who have Overdosed and left behind young children for other people to care for. I suppose you regard leaving a child alone in the world to fend for itself to be perfectly right and proper, and therefore not being a "harm" to anyone, but I have a different understanding of social and familial obligations.

Maybe if drug use wasn't so criminalized and was legal and regulated as to dosages and availability maybe allot fewer people would die of overdoses;

Do you *KNOW* any crack/meth heads?

in any case the biggest thing that separates users from their families isn't death by overdose it is jail; likely for possession, another consequence of the WOD.

Are you able to detect the irony of suggesting that these substances which they can't leave alone even for the sake of their family or their freedom, are not the problem?

Drug abuse is a medical problem it should be addressed that way; not a criminal justice problem. No more than being addicted to harmful alcohol or mega-harmful tobacco is treated as a crime.

The criminal problem is that of people inducing others to try these dangerous substances. THAT is the criminal problem. Anyone pushing drug usage is committing a criminal act which HARMS the victim. The users are the victims, and it is the nature of these substances that the users are completely unaware that they will become victims.

You dope advocates are just spoiled rotten brats that have a self centered narcissistic view of your own role in life, and you are intellectually incapable of comprehending the DAMAGE caused by your indulgent hedonistic pastimes, especially amongst those people who can't handle it without crashing and burning of which there are far too many.

So your going to help the person that can't handle it by declaring it a crime; so you can beat, arrest, jail, and ass-rape him; there that will learn him.

This is an example of deliberate misdirection and false equivalence. As II Rabbi said: "It's not even wrong. " I am not interested in your attempt to wave the bloody shirt.

How exactly does jailing 100's of thousands of mostly minority males stop the "indulgent hedonistic pastimes" of white upper middle class people who fear little likelihood of being thrown in jail?

Not buying into this false premise either. Most of the serious drug addicts I knew were minority males, and they all knew they were doing wrong. They all said they never should have tried this sh*t, but because they did, they are now stuck on it. They said people just don't know how powerful this stuff grips you before they try it. After they try it, it's too late.

[Diogenes]

Personally, I really dislike it and it is the main thing that I do not like about this place. I'm sure it drives people away.

If this topic disappeared, I wouldn't shed a tear. It is *WAY* down the list of things I think are worth discussing. As a matter of fact, I started this thread for the sole purpose of being annoying to the people who insist on discussing this issue day in and day out.



à bon chat, bon rat.

[GIThruster]

After all, you do not know for sure that MSimon is an addict. All I see is that he cares deeply about the subject. But that does not mean that he is addicted

One wants to take another person's word for this sort of thing. Simon posted all over this forum for a year or two, that he was fired from his job because of prohibition, before I ever weighed in on the subject. I read his posts without responding at all (what most people here do) until I had just had enough. After all, the explanation as he gives it is contemptuous of his audience. First he claimed he was fired because he can't pee on command. For years he said that until I called him on it and asked why he didn't simply ask for a catheter. Then came the story that he wasn't allowed one, which is ridiculous.

Simon has posted many, many times about how he uses daily, how he was fired for it, how it's everyone else's fault, after all he has PTSD. It's prohibition that's at fault. That's why he is living on the dole for more than a decade. He's explained many times he hasn't worked since, and now I think it must be at least 14 years. It was 12 when I started calling him on the ridiculousness of his stories. And of course, there is all the evidence of delusion. The latest claim is he had 6 guys waving millions of dollars at him and 3 waving ten million or more to fund the Poly. And of course you need to be very foolish to believe such claims. He doesn't even work at EMC2. All you need to do is look at the weasel words used in the claims to identify them, for this is the commonest habit of drug addicts who are lying about their lives. "Waving millions at me" is intentionally vague, and this is what drug addicts do.

There are more than half a dozen working definitions of what is an addict, but all of them agree that there needs to be a life impairment, a lack of proper function. Loosing your job is a prime indicator and being unable to replace it is as well. People who lose their jobs because of their drug habits, and who then respond by sitting at home for 14 years posting on the web and smoking dope, well. . .that kind of behavior fits every singe definition one might use for addiction. Simon is willing to flush his life for his favored pass-time, and it is according to him, everyone else's fault.

How do I know this stuff? I used to work with homeless people. I was trained in crisis intervention and part of that training was to identify just this sort of thing. I am not a therapist and would never pretend to treat anyone, but I know the signs of addiction and simon is an addict, plain and simple. So now you know.

Why do I care? Why do I expose myself to the vitriol of the other drug users here, by defending the current prohibition scheme and warding off the delusional statements? Well I'd just remind, I didn't do this for a couple or three years, but the situation has been way out of hand now for years. Simon's working intention is to plug his anti-prohibitionist dogma into every single thread in this forum, and the first time when I had had enough, I went to Joe. At that time, Simon pledged to Joe he would knock off this nonsense and I promised to let it go, which I did. Simon's word was good for maybe two weeks. He' been breaking it daily ever since, far more than a year by now.

So how am I the bad guy to say "enough is enough"?

[JoeP]

After all, you do not know for sure that MSimon is an addict. All I see is that he cares deeply about the subject. But that does not mean that he is addicted

One wants to take another person's word for this sort of thing. Simon posted all over this forum for a year or two, that he was fired from his job because of prohibition, before I ever weighed in on the subject. I read his posts without responding at all (what most people here do) until I had just had enough. After all, the explanation as he gives it is contemptuous of his audience. First he claimed he was fired because he can't pee on command. For years he said that until I called him on it and asked why he didn't simply ask for a catheter. Then came the story that he wasn't allowed one, which is ridiculous.

Simon has posted many, many times about how he uses daily, how he was fired for it, how it's everyone else's fault, after all he has PTSD. It's prohibition that's at fault. That's why he is living on the dole for more than a decade. He's explained many times he hasn't worked since, and now I think it must be at least 14 years. It was 12 when I started calling him on the ridiculousness of his stories. And of course, there is all the evidence of delusion. The latest claim is he had 6 guys waving millions of dollars at him and 3 waving ten million or more to fund the Poly. And of course you need to be very foolish to believe such claims. He doesn't even work at EMC2. All you need to do is look at the weasel words used in the claims to identify them, for this is the commonest habit of drug addicts who are lying about their lives. "Waving millions at me" is intentionally vague, and this is what drug addicts do.

There are more than half a dozen working definitions of what is an addict, but all of them agree that there needs to be a life impairment, a lack of proper function. Loosing your job is a prime indicator and being unable to replace it is as well. People who lose their jobs because of their drug habits, and who then respond by sitting at home for 14 years posting on the web and smoking dope, well. . .that kind of behavior fits every singe definition one might use for addiction. Simon is willing to flush his life for his favored pass-time, and it is according to him, everyone else's fault.

How do I know this stuff? I used to work with homeless people. I was trained in crisis intervention and part of that training was to identify just this sort of thing. I am not a therapist and would never pretend to treat anyone, but I know the signs of addiction and simon is an addict, plain and simple. So now you know.

Why do I care? Why do I expose myself to the vitriol of the other drug users here, by defending the current prohibition scheme and warding off the delusional statements? Well I'd just remind, I didn't do this for a couple or three years, but the situation has been way out of hand now for years. Simon's working intention is to plug his anti-prohibitionist dogma into every single thread in this forum, and the first time when I had had enough, I went to Joe. At that time, Simon pledged to Joe he would knock off this nonsense and I promised to let it go, which I did. Simon's word was good for maybe two weeks. He' been breaking it daily ever since, far more than a year by now.

So how am I the bad guy to say "enough is enough"?

I never labeled you "the bad guy;" I'm just thinking you are getting too personal in the attacks. Yeah, it is frustrating, I get that. Like I mentioned, I had a thread about it in the Admin forum that went nowhere to getting an amicable resolution. So, not a lot that can be done about it from what evidence I have seen.

[ladajo]

In my own opinion, Simon's pro-drug spamming has taken away from the board's reputation.
As a moderator, he has abused his position, and again, in my opinion, been using the board in a weak attempt to claim post and hit credits for his on going rhetoric. He baits folks to drive up his hit rate, thus seeking to claim some kind of perverse status and credibility.
I for a while have taken a policy of just not reading where he is posting, making use of the "mark threads read" button. However, he is becoming more insidious in inserting his propaganda where-ever he can thus corrupting more and more threads. It is out of hand.
It would be more tolerable if he actually made a relevant logical argument, but he can't even do that. Repetitive cites of non-research quality examples of support, lack of timely or diverse sources, cherry picking to the extreme. He is a classic example of a youngster practicing Dualist theory.

In any event, more often than not, if I see he has posted, even now in News, I ignore it and then hit "mark read". It is a shame, as I am sure I am missing relevant and pertinent posts by others because of this.

All that said, I do admit to having baited him on occasion. It is amusing to me to make a personal bet how many rant posts he will make when poked on drugs or education.

Meh. When Mike is coherent, and not raging against the man about drugs or education, he can be insightful and useful. Unfortunately, that seems to be less and less of the time these days. It sometimes does makes me wonder why he did not opt for a blood test on drug screening, vice bottle pee or catheter. All are supported, and have been for decades. Oh well.

Makes me sad to see Talk-Polywell pulled down in reputation over the rants. Reasoned and intelligent debate is one thing, ranting is another. Mike rants. More so when you prove him wrong with real evidence and analysis. I guess it is the internet. If I want quality discussion, I should seek it in real formats, not ones where folks are free to pretend whatever they want.

[AcesHigh]

I never see MSimon discussing pot in the news section and other science sections. Maybe his pot spamming is confined to the General section, which btw I have long ago abandoned, and not because of MSimon's pot spamming.

Considering we had threads trying to prove Obama was not an american, MSimon's pot posts are not the worst problem of the General subforum.

[Diogenes]

I never see MSimon discussing pot in the news section and other science sections. Maybe his pot spamming is confined to the General section, which btw I have long ago abandoned, and not because of MSimon's pot spamming.

Considering we had threads trying to prove Obama was not an american, MSimon's pot posts are not the worst problem of the General subforum.

You're from Brazil, right? So what business of yours is it if Americans want to discuss Obama's very weird and unpersuasive background?


In my opinion he is certainly NOT ELIGIBLE for his office because his citizenship relies entirely on man made law rather than "natural law" as cited in the document which CREATED US Citizenship; The Declaration of Independence.


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.



If your citizenship is the consequence of a man made law, it is "statutory" citizenship, not "natural" citizenship.

[ladajo]

Oh dear...

[paperburn1]

Oh dear...

Eight of the first nine presidents – Martin Van Buren being the exception – as well as early potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution

[Diogenes]

Oh dear...

I really am not intending to get this started again. I just opined on it once more for the same reason I started this thread. I perceive it as P***ing off the people I want to P*** off.



I personally consider the issue dead, but it is still a valid intellectual quibble.



Back to the mindless and endless reiteration of drug policy and drug consequences.

[GIThruster]

I never labeled you "the bad guy;" I'm just thinking you are getting too personal in the attacks.

I perfectly well understand this confusion. Plenty of folks have weighed in and claimed that I'm making ad hominem arguments, which are logical fallacies. I would here just remind as I have noted in the past in response to this charge, looking at a person's life, can form an ad hominem fallacy of distraction, where one is moving the issue off what it is, to the person one is responding to. Not so in this case. In this case, simon has made himself the issue. There is no way to respond to the issue without looking at simon, and the fact he lives an utterly failed life and yet thinks he is in a position to recommend his world view to others is indeed the issue. He makes it an issue every time he posts about prohibition, drug abuse and our proper attitude toward these things.

So Aces has it wrong to argue I've been too severe. I have not. I'm not arguing simon's mother dresses him funny. I'm arguing the evidence is, drugs have destroyed the man's life, and this is why they are illegal. How can one not use simon as our illustration exemplar? He's the perfect argument against what he proposes in every thread in this forum.

[AcesHigh]

So Aces has it wrong to argue I've been too severe. I have not. I'm not arguing simon's mother dresses him funny. I'm arguing the evidence is, drugs have destroyed the man's life, and this is why they are illegal. How can one not use simon as our illustration exemplar? He's the perfect argument against what he proposes in every thread in this forum.

I think you would serve better the world by devoting 100% of your forum time to Woodward/Mach Effect and other similar stuff, instead of wasting time with Simon's drugs issues/non-issues. Because I think Simon or you won´t affect the drug issue, but if YOU behave more cordially and be more empathetic with others and diminishes the ad-hominens (try to be more diplomatic), YOU CAN (Yes, you can ) affect Mach Effect research and well, maybe the world. Or not. But what I mean is that you have greater chances of affecting the world by focusing on some issues than you have wasting time with the drug issue.


As for me living in Brazil and therefore having no say in the Obama issue... well, first of all, thanks to the internet, I have friends in the US both on the democrats side and on the republicans side.

Second, it´s a single planet that we share until GIT proves and develops a Mach Effect thruster.

Third, I am not in the US, but I feel entitled to discuss it just as anyone here feels entitled to discuss Russia, or China, whatever.

Fourth, I am not in the US, and most of you are not in Simon's STATE and much less in his household, but you all feel entitled to give opinions about his relation with narcotics.

Fifth, how much do you guys think Earth Nation States will endure after something like a Mach Effect Thruster is developed. Brazil and the US have their days counted, just like medieval european kingdoms.

[MSimon]

Aces,

Re: my effect on the Prohibition issue. I'm having some as is the cohort Prohibition has enlisted to the anti-Prohibition side. Legalization has gone from favored by about 10% in 1970 to favored by about 50% today. And the anti-Prohibition numbers are still rising. Mainly due to Prohibitionists dying off. And I now have a significant police contingent on my side.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

But the important question to ask is this: if the people involved in the anti-Prohibition effort are so crippled by drugs why are they winning?

It is expected that 5 more States will vote for legalization in 2016 and in the interim it is possible several more will enact it legislatively.

=======================================

What is amusing is that the Right refuses to look at the evidence about the medical uses of cannabis and the Left fails the evidence test when it comes to CAGW.

It is a wonder. But everyone here knows how human nature works. In other contexts.

“Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Thus, Science advances one funeral at a time” Max Planck

But what do CAGW and Prohibition have in common (other than belief against evidence)? They are government programs. It is turning a significant fraction of the youth libertarian.

[GIThruster]

I think you would serve better the world by devoting 100% of your forum time to Woodward/Mach Effect and other similar stuff, instead of wasting time with Simon's drugs issues/non-issues.

Well, when I need a parent I'll be sure to contact you. I'm not going to read the rest of your post.