Stuff Libertarians OUGHT to worry about more than drugs.

[MSimon]

GIT

What your study may have found is people self medicating for schizophrenia. And I have already posted studies on the value of cannabis for schizophrenics. Especially if the CBD/THC ratio can be controlled.

In fact a lot of the "associated with" studies are probably an indication of self medication. Which is the best you can do with a product that is illegal.

Well any way, I'm working against keeping the drug illegal. And I'm winning. Too bad that works in favor of Democrats and against Republicans, eh?

Well that should just about complete the move towards economic socialism. Couldn't do it without the culture war. Thanks!

Not that I care any more about the socialists on the left than I do about the socialists on the right. I just want to defeat prohibition. If you care maybe holding on to prohibition is not such a good idea.

[GIThruster]

Typical nonsense. You ask for data you've already been provided, and have it provided again, and you respond with a link to a copy of a report of a report, that has no link to the actual study, and that study does not address the actual issue you asked about.

I'm sure sixth graders everywhere are impressed with your scholarship.

The trouble Simon, is it does not matter what anyone presents on this issue. You will always settle for confirming evidence even when it is not evidence at all, but merely a report of a report, and you will always ignore any evidence that does not support your delusion that pot is BAD for people. This despite the bewildering pile of evidence that surrounds us all, that dope smokers are impaired people.

So why pretend you have a rational position when there is nothing rational about it? Just smoke dope and be happy!

[MSimon]

I'm going to vote for every politician who runs against prohibition.

My preferences from highest (top) to lowest (bottom)

Republican - against prohibition
Democrat - against prohibition
Libertarian
Republican - not too bad on the culture war
Democrat - not too bad on economic socialism

And of course I'll use my blog(s) to promote my choices.

But don't run a Mourdock. Or Akin.

[MSimon]

Typical nonsense. You ask for data you've already been provided, and have it provided again, and you respond with a link to a copy of a report of a report, that has no link to the actual study, and that study does not address the actual issue you asked about.

I'm sure sixth graders everywhere are impressed with your scholarship.

The trouble Simon, is it does not matter what anyone presents on this issue. You will always settle for confirming evidence even when it is not evidence at all, but merely a report of a report, and you will always ignore any evidence that does not support your delusion that pot is BAD for people. This despite the bewildering pile of evidence that surrounds us all, that dope smokers are impaired people.

So why pretend you have a rational position when there is nothing rational about it? Just smoke dope and be happy!

So you think the Harvard study was incorrect? Then explain to me why with the explosion of pot smoking there has been no explosion of schizophrenia? Epidemiology studies do not back your position. Why is that?

In fact we saw the same thing in the pot causes cancer scares. I will ask the same thing I did then. Where are the bodies?

[GIThruster]

Don't be absurd. I have no idea what one Harvard study says, and neither do you. I don't know what is interpretation of the facts, what is interpretation of that interpretation, how well the study was done nor even if it addresses the things we've here talked about. All I know about the supposed Harvard study is the report of the report of it tells you what you want to hear. I also know you've used it to distract from the FACT that Iadajo had already provided you with the details you immediately then asked for, and you've now ignored them several times, pretending the study does not say what it says.

This is why none of us want to continue with your nonsense, Simon. You're not looking for the truth and really couldn't care. You absolutely do not care that dope does the damage it does to uncounted millions. You simply could not care at all, that those who contribute to society are fed up with parasites like you, who justify their indolent existence by trolling the web and posting nonsense about how dope does not destroy lives. It has obviously destroyed your life, and no one here really has the time to waste with someone who could not possibly care less about the truth, the facts, and the horror done by drugs.

[MSimon]

Is schizophrenia increasing?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8461351 Denmark - probably on the decline 1993 study

Good page on the subject: http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009 ... zophrenia/
The page has links which I'm not going to reproduce here.

This amused me:

In general, most studies found about a doubled risk of schizophrenia from cannabis use. It is interesting to note that chronic heavy drinking was even more of a risk to psychosis than heavy cannabis use, increasing the risk by four times.

Dang. Maybe we should ban alcohol. Or get people to switch from alcohol to pot. For mental heath reasons.

The major problem with all of the studies showing a link between pot and schizophrenia is that we should have seen an explosion of schizophrenia in the West during the 1960′s and 1970′s. Instead, the rate was flat or even declined.

Advocates of the pot-schiz link such as Murray have all sorts of reasons why either rate has actually gone up when we found it didn’t, or it’s going to go up in the future, or finally, that even heavy pot use by millions of citizens will only increase the rate of schizophrenia by 14%. This absurd and totally unproven “14%” figure is now being bandied about by the media (see below).

This study from Australia concluded that since the incidence of schizophrenia has not risen with the explosion in cannabis use, cannabis cannot be said to cause schizophrenia. Instead, the study said cannabis appears to be triggering it in people who would have ended up schizophrenic anyway. However, cannabis use may worsen the course of schizophrenia in those who already have it.

The study was unable to conclude that cannabis use brings on schizophrenia quicker in those who would develop it anyway, since they found no trend in decreasing age of diagnosis, even with the explosion in cannabis use in recent years. However, this study did find that cannabis-using schizophrenics developed symptoms sooner than those who did not use it.

On the other hand, this may be explained by the very common phenomenon of heavy use of cannabis during the prodromal phase of schizophrenia. Another study suggested that cannabis use may be causing schizophrenia in people who would not otherwise develop it, but the lack of increased diagnosis would seem to argue against that.

Well there is more there. With links.

This is interesting and well known: Nicotine and schizophrenia. Nicotine is an anti-depressant. Marijuana is an anti-depressant. http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjour ... 7.full.pdf

Maybe tobacco causes schizophrenia. After all schizophrenics are known to smoke like chimneys. Correlation = causation. (which of course is a fallacy.)
CIGARETTE SMOKING AND SCHIZOPHRENIA

Well here is an interesting paper:

http://www.ukcia.org/research/keele_stu ... nnabis.pdf


The study cohort comprised almost 600,000 patients each year, representing approximately 2.3% of the UK population aged 16 to 44. Between 1996 and 2005 the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining. Explanations other than a genuine stability or decline were considered, but appeared less plausible. In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005.

Well in any case so far the bodies are not there. And correlation /= causation.

[MSimon]

the horror done by drugs.

Well of course I'm interested in the horror done by drugs. By that criteria alcohol and tobacco should definitely be banned and according to Donald Tashkin we should switch former tobacco smokers to cannabis smoke for its cancer protective effects.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01729.html

So yeah. Something needs to be done about all the alkys drinking and driving. A lot of innocents get killed from that.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/w ... ic-deaths/

You know I think you believe Refer Madness was a documentary. Of course you are free to believe that. But fewer and fewer are falling for that every year.

Now the question is do you want the Democrats to win elections based on the change of attitudes? Would you prefer that your political fortunes decline with the decline in support for Prohibition? 1932. History is staring you in the face and yet you persist in a failing cause. Fine by me.

[MSimon]

And funny. You think prohibition keeps kids from drugs or prohibition reduces access to drugs. And yet since the question was first asked about 30 years ago kids report that illegal drugs are easier to get than alcohol. Maybe prohibition doesn't work.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teens-pot-e ... than-beer/

And beer is legal. How can that be? Maybe prohibition does the opposite of what its proponents claim. Sacrilege.

I must be a raving dope fiend to claim any such thing.

[GIThruster]

Yes, yes, yes Simon, right from one old, worn-out argument to the next without skipping a beat nor answering the objections.

Why bother to pollute the forum the way you do? It's not as if you've ever learned anything, nor ever will. It simply does not matter to you what the evidence is. You don't care. If you don't like what the studies say, you'll just change the subject. All this evidence pot screws up people's brains and you simply do not care.

[paperburn1]

or even reading the full report
Various nosological factors might cause the decrease, e.g. changing structure in organization of treatment facilities, decreasing number of beds (50% in Denmark during the period investigated) and correlated with this: increasing suicide rates among pretreatment schizophrenics, increasing rates of schizophrenics not yet diagnosed in shelters for homeless and in institutions for criminals.

[ladajo]

Simon standard MO: Cherry pick out of context. Recycle anything that looks supportive, misrepresent the rest. And make multiple posts to bury the evidence with bullshit.

I thought it par (and even predicted) that he would cherry pick out the reports I gave him. He ignores the meat and goes for the out of context, ironically of something that actually supports my argument.

Then he goes on to quote a 1988 statement that was so misrepresented it might have well been a dog at a cat convention.

And then goes on to ask where the "explosion" in pyschological issues is. Of course he completely ignores the data published in multiple formats and venues (and even presented here a number of times) talking about the large jumps in admissions and treatments for users.

It is excatly the same when he asked, "where are the bodies?", was shown the hard data, and completely ignored it.

He is marketing, poorly at that, but it is pure propagandistic marketing. Nothing of real value.

I may well go back to ignoring his drug posts again. Too bad he spends most of his time spamming the forum with pro-drug lies and crap. If he could manage his "rage against the man" demon, he could actually be a productive member of society. Instead of the hateful selfish immature teenager who thinks he is smarter than everyone else persona he maintains.

Rage on dude. Rage on.

[ladajo]

“Drug abuse is present more frequently in family members of all 3 samples compared to those of non-cannabis abusing controls. This is in line with past research confirming a genetic predisposition for drug use.”

I love this finding. It completely ignores the concept of nature verses nurture. These guys are clearly on a nature bent.

It MUST be genetics. It could have nothing to do with the idea that kids learn from their elders. So obviously smokers are a genetic predisposition. If your grandparents smoked and your parents smoked then obviously it is genetics that promtps you to smoke and nothing to so with the environment you grew up in.

What a load of crap.

Yes it is true that if you parents are dopers, that you will probably be a doper too. And I wager that has more to do with what you learn is the acceptable norm.

You know like growing up watching your dad beat your mom. Then you get a wife and beat her too cause it sure worked for dad.

Narrow view at best. These things are more complicated.

Too bad Simon had to reference and article about a study (and call it reserach). Where is the study so we can pick it apart?

[williatw]

CONFIRMED: The DEA Struck A Deal With Mexico's Most Notorious Drug Cartel

In this June 10, 1993 file photo, Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, is shown to the press after his arrest at the high security prison of Almoloya de Juarez, on the outskirts of Mexico City. Mexico's most powerful kingpin has won a two-year bloody battle for control of drug routes through the border city of Ciudad Juarez, U.S. intelligence has concluded, the latest indication that Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman's Sinaloa cartel is coming out on top in the country's drug war. Photo: Damian Dovarganes, AP


An investigation by El Universal has found that between the years 2000 and 2012, the U.S. government had an arrangement with Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed the organization to smuggle billions of dollars of drugs in exchange for information on rival cartels.

Sinaloa, led by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, supplies 80% of the drugs entering the Chicago area and has a presence in cities across the U.S.
There have long been allegations that Guzman, considered to be "the world’s most powerful drug trafficker," coordinates with American authorities.

But the El Universal investigation is the first to publish court documents that include corroborating testimony from a DEA agent and a Justice Department official.

The written statements were made to the U.S. District Court in Chicago in relation to the arrest of Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, the son of Sinaloa leader Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada and allegedly the Sinaloa cartel’s "logistics coordinator."

Here's what DEA agent Manuel Castanon told the Chicago court:

"On March 17, 2009, I met for approximately 30 minutes in a hotel room in Mexico City with Vincente Zambada-Niebla and two other individuals — DEA agent David Herrod and a cooperating source [Sinaloa lawyer Loya Castro] with whom I had worked since 2005. ... I did all of the talking on behalf of [the] DEA."

A few hours later, Mexican Marines arrested Zambada-Niebla (a.k.a. "El Vicentillo") on charges of trafficking more than a billion dollars in cocaine and heroin. Castanon and three other agents then visited Zambada-Niebla in prison, where the Sinaloa officer "reiterated his desire to cooperate."

El Universal, citing court documents, reports that DEA agents met with high-level Sinaloa officials more than 50 times since 2000.

Then-Justice Department prosecutor Patrick Hearn told the Chicago court that, according to DEA special agent Steve Fraga, Castro "provided information leading to a 23-ton cocaine seizure, other seizures related to "various drug trafficking organizations," and that "El Mayo" Zambada wanted his son to cooperate with the U.S.

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/busine ... 138855.php

[williatw]

Have you seen any studies about how the various users are apprehended and their behavior patterns? I haven't. If for example it were popular for some groups to smoke weed on the street and others to smoke in private, this would explain the seeming racist statistics. I haven't see any studies that include such variables. For one to conclude from an uninformed position that enforcement is racist is a huge leap. Show evidence of this please. Is there a difference in arrest rates vs. convictions? Do these correlate with free/paid and missing legals assistance? Are there really no details that inform the issue?

I'm sure there are just as I'm sure you're just race baiting. If someone wants to press the race issue they should have some evidence and I haven't seen it. Just lots of vacuous claims.

The many times higher arrest/conviction rates for an offense where the actual rates of use are approx. the same is the evidence of racial bias. The idea that rich upper middle class white kids on college campuses get at worse university discipline when caught with/using pot rather than being held for the police so they can be arrested/convicted is the bias. Although I am sure the university officials could cook up some kind of a rationale why there not calling the police is somehow not bias. Hell you probably believe that NY cities "stop and frisk" policy isn't racist because the cops are coached as to how to find race neutral reasons to disproportionally stop and frisk scary young minority males.

[Diogenes]

Well I don't care if civilization falls as long as those defending it are pogromists.

1po·grom
noun \ˈpō-grəm, ˈpä-; pō-ˈgräm, pə-\

: the organized killing of many helpless people usually because of their race or religion

You are really OUT THERE with that one.

When I see you calling for an end to drug prohibition or at least an end to the war on Cancer Cures I'll start defending the civilization you hold so dear. In the mean time if Democrats champion an end to prohibition I'm going to promote them. Sorry 'bout that.

Your life is mostly lived. Why should you care about those who come after you? So you leave them with a burnt out ruin of a nation ruled by totalitarians... it's apparently no skin off of your nose.

If there are things I should worry about more than drugs you should be leading the charge against Prohibition. 1932.

But I did a post just for you: http://classicalvalues.com/2014/01/why- ... -drug-war/

The punch line:

Marijuana Prohibition is a crime against humanity. I would bring the Republic (such as it is) down to end this abomination. Let those of you into politics take note.

The culture war is over. You lost.

You only believe this because you labor under the false assumption that the culture war is OPINION, and not based on natural evolutionary constraints.

I, on the other hand believe that the artificial conditions which currently exist will be swept away when nature pulls out her big strap on and gives us a good anal rotoroootering.

You know who loses the culture war? Those people who don't have children in sufficient numbers and with sufficient resources to capture the future. Those people who adhere to ridiculous and faddish ideas that have been repeatedly demonstrated false over the centuries. Those people who become once more enslaved by the Neo-Feudalists.


This gay shit, this drug shit, this promiscuity shit.... It's like you people think you've just discovered it up or something. Nah, it's as old as humanity, and we've seen this play unfold countless times in the past.


You appear to measure success in decades. Nature measures it in generations.