We are Doomed! DOOOOOMMED I say!

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 6898
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Ah. I see your problem. You think being "stoned" has the same effect as being drunk.
WHERE DID I SAY THAT??!!!
AGAIN, DONT PUT YOUR STRAW MAN POT OUT THERE ALL THE TIME!
And being stoned does limit your mental capabilties. I do certainly know that. So dont come to me with statistics that some idiot faked to support some god darn political garbage ideas.
POT != all drugs. Heroin in example is much different. You talk about legalizing all drugs, but all arguments and examples you bring all the time are centered around your god darn pot!
I am NOT talking about pot!

Diogenes
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
Do you have ANY clue about the demographics of drug use ANYWHERE?
The vast majority of casual drug users are gainfully employed. The typical casual dealer buys more than they typically need, and shares it out to friends.
You and Msimon are always talking about "the drugs" in general, yet then you are ALWAYS bringing marijuana and marijuana users as examples. These are not representative for all illegal drugs!
Also, I am VERY much aware of the demographics of drug users, thanks.
What exactly is the crime potential of a 30 cent a day habit? OK suppose I'm off 10X what is the crime potential of a $3 a day habit?
Again, fallacy! You are bringing pot as an example, yet you are talking about "the drugs".
Again, it does not work that way!

This is a point I try to make from time to time. These "legalized drugs" advocates are using marijuana smokers to justify Heroin addicts or crack fiends, and the they are not even slightly comparable.

It is an argumentative "bait and switch" tactic, which in my mind is not only fallacious, but dishonest. What's more, none of them seem to have had any experience dealing with these people they are theorizing about.

Skipjack
Posts: 6898
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

This is a point I try to make from time to time. These "legalized drugs" advocates are using marijuana smokers to justify Heroin addicts or crack fiends, and the they are not even slightly comparable.

It is an argumentative "bait and switch" tactic, which in my mind is not only fallacious, but dishonest. What's more, none of them seem to have had any experience dealing with these people they are theorizing about.
Exactly.

Diogenes
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

WizWom wrote:
Skipjack wrote:
But all the people who deal to support their habit will stop.
They will have to do something else in order to support their habbit. Probably burglary. They might still be selling drugs too then, just legally.
Do you have ANY clue about the demographics of drug use ANYWHERE?
The vast majority of casual drug users are gainfully employed. The typical casual dealer buys more than they typically need, and shares it out to friends.

You are talking about Marijuana. Crack uses are incredibly stingy with their drug, and will only share it if they think it will get reciprocated later on. Even then, they play little stingy games, like giving someone a crumb, and expecting to get a rock later.

As for "gainfully employed", I think you must mean "used to be gainfully employed". I can't tell you how many nurses, real estate agents, salespeople, farmers, carpenters, etc. that I have personally met that lost their jobs, and who's life went down the toilet after they started smoking crack. One guy in particular used to be a Military Police CID investigator. His nickname was "Psycho Mike." He had the misfortune to be a crack addict in his own house, which was right across the street from a school. Once his crack house got raided, he was charged with selling crack within 1000' of a school.

Don't you get it? It's better than sex! How many people do you know that would want to go to work when they can have sex better than the best sex they've ever had in their lives, and they can do it several times per day?

Seriously? How many people could pass that up?

I don't think you people really have a freakin clue about this stuff.

You guys DO know what sex feels like? :)



WizWom wrote: The crack-house paradigm of the inner cities is NOT the typical situation.

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k6nsdu ... m#Tab1.23A
Have fun. The percentage of drug users who are unemployed is 5%. LOWER than the national unemployment rate for the same period.

I can just see how the people who compiled these statistics chased junkies around for weeks and months to verify they were actually working. Yeah, right. Dealing with junkies is like herding cats.


Can you not even see from your own quoted stats that this makes no sense? How could the unemployment rate of someone recreationally addling their brain possibly be lower than average? Just the pot junkies I have known couldn't even hold down steady jobs, let alone the hard stuff junkies.

Diogenes
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:
They will have to do something else in order to support their habbit
Which is easier? Panhandling a couple of dollars a month or robbing to get the same amount?

I swear. Just the mention of drugs makes some people terminally stupid. People who are otherwise quite smart about economics.

I expect it is because people need their devils. Their two minutes of hate. Their Emmanuel Goldsteins.

====

Let us take pot as an example. If it was legal the cost might be about $10 a pound retail (very high grade tomatoes). About 65 cents an ounce. An extremely heavy smoker (out at the two or three sigma level) might smoke an ounce a week. That is about $2.50 a month.

And people are going to take up crime for $2.50 a month? Now consider your more average (still heavy) smoker. About an ounce a month. Under a dollar. Not including taxes. The numbers who will take up crime for that kind of money is not significant. Down in the noise level.

====

Really Skipjack,

Your analysis has nothing to do with , economics, agriculture, logic, or investigation.

It is totally faith based. Rather interesting for a board dedicated to science and logic (outside General).

Here we are talking about Marijuana to justify Crack, Meth, and Heroin.

Do you know any crack addicts? Do you know any Meth addicts?

If you don't, then you ought to meet some. Consider it part of your research into the drug culture. I think you will be surprised to discover the stuff you quote bears no resemblance to their reality. Only problem is, if they don't know you, they won't really talk to you. Meth and crack users are highly paranoid, and they think everyone is the police trying to bust them.

Actually, for your own safety, i'd stay away from them. Just hanging around with them can get you caught up in their stupidity.

WizWom
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:00 pm
Location: St Joseph, MO
Contact:

Post by WizWom »

Diogenes wrote:
WizWom wrote:
Skipjack wrote: They will have to do something else in order to support their habbit. Probably burglary. They might still be selling drugs too then, just legally.
Do you have ANY clue about the demographics of drug use ANYWHERE?
The vast majority of casual drug users are gainfully employed. The typical casual dealer buys more than they typically need, and shares it out to friends.
You are talking about Marijuana. Crack uses are incredibly stingy with their drug, and will only share it if they think it will get reciprocated later on. Even then, they play little stingy games, like giving someone a crumb, and expecting to get a rock later.
"Illicit Drugs include marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonmedically."

30 million users during 2005. Only 2 million of them unemployed. That's the numbers, you want to argue methodology, argue with the Office of Applied Statistics.

Of those, BTW, only 17 million used drugs in the past month, which kind of puts paid to the addiction figures, too.

Stop trying to argue what you want, stop believing the hype or your anecdotal evidence.

I've known people who killed themselves with booze; who've ruined their life with drugs; who have been driven to suicide by Prozac. It's easy to ruin your life, if you have an addictive gene set.

But most people are NOT addicts, most drug users do FINE.

Booze is the drug of choice for many because it is cheap and effective and legal. Legalize marijuana, and fewer people would ruin their lives. Those are the facts.

Legalize it ALL, under regulation depending on the danger, and you'd see a much lower problem to society in total.
Wandering Kernel of Happiness

Diogenes
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
The link showed, very clearly, ALL drug users. All drugs, not just pot.
The link is bogus!
You cant tell me that someone who is drunk can work even half as efficiently as someone who is sober. Since most drugs have at least the same effect on someones cognitive abilities (with some exceptions), this is totally unbelieveable.

That's what *I* said! The notion is false on it's face.


I remember years ago... (OH NO! Not another Anecdote! :) ) There was this fellow I knew who was pretty kooky. He had some mental issues. He claims he used to work in Army Intelligence as some sort of crypto analyst. He did have a bachelor of science degree, and he was quite good at passing technical tests, but beyond that, the man was a complete moron, and incapable of doing anything right. He likewise believed that he was being followed by men in black suits, and that if Russian agents ever got their hands on his notebook, it would set back the defense of the United States by decades.

Anyway, He once approached me with a grave concern. Russia was building 500 massive bomb shelters at a cost of a billion dollars apiece. (This would have been around 1985 or so.) I told him that could not possibly be true, because at the time the United State's Gross domestic Product was something like a Trillion Dollars, and Russia wasn't nearly the economic powerhouse that the US was.

I told him that it was completely absurd that Russia would spend a HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS building bomb shelters, when that would have required such a HUGE burden on the Soviet economy. I told him he must have gotten something wrong somewhere.

He eventually brings me a book, (I think it was called "Deepest Black" or some such) and he shows me where in the book it says that Russia is building 500 bomb shelters at a cost of 1 billion dollars each.

As I read through it, I concluded the Author was a moron. Apparently he had been looking at Satellite photos of Russia, decided some shadows were bomb shelters of a certain size, then asked a Civil engineer to tell him how much it would cost to build a bomb shelter of this size.

From what I can gather, the Civil engineer figured out immediately the man was a moron, and gave him the billion dollar figure to make him go away.

The point is, some statistical data can be immediately discerned to be crap. The notion that drugged up people have lower unemployment than average is just such data.

Diogenes
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:In actuality though pot is no harder to grow than wheat.

What does a half kilo loaf of bread cost? About $2 to $4 depending on quality and some other things. That is a years supply of pot for most smokers.

For the price of one to three loaves of bread people are going to embark on a life of crime?

Let us say heroin or cocaine came in at 10X that (yearly cost) because of the processing involved and the lower volumes. That would be $120 a year for a very heavy user. About 30 cents a day.

What exactly is the crime potential of a 30 cent a day habit? OK suppose I'm off 10X what is the crime potential of a $3 a day habit?

They are vegetables Skipjack.


I dunno, we don't call it a crime when a 35 year old man is still living with mummy, or his uncle, sponging off of anyone he can, not working, not wanting to work, but still having sex with various bimbos.

If you look at it in terms of cost, it's way past grand larceny, but we don't consider this sort of lecherousness behavior to be criminal, though it ought to be.

What if he fathers children? (May have already happened, but how would anyone know? )


Who pays these costs? Who tells the child that he can't have a daddy because daddy has a right to f*ck up his brain with pot?

This notion is absurd, but fundamental under your stated philosophy.

Diogenes
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

WizWom wrote:
Skipjack wrote:
Do you have ANY clue about the demographics of drug use ANYWHERE?
The vast majority of casual drug users are gainfully employed. The typical casual dealer buys more than they typically need, and shares it out to friends.
You and Msimon are always talking about "the drugs" in general, yet then you are ALWAYS bringing marijuana and marijuana users as examples. These are not representative for all illegal drugs!
Also, I am VERY much aware of the demographics of drug users, thanks.
Apparently so aware you didn't even bother with the link.
The link showed, very clearly, ALL drug users. All drugs, not just pot.

You live in some deranged fantasy land.
The link could tell me that only certain sized reindeer can pull Santa's sled into the sky, and they can have graphs and studies that demonstrate it, and I would still regard it as crap because it violates very obvious and ubiquitous knowledge of the facts of life.

I can read in the inquirer how bigfoot is Barack Obama's father, and while that might explain a few things, (and at least he would then be an American! :) ) I still wouldn't believe it because it stretches credibility too far.

I guess my point is, the people who's data you are citing are LYING to you! There are no flying reindeer, no Santa Clause, and No drug addicts that work better than non addicts.
Last edited by Diogenes on Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Diogenes
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:
Skipjack wrote:
The link showed, very clearly, ALL drug users. All drugs, not just pot.
The link is bogus!
You cant tell me that someone who is drunk can work even half as efficiently as someone who is sober. Since most drugs have at least the same effect on someones cognitive abilities (with some exceptions), this is totally unbelieveable.
Ah. I see your problem. You think being "stoned" has the same effect as being drunk.

As usual your are making stuff up. You have no information on the subject besides fears implanted in you. Where did you learn your "facts"? Certainly not the scientific literature.

So I think it is a good time to repost (that was quick) my link on drugs and high tech productivity.

Drug Testing Lowers High Tech Productivity

Now what I find interesting is why you are so incurious about the subject. What I also find interesting is that when presented with researched facts you deny them.

Faith is a wonderful thing. It can make people dumber than rocks. When facts come up against their faith.


I've never met a drug addict that was sharp and competent. I've met perhaps a hundred who were F*cked up! Now i've met drug DEALERS, who were sharp and competent, but they don't smoke their own product. The ones that start, turn into crap within a few months.

WizWom
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:00 pm
Location: St Joseph, MO
Contact:

Post by WizWom »

Diogenes wrote:
WizWom wrote:
Skipjack wrote:You and Msimon are always talking about "the drugs" in general, yet then you are ALWAYS bringing marijuana and marijuana users as examples. These are not representative for all illegal drugs!
Also, I am VERY much aware of the demographics of drug users, thanks.
Apparently so aware you didn't even bother with the link.
The link showed, very clearly, ALL drug users. All drugs, not just pot.

You live in some deranged fantasy land.
The link could tell me that only certain sized reindeer can pull Santa's sled into the sky, and they can have graphs and studies that demonstrate it, and I would still regard it as crap because it violates very obvious and ubiquitous knowledge of the facts of life.
Translation:
"I don't like the statistics the US Government came up with. I won't even talk about their method of coming up with them. They just are WRONG because they don't say what I think they should say."

Amazing. You are a religious zealot, not rational at all.
Wandering Kernel of Happiness

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Diogenes wrote:
MSimon wrote:In actuality though pot is no harder to grow than wheat.

What does a half kilo loaf of bread cost? About $2 to $4 depending on quality and some other things. That is a years supply of pot for most smokers.

For the price of one to three loaves of bread people are going to embark on a life of crime?

Let us say heroin or cocaine came in at 10X that (yearly cost) because of the processing involved and the lower volumes. That would be $120 a year for a very heavy user. About 30 cents a day.

What exactly is the crime potential of a 30 cent a day habit? OK suppose I'm off 10X what is the crime potential of a $3 a day habit?

They are vegetables Skipjack.
I dunno, we don't call it a crime when a 35 year old man is still living with mummy, or his uncle, sponging off of anyone he can, not working, not wanting to work, but still having sex with various bimbos.

If you look at it in terms of cost, it's way past grand larceny, but we don't consider this sort of lecherousness behavior to be criminal, though it ought to be.

What if he fathers children? (May have already happened, but how would anyone know? )

Who pays these costs? Who tells the child that he can't have a daddy because daddy has a right to f*ck up his brain with pot?

This notion is absurd, but fundamental under your stated philosophy.
What do you call it when folks use anecdotes vs population statistics to make their point? A very weak argument.

Oh. I get it. There was a shooting rampage in New York yesterday. Ban guns.

As to who pays the cost? I see you are using socialism (socialized medicine) to argue for more big brother.

As my friend Eric says:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... _free.html
...they want me to pay not only for [other people's] junk food, but for the additional consequences of eating it. The result is communitarianism, and a nation of busybodies and government informants.

Sorry, but I refuse to allow socialized medicine to turn me into a little fascist.
Me either.
Last edited by MSimon on Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Skipjack
Posts: 6898
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

That's what *I* said!
Its what we both say then :)

Anyway, the problem with statistics is that they always only tell you half the truth anyway. What sort of employment? Cleaning the streets does not require a lot of mental ability. I have only brievely read the thing, but from what I could see not many of them managed to finish college.
But most people are NOT addicts, most drug users do FINE.
Yeah, that is what they say. Ever asked a smoker? "I can quit whenever I want to"...
I know that, I used to be a smoker...
30 million users during 2005. Only 2 million of them unemployed. That's the numbers, you want to argue methodology, argue with the Office of Applied Statistics.
I will happily do that.
Stop trying to argue what you want, stop believing the hype or your anecdotal evidence.
Its personal experience.

Diogenes
Posts: 6976
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:
Also, I am VERY much aware of the demographics of drug users, thanks.
If that is so why don't you give us some links to the literature? So far you are very short on researched facts.

In response to your beliefs several of us have presented research that contradicts those beliefs. I can't recall even one link you have presented.

Let me just add that despite the vast propaganda campaign of our government those of us in favor of legalization are slowly inching the numbers in our favor. Right now in the US the percentages in favor of legalizing pot are in the high 40s and for all drugs in the low 40s. And we are gaining a percent or two every year.

A retired police detective friend of mine thinks that total legalization will come to America in 5 years or less.

http://www.citizensopposingprohibition.org/

Image
Sometimes a majority just means that all the fools are on the same side. Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy (no scratch Kennedy, he didn't win the majority, he only won because of election fraud in Chicago.) Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama, were all cases in which the fools were in the Majority.

But again, you keep saying "POT" while we Keep saying "METH, CRACK, HEROIN" !

I would advise you to try some crack and then get back with me, but I happen to like you and don't want to see you go into the downward spiral i've seen so many others go through. Perhaps WizWom or AcesHigh would be so kind as to serve as a crack crash test dummy? :)

How about it guys? Give it a shot, and when we don't ever hear from you again, MSimon can conclude the stuff made you so smart you don't want to talk to us anymore, and I can conclude that you're so busy chasing crack you can't bother to get back to us. :)

Seriously, anyone on this forum ever try crack? It doesn't hook everybody, (I know people who've tried it and said "Meh" ) But i've known a lot more that it took over their lives.

Skipjack
Posts: 6898
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

You know what? Maybe the US should legalize drugs. I will stay in Europe and watch. And when your economy goes down the drain because of it, I will be among those that benefit. Everybody wins!
Well, I win, good enough for me.

Post Reply