Implication being that every psychogenic substance should involve the same set of negative sanction.MSimon wrote: Fine, here's your Alcohol, but in accepting it, you can't drive, purchase or register or own a car, possess a firearm, work with or raise children, or hang out on the dole without supervision and regular reporting, and it'll all last until you're proven clean for 6 months.
I know i'm gonna regret this, but I just can't help myself.
Well yes and no. The real dangers need to be checked as opposed to inventions of the psychotic media who do a good business with the demon drugs capture another victim and God will not help us so we are calling on the police to subdue the DEMON bit. Or perhaps you would prefer witch doctors find cure for Opium addiction - heroin. Which actually happened - the first ten or so people heroin was tried on didn't get addicted. It took another 100 years to figure out genetics might be involved. In the mean time - heroin - a very good and cheap pain reliever is denied to the 80% of the population who stand a very very small chance of addiction.Helius wrote:Implication being that every psychogenic substance should involve the same set of negative sanction.MSimon wrote: Fine, here's your Alcohol, but in accepting it, you can't drive, purchase or register or own a car, possess a firearm, work with or raise children, or hang out on the dole without supervision and regular reporting, and it'll all last until you're proven clean for 6 months.
BTW Dept. of Justice research shows that the only drug that "causes" violence as an effect of the drug is alcohol.
So if we are worried about child abuse I think alcohol is the place to start. And let me add that so far alcohol is the only drug which has a significant effect on fetal development. In all studies where it was concluded an illegal drug affected fetal development seriously negatively - alcohol was aliased into the drug in question.
The doctor who thought up the "crack baby" scare says his research was in error. So far FAS is still with us.
Does any of this get out?
Nope it is all DEMON crack baby zombies and the mothers who spawned the seeds of the devil will destroy society if we don't sic the police on the DEMONS and particularly the mothers of the DEMONS.
WE MUST STOP THE DEMONS FROM BREEDING.
It would be hilarious if the results weren't so tragic. Well - superstitions are often a harbinger of tragedy. The baseball batter who goes through his ritual and wears his magic hat is no menace to society. It is the DEMON hunts that are dangerous.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Here is a good way to test such proposals:
Fine, you can be dirty Jew if you want to be , but in accepting it, you can't drive, purchase or register or own a car, possess a firearm, work with or raise children, or hang out on the dole without supervision and regular reporting, and it'll all last until you're proven clean for 6 months.
Or if we want to be fair:
Fine, here's your pain reliever, but in accepting it, you can't drive, purchase or register or own a car, possess a firearm, work with or raise children, or hang out on the dole without supervision and regular reporting, and it'll all last until you're proven clean for 6 months. Now what about that open heart surgery you need?
Fine, you can be dirty Jew if you want to be , but in accepting it, you can't drive, purchase or register or own a car, possess a firearm, work with or raise children, or hang out on the dole without supervision and regular reporting, and it'll all last until you're proven clean for 6 months.
Or if we want to be fair:
Fine, here's your pain reliever, but in accepting it, you can't drive, purchase or register or own a car, possess a firearm, work with or raise children, or hang out on the dole without supervision and regular reporting, and it'll all last until you're proven clean for 6 months. Now what about that open heart surgery you need?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
In my little corner of the world, the leader of the BC Marijuana Party was interviewed saying a stoned driver is a safe driver. The BCMP merged with the Greens in return for adding drug legalization to the platform. During the last election debate the Green leader said she supported legalizing crystal meth. Suffice to say the Greens not only didn't win a first seat in the legislature, they lost significant popular support, worst outing ever.
In the local newspaper the Vancouver business council endorsed the results of the recent poll showing near unanimous support for forced rehab. They looked at the costs compared to everything tried until now.
Unfortuneately the Federal Liberals already found a solution years ago, dump all the rotten eggs in one basket, Vancouver.
In the local newspaper the Vancouver business council endorsed the results of the recent poll showing near unanimous support for forced rehab. They looked at the costs compared to everything tried until now.
Unfortuneately the Federal Liberals already found a solution years ago, dump all the rotten eggs in one basket, Vancouver.
CHoff
Adjusting for other substances, studies suggest this is accurate (claims to the contrary fail to take into account people driving stoned may be drunk as well). In fact, a study recently found being stoned also makes you less likely to experience all forms of accidental death. Needless to say, this result caused some consternation.choff wrote:In my little corner of the world, the leader of the BC Marijuana Party was interviewed saying a stoned driver is a safe driver.
But it's really not that surprising. Most of the trouble people get into isn't due to impaired reaction time, it's due to recklessness. Marijuana tends to make your brain more risk-averse (unlike alcohol).
Here's a good summary:
I look forward to a future where the government admonishes us to smoke up before engaging in carpentry or driving.Researches uncovered some surprising results in a cross-over study of accident victims in a Swiss hospital ER: Cannabis use is inversely proportional to injury risk. In other words, the more cannabis used, the less chance of accidental injury.
This same study showed a dose-dependent increase in injury risk from alcohol use. For example, alcohol use within six-hours prior to injury was associated with a mean relative risk of 3.00 compared to no alcohol use (1.00), That's an increase of 300% based on comparison of the numbers of similar injuries sustained by non-drinkers.
What researchers did not expect to see was the effect cannabis use had on accidental injuries. When they reviewed accidents treated in the emergency room, and looked at whether the patient used cannabis or not, they found that cannabis users were only one third as likely to be injured in the same circumstances compared to those that had no cannabis in their system. Dosage, in this case, was inversely related to risk of injury, with a mean relative risk factor of only 0.33, (or 1/3) compared with non-cannabis users.
So what does that mean? In plain terms, if you are hammering a nail your are three times more likely to hit your thumb if you take a drink within six hours of beginning your carpentry, whereas, if you light up a joint prior to your building project, you have two-thirds less chance of smashing your digit, than your completely sober buddy.
...
UPDATE: Two prior studies showed the same result. One was in Missouri which stated: "Marijuana use may be associated with a decreased risk of injury. Other illicit drug use was associated with increased risk." An even earlier one done in Buffalo, NY, came to the same conclusion when it comes to injury: alcohol and cocaine, bad, cannabis good
They looked at the costs compared to everything tried until now.choff wrote:In my little corner of the world, the leader of the BC Marijuana Party was interviewed saying a stoned driver is a safe driver. The BCMP merged with the Greens in return for adding drug legalization to the platform. During the last election debate the Green leader said she supported legalizing crystal meth. Suffice to say the Greens not only didn't win a first seat in the legislature, they lost significant popular support, worst outing ever.
In the local newspaper the Vancouver business council endorsed the results of the recent poll showing near unanimous support for forced rehab. They looked at the costs compared to everything tried until now.
Unfortuneately the Federal Liberals already found a solution years ago, dump all the rotten eggs in one basket, Vancouver.
Evidently they didn't go back and look at the costs pre-prohibition.
But why should they deprive themselves of the fun of FORCING people to do things with a policy of liberty? But I do get it. The enforcers will need something to do. Some people they can force around. You can't do that sort of thing with Jews any more. People of color are off limits. Hey? Why not gang up on drug users? No one likes them and where ever they go they bring the problems of prohibition with them. Since we can't give up prohibition we will just push users around. We can ENFORCE on them. Sounds delicious.
BTW drivers who are experienced driving high on pot are slightly safer than sober drivers. But the difference - although it shows up frequently in studies is not considered statistically significant.
Legalize crystal meth? And let the meth DEMONS run loose? Not on your life sir. We will prescribe it to kids for ADHD instead.
You see if you buy your drugs from some street dealer it will have very bad consequences. However, the same drug when blessed by a doctor can be most useful for treating a variety of afflictions. And just so as you get the message: we have police to chase you down for using unsanctified drugs. Thus profaning the holy sacraments of relief and treatment.
We have a list of sanctified pain. Holy pain. If you have unholy pain you will need to either suffer in silence or have a visit with a trafficker in DEMONS. And woe be unto you who traffic in DEMONS. Buyers or sellers.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
If you think its safe, try driving in the DTES on a welfare wednesday. As for alcoholics, you don't see that much of them, you see, they're scared by the addicts. Nobody that lives here buys into the prolegalization song and dance anymore, they get way too much reality to the contrary. It's way easier to toughen up the law in my home province of 4 million than to tell 300 million Americans to make a big mistake. I wouldn't do it to the Taliban, let alone an ally. Once we do, and the prodical son problem addicts decide there's easier pickings back where you've legalized it, you'll understand what I'm saying.
CHoff
Do I have to say it? Another person practicing their religion doesn't put anyone else at risk. I also don't think it helps your case to point to the proliferation of drunkeness as a case for the increased use of *more* psycho-active substances. An yes... I absolutely don't want a bypass patient driving down the road, hugging a throw pillow in case a sneeze comes on!MSimon wrote:Here is a good way to test such proposals:
Fine, you can be dirty Jew if you want to be , but in accepting it, you can't drive, purchase or register or own a car, possess a firearm, work with or raise children, or hang out on the dole without supervision and regular reporting, and it'll all last until you're proven clean for 6 months.
Or if we want to be fair:
Fine, here's your pain reliever, but in accepting it, you can't drive, purchase or register or own a car, possess a firearm, work with or raise children, or hang out on the dole without supervision and regular reporting, and it'll all last until you're proven clean for 6 months. Now what about that open heart surgery you need?
I'm not arguing so much about legalization/non-legalization in my original post; I was only trying to point out that targeted decriminalized negative sanction would work better than our current drug enforcement policies.
For example: If you want to increase the avoidance of pot for 15 year old children, then tie driver's licenses to it's abstinence.
Pot involvement should postpone legal access to motor vehicles until their 18'th birthday, and even then with proven abstinence. That would be a very legitimate connection, and also be much more effective IMHO.
And a guy sitting at home watching the telly snorting what ever doesn't put anybody at risk. The risk comes in when you make the behavior illegal and create black markets.Helius wrote:Do I have to say it? Another person practicing their religion doesn't put anyone else at risk. I also don't think it helps your case to point to the proliferation of drunkeness as a case for the increased use of *more* psycho-active substances. An yes... I absolutely don't want a bypass patient driving down the road, hugging a throw pillow in case a sneeze comes on!MSimon wrote:Here is a good way to test such proposals:
Fine, you can be dirty Jew if you want to be , but in accepting it, you can't drive, purchase or register or own a car, possess a firearm, work with or raise children, or hang out on the dole without supervision and regular reporting, and it'll all last until you're proven clean for 6 months.
Or if we want to be fair:
Fine, here's your pain reliever, but in accepting it, you can't drive, purchase or register or own a car, possess a firearm, work with or raise children, or hang out on the dole without supervision and regular reporting, and it'll all last until you're proven clean for 6 months. Now what about that open heart surgery you need?
I'm not arguing so much about legalization/non-legalization in my original post; I was only trying to point out that targeted decriminalized negative sanction would work better than our current drug enforcement policies.
For example: If you want to increase the avoidance of pot for 15 year old children, then tie driver's licenses to it's abstinence.
Pot involvement should postpone legal access to motor vehicles until their 18'th birthday, and even then with proven abstinence. That would be a very legitimate connection, and also be much more effective IMHO.
Oh. Yes. Born with religion. Not your fault. OK. I buy that.
The NIDA says addiction is a genetic disease:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... sease.html
And then we have this little gem which explains the CB1 system in the brain.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ystem.html
====
So tell me. Why is it OK to persecute people based on their genetics? That seems rather despicable to me. YMMV.
====
I do agree that it will be a long and painful road to unwind this mess. But what do you expect when a person's medical condition is used as a reason to persecute them? It is no better than using their religion and maybe worse.
====
You really really really need to read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/027595 ... 0275950425
Because persecutions kept up long enough lead to mass murder.
====
The deal is: and I know this is going to be hard to swallow - people take drugs chronically because they help.
====
OK - for the children. Get them off alcohol and on pot. It is safer for them that way. There would be fewer overdose deaths. Fewer auto accidents.
If we could get kids to avoid huffing solvents and drinking alcohol and instead get them smoking pot we would come out ahead.
Better yet if they want to smoke their anti-depressants pot is a safer alternative than tobacco. In fact it may help prevent lung cancer.
The Journal of Clinical Investigation:
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948
BTW that is not the first research to discover that fact. The first was done in 1974 at the University of Virginia. Now prejudice and the DEA have deprived billions around the world of this medicine. Medicine you can grow.
==="We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 29_pf.html
Well let me just say: prejudice kills.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Y'kno, on a biochemical level, love is an addiction. One of the things that's had me snickering ever since I heard of the planned "cures" for addiction is that the cure will "cure" love as well.MSimon wrote:The NIDA says addiction is a genetic disease:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... sease.html
And then we have this little gem which explains the CB1 system in the brain.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ystem.html
====
So tell me. Why is it OK to persecute people based on their genetics? That seems rather despicable to me. YMMV.
Vae Victis
Yes. It is one of the best ways to get the body to produce its own heroin.djolds1 wrote:Y'kno, on a biochemical level, love is an addiction. One of the things that's had me snickering ever since I heard of the planned "cures" for addiction is that the cure will "cure" love as well.MSimon wrote:The NIDA says addiction is a genetic disease:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... sease.html
And then we have this little gem which explains the CB1 system in the brain.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ystem.html
====
So tell me. Why is it OK to persecute people based on their genetics? That seems rather despicable to me. YMMV.
Exercise and eating also work.
The reason drugs work is that they or their natural analogs are necessary for the proper functioning of the body. Deficiencies will cause cravings.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I am a very liberal person, but drugs are a no go for me. They destroy your brain! Yes alcohol is bad for you also (and can also cause brain damage), but a glass of beer or a glas of wine is fine. A glass of red wine is actually beneficial for your health. A joint every day for a year will produce very visible calcifications on your brain. This is a fact. Yes there are lots of studies propgating the benefits of certain drugs. Many studies. None of them was a double blind study and none of them was in a peer reviewed magazine. And no, this is not because of the "evil government". That is totally ridiculous. The governments here Europe are to a large extent liberal and e.g. in Germany the (goddamn) green party was in charge (in a coalition with the socialists) for quite a while.
That that had to go to hell is another story. Anyway, they certainly did not hide anything there. So keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, if you want to keep at least a small last bit of believability.
That that had to go to hell is another story. Anyway, they certainly did not hide anything there. So keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, if you want to keep at least a small last bit of believability.