How America Lost the War on Drugs [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : How America Lost the War on Drugs

Pages : 1 [2] 3

thewholetruth

05-05-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57358#post57358)
... And NAMBLA would like Federal Laws to protect those who are molesting children. Criminals always want the laws changed to accomodate their crimes. ...

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Sorry Don, that's a pretty stupid analogy. There really is no comparison and you know it. Try again.

No need to "try again", Jeff. I made my point, and it's relevant. Criminals never want to pay the price for getting caught, and both pot heads and pedophiles want their crime decriminalized. It doesn't matter what crime it is, no one wants to pay the price for getting caught. I think it's a testament to how dulled pot makes one's thinking too, if you think this society is going to make getting high legal. The track record for legalizing getting high isn't exactly stellar, Jeff. Alcohol, cocaine, morphine, pot, heroin - none contributed anything but broken families, desperation and crime when they were legal, just like pot does today. Even in Mendo County where it's legal: people are dying protecting their crops, and dying trying to steal their crops, Jeff.

I think to a great degree it's not even about the crime. It's about not wanting to submit to authority. Make pot legal and the same group of yas'll be whining about some other illegal thing, wanting to make it legal (like legally killing Grandpa). Pot heads are no different in that respect than child molesters, murderers, traffic violators or identity thieves. None of you want to pay the price for your crime. Try doing the right thing for a change, and see how that feels. It's called "freedom". No fears about getting caught. No having to deal with criminals in order to get your dope. No having to worry whether or not you're too loaded to drive. No worrying about going to jail if you get caught. No secrets any more. Freedom from all that fear, Jeff, comes from doing the right thing and obeying the law of the land. Hey, if you don't like the law, get involved in politics and change it from the inside. Throwing rocks for 50 years hasn't gotten it done.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57358#post57358)
... It's not gonna happen. ...

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I do think you're wrong. I certainly hope so. Reasonable minds will prevail although many vested interests will fight their cash cow's demise. That's real evil: hurting people so you can make some money.

Reasonable minds WILL prevail, and we will not make getting high legal. Having more loaded people will not help our society one iota, Jeff. Personally, I think it's comical that y'all think we'll ever make it legal. Look what you've done with medical marijuana. Abused it so badly that you're risking it being taken away from people for whom it's a true benefit, not just a coping tool for life.

Marijuana isn't toxic by any of the standard definitions just as it isn't addictive by any standard definitions of addiction. It can be habit forming but so can pizza. That's no reason to break up families and imprison grandmothers and steal their property. That's some of the real crime of the pot laws and there is so much more.

There is a reason "to break up families and imprison grandmothers and steal their property", Jeff. They are breaking the law, which makes them criminals. People involved in illegal drug use/sales lose their stuff. See, the problem is that you folks think you should be ABOVE the law. You don't get it that the way to go about this is to change the law first, so that you're law abiding citizens trying to facilitate change. The way you're all going about it right now, you're just common criminals looking for a way to get high and not get busted, then you get mad when it happens. News flash to you and your grandma: Don't break the law and you won't get arrested or lose your stuff. You CHOOSE to take that risk, Jeff. Empathy doesn't run thick for people who choose to be criminals.

If every alcoholic was a pot head (and let's say a serious pothead) the harm to society would be orders of magnitudes lessened. If every tobacco user was a pot smoker the harm to themselves and our medical system would be orders of magnitude lessened.

Methinks you smokie too much, sir. I used to think the same things you're saying, Jeff, when I was a pot smoker. Coincidence? Don't believe in 'em. Cirmcumstances and the effects of the drug make you think the same thing every other pot head thinks. Those of us who aren't high can see how ridiculous this all is. That's why it's not legal. Pot makes people delusional. It's delusional to think that, just because you LOVE getting high so much, society ought to decriminalize it so you can do it more. I doubt that you can even hear that, because I know how people are when they do drugs regularly. It effects your thinking. No getting around that.

Don, you need to think about this outside your narrow world view that all pot smokers are addicts. They aren't. All tobacco users, with very few exceptions, ARE addicts, with devastating results (not to mention they stink).

I never said all pot smokers are addicts, Jeff. All pot smokers are criminals, however. I'll say that right now. Federal law prohibits the cultivation and use of pot, even medical marijuana. That's how in the fog pot heads are about this issue. They've forgotten that it's against the law.

The harm to society will be lessened when pot is legalized.

Yea? Look up to Mendo, Jeff. They're REcriminalizing it now, after home invasions, shootings and killings have become common up there.

It will happen and largely due to what you're reading right now: reasonable people who support legalization writing about it on the Web. The corporate media certainly won't support it until their financial interests support it, and for now, the Military Industrial Prison Complex has more clout than the potheads. (Duh.) The medical marijuana wedge is a good one, but it doesn't go far enough. It is the key to opening millions of minds so legalizing pot for medical use is a reasonable first step.

Typical, classic, teenage rebellion thinking, Jeff. It's been the same story since the 60s. The arguments are the same, and the outcome will be the same. You guys might want to consider hiring some straight thinktank to try to solve this for you. I'm not sure if after almost 50 years you can see that it's been like Groundhog Day for pot heads (Bill Murray's GD, I mean).

I wonder if your child or your wife was on chemotherapy and wasting away because every bite of food she ate made her vomit if you would be willing to score some pot for her?

Wonder no more. When I used illegal drugs I got pot for my Dad when he was dying of cancer. But I wouldn't have to score some pot for her. I would take her to that creepy doctor that writes all those medical marijuana scrips and get her a prescription...if the rest of you haven't already ruined that avenue by using Medical Marijuana outlets to get your pot when you're not sick, like is being done today.

Don

Zeno Swijtink

05-05-2008, 08:55 PM

The harm to society will be lessened when pot is legalized. It will happen and largely due to what you're reading right now: reasonable people who support legalization writing about it on the Web. The corporate media certainly won't support it until their financial interests support it, and for now, the Military Industrial Prison Complex has more clout than the potheads. (Duh.) The medical marijuana wedge is a good one, but it doesn't go far enough. It is the key to opening millions of minds so legalizing pot for medical use is a reasonable first step.

-Jeff

Jeff, what do you think of Don's claim that, presently, many/most pot smokers under the medical exception, do not in fact have medical reasons to smoke pot, and that this undermines the provision for legitimate medical users?

Braggi

05-05-2008, 08:56 PM

First let me say, Don, that I appreciate you taking the time to write. This is a lot of writing and it takes a lot of time and effort. Thanks.

l ...
No need to "try again", Jeff. I made my point, and it's relevant. Criminals never want to pay the price for getting caught, and both pot heads and pedophiles want their crime decriminalized. ...

Are you saying that all crimes are equal in your eyes?

l ...
I think it's a testament to how dulled pot makes one's thinking too, if you think this society is going to make getting high legal. The track record for legalizing getting high isn't exactly stellar, Jeff. Alcohol, cocaine, morphine, pot, heroin - none contributed anything but broken families, desperation and crime when they were legal, just like pot does today. Even in Mendo County where it's legal: people are dying protecting their crops, and dying trying to steal their crops, Jeff. ...

Now this is going to take some effort Don, but I'd like you to think about, and then explain why there might be problems with one county allowing people to cultivate, pretty much without interference, while it's not legal in the rest of the country. Go ahead, take some time ...

Broken families, desperation and crime are caused because of pot's legal status. If it was legal these things wouldn't be much of an issue.

Cannabis really doesn't compare with any of the other substances you named, Don, and cannabis has never been legal at a time where very many US citizens were even aware of its existence, so it's never been tested as a legal substance. Prior to the 1937 cannabis tax laws, tincture of cannabis was a widely available medicine and was appreciated by doctors, pharmacists and patients alike. I know because I interviewed an old (very old) pharmacist who used to dispense it. He thought the pot laws were stupid.

Lumping in cannabis with other substances, especially "hard drugs" is a dishonest tactic and I'm surprised at you for doing it here. We are not amused or taken in by your lame attempt at deception. Comparing pot smoking to crimes that hurt children is just plain ugly. I'm disappointed. I hoped for an intellectual discussion.

...
I think to a great degree it's not even about the crime. It's about not wanting to submit to authority. Make pot legal and the same group of yas'll be whining about some other illegal thing, wanting to make it legal (like legally killing Grandpa). ...

Make a new thread if you want to change the subject, OK?

...
Pot heads are no different in that respect than child molesters, murderers, traffic violators or identity thieves. None of you want to pay the price for your crime. Try doing the right thing for a change, and see how that feels. It's called "freedom". ...

OK, let's just say that you are in Mao's China, and your religion is illegal. Would you still practice your religion? This is not an off topic comment. I really do want you to answer it. You avoided it before.

...
No fears about getting caught. No having to deal with criminals in order to get your dope. No having to worry whether or not you're too loaded to drive. No worrying about going to jail if you get caught. No secrets any more. ...

I don't actually fear getting caught (much) because I'm not a "bust." I don't smoke in public, I don't carry in my car, I don't deal with "criminals" to "get my dope." I haven't bought any in over 15 years. People give it to me; more than I have an interest in smoking so I give it away sometimes too.

Don, my larger interest in legalizing it is to reduce the harm to society that the law causes. What is the big deal with you and strictly following the law anyway? I wonder about that. Will the US economy fail if someone breaks a law that results in no harm to anyone? Do you just like punishing someone for crossing a legal line that you don't (anymore)? Why so punitive, Don? What's that about? I really do want to understand. I'm not just trying to badger you.

BTW, my religion causes me to have secrets, Don. How about that? A mystery religion. No, I don't sacrifice children or even chickens, but some of my practices I just don't talk about. So keeping secrets is part of who I am. It makes me ... trustworthy; sort of like a psychiatrist or a lawyer.

And I don't drive loaded. Perhaps you did while you were a pothead. I'm not a pothead and I don't. I don't drive while drunk either. In fact, although I like certain adult beverages very much, I don't like the high from alcohol, so I never get drunk.

... Hey, if you don't like the law, get involved in politics and change it from the inside. ...

I'm doing that Don, right now. I'm attempting to educate you: a very stubborn and resistant student. But this is one way I hone my skills. :):

...
Reasonable minds WILL prevail, and we will not make getting high legal. Having more loaded people will not help our society one iota, Jeff. Personally, I think it's comical that y'all think we'll ever make it legal. Look what you've done with medical marijuana. Abused it so badly that you're risking it being taken away from people for whom it's a true benefit, not just a coping tool for life. ...

On your second point, I agree, but legalize it and the issue will go away.

On the first, I think you're misguided. I don't think a great many more people will start smoking pot if it suddenly becomes legal. That hasn't happened in other countries that legalized or decriminalized it. In fact, in the European countries that have decriminalized it, rates are far lower than in the US. What has happened in those countries is that tourists, often from the US, do a lot of foolish partying while visiting and give the US a bad reputation. I'm sorry about that. If it was legal here too, that problem would also diminish.

... Abused it so badly that you're risking it being taken away from people for whom it's a true benefit, not just a coping tool for life.
...

You know Don, you are very limited in your thinking. You see everyone else through the lens of your own limited experience. I keep hoping you can open your mind to the idea that not everyone's experiences are similar to yours.

Not everyone uses pot as a coping tool for life. In fact, I know many dozens of pot smokers and I can't think of a single one that uses it in that manner. I'm sure there are such people, and I truly believe they will use whether it's legal or not, and the amount they use will be about the same whether it's legal or not. Let's just legalize it so they can do what they do and not bother anyone.

What will be change if pot is legalized is the loss of revenue to the criminal element. Violence will be reduced, as you commented on above. Prices will plummet because anyone that wants to grow their own will do it. Those who grow their own like to share so there will be a diminishing market for it. Wouldn't it be nice if there was less crime? Wouldn't it be nice if the black market came a little further into the light? Wouldn't it be nice if cops stopped killing children they mistook for dangerous "drug dealers?" You know, I could post a horror story every day about cops abusing their authority the way Reportanddeport does regarding illegal aliens. Would that help you understand how important it is to decriminalize these medicines?

...
There is a reason "to break up families and imprison grandmothers and steal their property", Jeff. They are breaking the law, which makes them criminals. People involved in illegal drug use/sales lose their stuff. See, the problem is that you folks think you should be ABOVE the law. ...

Don, I'm appalled you think this way.

...
News flash to you and your grandma: Don't break the law and you won't get arrested or lose your stuff. You CHOOSE to take that risk, Jeff. Empathy doesn't run thick for people who choose to be criminals. ...

Obviously not from you. That's too bad. I wonder how Jesus would have felt about grandmothers having their homes taken away and being put in prison because they grew an unauthorized plant in their garden.

Bonus question:
Don, do you know what the one drug of abuse is that has dropped in number of users every year for decades? ... and why?

-Jeff

MsTerry

05-05-2008, 08:57 PM

LMAO
The astute dude has now linked pot to pedophilia!!!
Good work Jeff:thumbsup:

and both pot heads and pedophiles want their crime decriminalized.
Don

Braggi

05-05-2008, 09:03 PM

Jeff, what do you think of Don's claim that, presently, many/most pot smokers under the medical exception, do not in fact have medical reasons to smoke pot, and that this undermines the provision for legitimate medical users?

I agree with Don that the privilege is abused all too often. I also think most of the people using under medical authority do so in proper ways. I talked to a caregiver of a medical pot user who always bought twice what his charge needed so he could have a stash too. That's abusing the system.

Certainly it's not most of the people involved. In fact, the greater "abuse" if it is an abuse is that so many people are growing in an effort to cash in on the medical pot phenomenon. I read an account of one person who opened a medical pot dispensary only to close it a few weeks later. He had very few patients but he had a steady stream of growers wanting to supply him.

I understand the desire to grow it. It's a beautiful plant and it smells wonderful. It's easy to grow. That's one reason it's still illegal because there really can't be any government control or taxation.

Not what you expected as an answer? The medical pot thing is problematic. I say legalize it and then it's not a problem anymore.

-Jeff

Braggi

05-05-2008, 09:26 PM

I'm really tired but I do have to address a couple more points. Sorry readers, please bear with me.

... Pot makes people delusional. It's delusional to think that, just because you LOVE getting high so much, society ought to decriminalize it so you can do it more. I doubt that you can even hear that, because I know how people are when they do drugs regularly. ...

Don, you don't have any idea whether I'm stoned right now or if I've ever smoked pot so please don't tell me my thinking is delusional because of my drug use. You are either being dishonest or you don't know the meaning of delusional which is a significant medical term with a real definition.

If smoking pot makes someone delusional there's something much more substantial going on than pot smoking.

You also don't know if I "LOVE" getting high but I do think it's significant that you put it in all caps in your sentence. Obviously you love getting high. Not everyone's mind works like yours.

You suggested you were a therapist and a $175 an hour one at that. If that's true and if you've had any training you know what projection is. You are a king of projection, Don. Look at that if you want to heal some of your emotional problems. It's significant. This is a huge issue for you. It will impair your abilities as a therapist if you don't get a handle on it.

... Cirmcumstances and the effects of the drug make you think the same thing every other pot head thinks. ...

There's another example of it Don. Open your mind. You can do it. I have faith.

...
Yea? Look up to Mendo, Jeff. They're REcriminalizing it now, after home invasions, shootings and killings have become common up there.
...

This is because it's illegal elsewhere Don. Use your ability to think.

... I'm not sure if after almost 50 years you can see that it's been like Groundhog Day for pot heads (Bill Murray's GD, I mean).
...

I'm pop culture impaired. I never saw it so I don't get the reference.

...
Wonder no more. When I used illegal drugs I got pot for my Dad when he was dying of cancer. But I wouldn't have to score some pot for her. I would take her to that creepy doctor that writes all those medical marijuana scrips and get her a prescription...

Nice to know you're compassionate with medical use, at least. You should know, and I mean, you really should know, that no doctor gives "prescriptions" for medical pot. A doctor can give a "recommendation" and there is a big difference. You still have to go out and "score" afterward.

Good luck with that. I'm not sure the kid on the street corner would trust you.

-Jeff

Zeno Swijtink

05-05-2008, 09:52 PM

You also don't know if I "LOVE" getting high but I do think it's significant that you put it in all caps in your sentence. Obviously you love getting high.

Is smoking pot any of the high road to insight and happiness as I feel many advocates of its use say it to be? After becoming legal does it deserve anymore of our attention then drinking tomato juice or chewing cranberries?

Braggi

05-05-2008, 10:09 PM

Is smoking pot any of the high road to insight and happiness as I feel many advocates of its use say it to be? After becoming legal does it deserve anymore of our attention then drinking tomato juice or chewing cranberries?

Zeno, those questions are more substantial than they look.

The short answers are: could be but probably not, and yes, definitely.

Better answers tomorrow.

-Jeff

thewholetruth

05-06-2008, 07:36 AM

I'm really tired but I do have to address a couple more points. Sorry readers, please bear with me.

You might want to tell your ego that perhaps we're the only readers of your comments, Jeff. I hope you aren't imagining you have an audience. People tend to perform for audiences. I would hope you could manage to just be honest here. Performing is so droll in a conversation.

Don, you don't have any idea whether I'm stoned right now or if I've ever smoked pot so please don't tell me my thinking is delusional because of my drug use. You are either being dishonest or you don't know the meaning of delusional which is a significant medical term with a real definition.

Here it is here. All 4 definitions apply to you and your drug abusing friends who wish to legalize pot: https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusional

If smoking pot makes someone delusional there's something much more substantial going on than pot.

No, it's just the pot. Pot gives folks a false sense that "everything's okay" even when it's not. Is that delusional? Why yes, it is. Pot commonly renders the user lethargic and comfortable, even when they should be paddling like a mad man to get back down "the creek" when things are upside down in their lives. That you even argue this point with me is really revealing, Jeff, in regards to your next sentence, I mean.

You also don't know if I "LOVE" getting high...

Wrong again, Jeff. Reading your posts, Ray Charles could see that you love getting high.

... but I do think it's significant that you put it in all caps in your sentence. Obviously you love getting high. Not everyone's mind works like yours.

I'm high on Life, sir. No drugs for me, thank you.

You suggested you were a therapist and a $175 an hour one at that. If that's true and if you've had any training you know what projection is. You are a king of projection, Don. Look at that if you want to heal some of your emotional problems. It's significant. This is a huge issue for you. It will impair your abilities as a therapist if you don't get a handle on it.

LOL More delusional thinking, Jeff.

There's another example of it Don. Open your mind. You can do it.

My mind is open, sir. Wide open and my eyes are wide open as well. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference between living life and escaping through drugs, Jeff. You can color it any color you want, but people use drugs because they lack coping skills to live life on life's terms. Oh sure, they lie to themselves and others by believing "I just like to get high", but the poignant questions are "What's going on in your life that you want to escape from? Why are you trying to escape reality by getting high?". Those are questions most addicts/abusers gloss right over because they don't know why. There are those of us, however, who have done the personal work required to overcome the common issues which drive people to seek refuge in drug intoxication. We do know how to answer that question.

I have faith.

I believe I'm the one who has faith, Jeff. I believe what you have is a drug induced false sense of security. :wink:

I SAID:
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57523#post57523)
...
Yea? Look up to Mendo, Jeff. They're REcriminalizing it now, after home invasions, shootings and killings have become common up there.
...
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

YOU REPLIED:
This is because it's illegal elsewhere Don. Use your ability to think.

Delusional thinking, Jeff. People aren't REcriminalizing it because "it's illegal elsewhere", sir. Do you actually believe that b.s.? They don't care about "elsewhere". They made it legal, remember? It's all the guns and the shootings and the killings and the home invasions that have caused them to realize that legalization isn't all their pot-smoking deluded thinking thought it might be.

I SAID:
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57523#post57523)
... I'm not sure if after almost 50 years you can see that it's been like Groundhog Day for pot heads (Bill Murray's GD, I mean).
...
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I'm pop culture impaired. I never saw it so I don't get the reference.

Having to go round and round the mountain until you finally get it...and get it right. Waking up every day to the same routine because if you keep doing what you're doing, you keep getting what you're getting. Like getting stuck in the 60s or 70s, doing the same things over and over expecting different results.

Nice to know you're compassionate with medical use, at least. You should know, and I mean, you really should know, that no doctor gives "prescriptions" for medical pot. A doctor can give a "recommendation" and there is a big difference. You still have to go out and "score" afterward.

Not true, Jeff. Prescription + medical marijuana card = scoring at the Medical Marijuana Grocer nearest you.

Good luck with that. I'm not sure the kid on the street corner would trust you. -Jeff

The kid on the street corner will never see me, Jeff, until he decides he needs help. :wink:

Don

Braggi

05-06-2008, 08:09 AM

...
My mind is open, sir. Wide open and my eyes are wide open as well. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference between living life and escaping through drugs, Jeff. You can color it any color you want, but people use drugs because they lack coping skills to live life on life's terms. ...

Don, I think you're an ignorant man, filled with arrogant pride and not afraid to appear as a stubborn fool. Your comments about pride being a sin were pretty laughable to me. Your foolish, ignorant pride is your most obvious feature. I'll bet you do it with a big smile, that certain, arrogant smile of a Christian who's certain of his salvation. "LOL"

I'll leave you with this:

"Projection:

Description
When a person has uncomfortable thoughts or feelings, they may project these onto other people, assigning the thoughts or feelings that they need to repress to a convenient alternative target.

Projection may also happen to obliterate attributes of other people with which we are uncomfortable. We assume that they are like us, and in doing so we allow ourselves to ignore those attributes they have with which we are uncomfortable.

Neurotic projection is perceiving others as operating in ways one unconsciously finds objectionable in yourself.

Complementary projection is assuming that others do, think and feel in the same way as you.

Complimentary projection is assuming that others can do things as well as you.

Projection also appears where we see our own traits in other people, as in the false consensus effect. Thus we see our friends as being more like us than they really are.

Example
I do not like another person. But I have a value that says I should like everyone. So I project onto them that they do not like me. This allows me to avoid them and also to handle my own feelings of dislike.

An unfaithful husband suspects his wife of infidelity.

A woman who is attracted to a fellow worker accuses the person of sexual advances." [end quote]

Don, this describes you pretty accurately. You are filled with hate and doubt about your Christianity, so you project that hate onto everyone who's not in full agreement with you. You accused me of hating Christians which nobody else who knows me would think. You fill in your ignorance with your projections. This is human nature, but you are selling yourself as a high priced councilor. I have to wonder if you've actually had any training or therapy yourself, because you seem sadly out of touch with your own neurosis. I usually avoid diagnosing mental conditions here, but perhaps you'll actually get a clue and get some help. You must be in a lot of emotional pain.

I'm going to make a guess here: you're a "Christian" councilor with very little actual psychological training. If you have any training at all it's at the level of a social worker or MFC. You lack advanced training in your field, but you still have plenty of clients because they are all, or mostly all, court ordered, so they have no choice. They HAVE to see you. Otherwise you'd have no business.

Councilor, heal thyself. You have a lot of work to do before you qualify as any kind of councilor let alone a $175 an hour one. If my tax dollars are paying you that kind of money, I object.

While you're studying projection and how to become conscious of it, do some work on "the shadow." Jung was the original big time researcher on the shadow. Once you understand how much of yourself you're in denial of, you can begin to "mine the shadow" to grow your persona and become a more whole person. Christianity is real big on ignoring the shadow, or seeing it as "other" or "the Devil." Get a grip Don. There is a dark side to everything and everyone. I think you could learn from yours if you were willing to admit it's a part of you.

Go get some help. Go get some education. You need it.

I admit I can't help you.

-Jeff

thewholetruth

05-06-2008, 09:42 AM

First let me say, Don, that I appreciate you taking the time to write. This is a lot of writing and it takes a lot of time and effort. Thanks.

My pleasure, Jeff. I'm on vacation this week and I appreciate the opportunity to engage in dialogue with you. It looks like you've put together quite a library yourself in this post, Jeff! LOL

BTW, after scanning my response for errors before I post it, I think its safe to say you'll probably not appreciate my input, but I'm just being honest with you, Jeff. :heart:


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57523#post57523)
l ...
No need to "try again", Jeff. I made my point, and it's relevant. Criminals never want to pay the price for getting caught, and both pot heads and pedophiles want their crime decriminalized. ...

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Are you saying that all crimes are equal in your eyes?

Is that what I said? No. Couldn't you just read it again for clarification? LOL I said criminals never want to pay the price for getting caught, and that both pot heads and pedophiles want their crimes decriminalized. Pot heads and NAMBA are both working on getting their crimes decriminalized, Jeff. If you think that statement is inaccurate, please say so., but don't pretend you don't understand what I said. I was crystal clear abut what I was saying.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57523#post57523)
l ...
I think it's a testament to how dulled pot makes one's thinking too, if you think this society is going to make getting high legal. The track record for legalizing getting high isn't exactly stellar, Jeff. Alcohol, cocaine, morphine, pot, heroin - none contributed anything but broken families, desperation and crime when they were legal, just like pot does today. Even in Mendo County where it's legal: people are dying protecting their crops, and dying trying to steal their crops, Jeff. ...

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Now this is going to take some effort Don, but I'd like you to think about, and then explain why there might be problems with one county allowing people to cultivate, pretty much without interference, while it's not legal in the rest of the country. Go ahead, take some time ...

The truth is that there has been such an increase in pot related crimes, serious crimes like home invasions, robberies, shootings and killings, Jeff. This isn't about some imaginary problem. This is about getting shot and robbed. THAT is why they are REcriminalizing pot. Are you telling me that you actually have yourself talked into believing it's about something else, Jeff? That's interesting.

Broken families, desperation and crime are caused because of pot's legal status. If it was legal these things wouldn't be much of an issue.

If you believe that then I have a bridge in Arizona I'd like to sell you, Jeff. People are being MURDERED, Jeff, which is causing "broken families". "Desperation and crime" are caused by pot's EXISTENCE. It's LEGAL in Mendo County, sir, a county FULL of "broken families, desperation and crime". You've not made your case at all.

Cannabis really doesn't compare with any of the other substances you named, Don...

Untrue, Jeff. They are all substances people use to get high and escape from life which used to be legal and are now illegal (except for alcohol).

... and cannabis has never been legal at a time where very many US citizens were even aware of its existence, so it's never been tested as a legal substance.

Untrue, Jeff. It was always legal prior to 1937 and everyone knew it was legal. You're being dishonest, Jeff.

Prior to the 1937 cannabis tax laws, tincture of cannabis was a widely available medicine and was appreciated by doctors, pharmacists and patients alike. I know because I interviewed an old (very old) pharmacist who used to dispense it. He thought the pot laws were stupid.

Oh. Now you just contradicted your previous statement that "cannabis has never been legal at a time where very many US citizens were even aware of its existence".

Lumping in cannabis with other substances, especially "hard drugs" is a dishonest tactic and I'm surprised at you for doing it here. We are not amused or taken in by your lame attempt at deception. Comparing pot smoking to crimes that hurt children is just plain ugly. I'm disappointed. I hoped for an intellectual discussion.

I understand your trying to escape from this discussion by claiming things which aren't true, Jeff. I said that both pot heads and pedophiles are hard at work trying to decriminalize their crimes. That's a fact. It's not a "lame attempt at deception". It's a fact. Deal with it, it's reality, Jeff.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57523#post57523)
...
I think to a great degree it's not even about the crime. It's about not wanting to submit to authority. Make pot legal and the same group of yas'll be whining about some other illegal thing, wanting to make it legal (like legally killing Grandpa). ...

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Make a new thread if you want to change the subject, OK?

Did you even read what I wrote, Jeff? Was it late when you posted this reply? Avoidance is obvious, Jeff. Please stop it.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57523#post57523)
...
Pot heads are no different in that respect than child molesters, murderers, traffic violators or identity thieves. None of you want to pay the price for your crime. Try doing the right thing for a change, and see how that feels. It's called "freedom". ...

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

OK, let's just say that you are in Mao's China, and your religion is illegal. Would you still practice your religion? This is not an off topic comment. I really do want you to answer it. You avoided it before.

We're not in China, Jeff. This is more avoidance on your part. This is what pot use/abuse/addiction does to people, sir. It causes the mind to desperately avoid the truth about anything that challenges the addiction, like you've done with the last couple of replies in this post.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57523#post57523)
...
No fears about getting caught. No having to deal with criminals in order to get your dope. No having to worry whether or not you're too loaded to drive. No worrying about going to jail if you get caught. No secrets any more. ...

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I don't actually fear getting caught (much) because I'm not a "bust." I don't smoke in public, I don't carry in my car, I don't deal with "criminals" to "get my dope." I haven't bought any in over 15 years. People give it to me; more than I have an interest in smoking so I give it away sometimes too.

Mm-hm. I see. Gosh, then there must not be problem there, then, huh? I get it.

Don, my larger interest in legalizing it is to reduce the harm to society that the law causes.

The law causes no harm, Jeff. That's a bizarre POV, imo.

What is the big deal with you and strictly following the law anyway? I wonder about that. Will the US economy fail if someone breaks a law that results in no harm to anyone?

Look north, Jeff. Dead people in their gardens. Children without fathers because they were killed trying to protect their crops, or were trying to steal crops. Look in Santa Rosa, Jeff. Recent home invasion left children without a father, a wife without a husband and the entire community in fear now. "...no harm to anyone?" How much dope do you have to do to become as deluded as you about all of this, Jeff? That's ridiculous. That's Denial, sir.

Do you just like punishing someone for crossing a legal line that you don't (anymore)? Why so punitive, Don? What's that about? I really do want to understand. I'm not just trying to badger you.

I simply see the value in doing the right thing no matter what now, Jeff. The value is so immense I wouldn't even waste my time trying to explain it to someone who does drugs regularly, because drugs render people too blind to see. Laws are made for the benefit of both the individual and/or society as a whole. Those who follow them are free to focus on living, not on hiding or worrying about getting caught, Jeff. And don't lie to me again. You worry about getting busted. Everyone who has illegal substances in their possession does. Everyone. Including you. There's no freedom in that, Jeff, and in fact, what that does is make people like you extremely self-centered, virtually incapable of truly being available to help others because you have to qualify every possible contact with questions like "Will they turn me in if they find out I have dope?", "Are they cops?" and "Can I keep my drug use a secret?". All extremely selfish qualifiers which renders drug users incapable of helping anyone else on a grand scale. I could go on and on about this, Jeff, about how devastating and separating intoxicating drug use is on individuals and on society as a whole, but you'll just disagree with all of it anyway, incapable right now of seeing the truth.

BTW, my religion causes me to have secrets, Don. How about that? A mystery religion. No, I don't sacrifice children or even chickens, but some of my practices I just don't talk about. So keeping secrets is part of who I am. It makes me ... trustworthy; sort of like a psychiatrist or a lawyer.

I see. A mystery religion. Like a psychiatrist or a lawyer. Sounds pretty delusional to me, Jeff.

And I don't drive loaded. Perhaps you did while you were a pothead. I'm not a pothead and I don't. I don't drive while drunk either. In fact, although I like certain adult beverages very much, I don't like the high from alcohol, so I never get drunk.

Riiiiiiiiight. Riiiiiiiiiiight. Gosh, you probably have no idea how classic the things you post are, Jeff. Here's a little secret for you: Absolutely every alcoholic and drug addict who are active in their addictions feel led to make those same statements, without provocation, like you just did. Food for thought. You're probably not very hungry right now, though. :wink:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57523#post57523)
... Hey, if you don't like the law, get involved in politics and change it from the inside. ...

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I'm doing that Don, right now. I'm attempting to educate you: a very stubborn and resistant student. But this is one way I hone my skills. :):

You can't teach someone things they already know aren't true, Jeff.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57523#post57523)
...
Reasonable minds WILL prevail, and we will not make getting high legal. Having more loaded people will not help our society one iota, Jeff. Personally, I think it's comical that y'all think we'll ever make it legal. Look what you've done with medical marijuana. Abused it so badly that you're risking it being taken away from people for whom it's a true benefit, not just a coping tool for life. ...

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

On your second point, I agree, but legalize it and the issue will go away.

Like it did in Mendocino County? You are wrong, sir. Look north. There's proof that you're wrong. They're REcriminalizing marijuana. Legalization resulted in MORE crime, not less. See how upside down your thinking is right now, Jeff? Drugs do that to people, turn their thinking from rightside up to upside down. For many folks, it's been so long that their thinking has been upside down that they don't even remember it being any other way. Then Denial dictates that "I've always been this way".

On the first, I think you're misguided. I don't think a great many more people will start smoking pot if it suddenly becomes legal.

I agree.

That hasn't happened in other countries that legalized or decriminalized it. In fact, in the European countries that have decriminalized it, rates are far lower than in the US. What has happened in those countries is that tourists, often from the US, do a lot of foolish partying while visiting and give the US a bad reputation. I'm sorry about that. If it was legal here too, that problem would also diminish.

Riiiiiiight. Riiiiiiight. Like it did in Mendocino County, you mean?

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57523#post57523)
... Abused it so badly that you're risking it being taken away from people for whom it's a true benefit, not just a coping tool for life.
...

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

You know Don, you are very limited in your thinking. You see everyone else through the lens of your own limited experience. I keep hoping you can open your mind to the idea that not everyone's experiences are similar to yours.

Denial dictates that we're all so different, Jeff. I have news for you. After years and years of experience both in the drug world and out, education, self-analysis, counseling, counseling others, lecturing, teaching classe on overcoming addictions, I can say with confidence that you're dead wrong, sir. We're not all so different, Jeff. Same emotions. Different experiences. Different circumstances. Different woundedness. Same feelings. We are far more alike than we are different. The need to hide keeps us from seeing that. We're all so unique, dontcha' know. Well, whenever you decide you'd like to see what the Real World is like, we'll be here waiting for you, ready to help you out of that dream world you've been living in for so long.

Not everyone uses pot as a coping tool for life.

A few use it for medical reasons. The others all use it as a coping tool for life, a crutch. They use it because it gives them relief, 'takes the edge off', helps them relax. Why do they need relief from life, and what "edge" do they take off, and why can't they just relax without it? Because they lack the coping tools and living skills to do those things without drugs.

In fact, I know many dozens of pot smokers and I can't think of a single one that uses it in that manner.

Of course you can't.

I'm sure there are such people, and I truly believe they will use whether it's legal or not, and the amount they use will be about the same whether it's legal or not. Let's just legalize it so they can do what they do and not bother anyone.

There is the addict's bottom line, Jeff. And to those of us not caught up in the insanity and Denial that comes with illegal drug use/abuse/addiction, we don't see the logic in that.

What will be change if pot is legalized is the loss of revenue to the criminal element.

Because criminals won't be criminals any longer. Wow.

Violence will be reduced, as you commented on above.

I certainly didn't say that, Jeff. LOL Where do get this stuff?

Prices will plummet because anyone that wants to grow their own will do it. Those who grow their own like to share so there will be a diminishing market for it.

You mean like Mendocino County? It's legal there. Did prices "plummet"? If they're all sharing it, why are people being killed protecting their crops? See? Your thinking is upside down on this. Reality is completely 180 degrees from where you live.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was less crime? Wouldn't it be nice if the black market came a little further into the light? Wouldn't it be nice if cops stopped killing children they mistook for dangerous "drug dealers?"

Wouldn't it be nice to win the lottery? Wouldn't it be nice to marry Miss America? Wouldn't it be nice to find a couple pounds of killer weed? Pipe dreams, Jeff. Legalizing pot will not accomplish what you've listed above. Mendocino County has proven that.

You know, I could post a horror story every day about cops abusing their authority the way Reportanddeport does regarding illegal aliens. Would that help you understand how important it is to decriminalize these medicines?

Not as long as I'm aware that not participating in illegal drug use would completely solve that problem. It's called "personal responsibility", Jeff.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57523#post57523)
...
There is a reason "to break up families and imprison grandmothers and steal their property", Jeff. They are breaking the law, which makes them criminals. People involved in illegal drug use/sales lose their stuff. See, the problem is that you folks think you should be ABOVE the law. ...

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Don, I'm appalled you think this way.

Think what "way", Jeff? If you choose to break the law, you intentionally risk the consequences. It's called "personal responsibility". It's amazing. No families breaking up due to drugs when no one is doing illegal drugs. No grandmothers imprisoned when Grandma doesn't use illegal drugs. No property confiscated when people aren't doing illegal drugs. Use your head, Jeff, for something besides a drug depostitory. :wink:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57523#post57523)
...
News flash to you and your grandma: Don't break the law and you won't get arrested or lose your stuff. You CHOOSE to take that risk, Jeff. Empathy doesn't run thick for people who choose to be criminals. ...

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Obviously not from you. That's too bad. I wonder how Jesus would have felt about grandmothers having their homes taken away and being put in prison because they grew an unauthorized plant in their garden.

I can tell you how Jesus felt. Jesus would tell Grandma "Sin no more", sin being defined as breaking the law. That is to say, "Take responsibility for yourself and practice some principles like honesty".

Bonus question:
Don, do you know what the one drug of abuse is that has dropped in number of users every year for decades? ... and why? -Jeff

Is this even relevant, Jeff? :wink:

thewholetruth

05-06-2008, 10:16 AM

Don, I think you're an ignorant man, filled with arrogant pride and not afraid to appear as a stubborn fool.

And I, you. Interesting that we both perceive each other in the same way, considering our beliefs and positions are polar opposites.

Your comments about pride being a sin were pretty laughable to me.

I don't believe I made any such comments, Jeff. More of "your truth" rather than THE truth? Show me my "comments about pride being a sin", will you? Or at least admit you made that up.

Your foolish, ignorant pride is your most obvious feature.

Projection, thy name is Jeff. Ironic, isn't it?

I'll bet you do it with a big smile, that certain, arrogant smile of a Christian who's certain of his salvation.

This is called "Ad Hominum Abusive", Jeff, and it has no place in intelligent dialogue. If you can't do better than this, perhaps this has gotten a little over your head.

I'll leave you with this:

Jeff, you're doing nothing but engaging in Ad Hominum crap now. I get it. You can't handle the truth. The entire rest of your post is 100% ad hominum attack, and it's pathetic. Oh, I get it. You believe you've lost this argument so you resort to this. I agree. You've lost the argument when you stoop to this sort of thing.

I admit I can't help you. -Jeff

Again, we seem to be in agreement. What a nice way to end a post. :wink:

Don

Lenny

05-06-2008, 12:26 PM

Jeff, what do you think of Don's claim that, presently, many/most pot smokers under the medical exception, do not in fact have medical reasons to smoke pot, and that this undermines the provision for legitimate medical users?

In all honesty, and truth, everyone KNOWS that the medical marijuana issue is a hoax and bogus and is simply getting pot in under the radar. No big deal, so far.
I know, you have a few medical folks in the community that have "proven" pot is wonderful for this, that, and the other thing. Bad science is all that is. While the other 99.9% of the medical community calls the whole pot is "medicine" for what it is: bogus!
Personally, if a few old hippies want or need their pot, and the culture remains "mellow" I could care less, but not by much. Over time though, things like this alter a social structure, and, to be judgmental (gasp), it is for the worse! :2cents:

Lenny

05-06-2008, 12:42 PM

I'm not big on beliefs, Don. I base my spirituality on science and experience. I agree that obvious truths are ... obvious. Other truths develop with the accumulation of evidence. You should know that I didn't challenge your beliefs or your faith. You made statements that are difficult to support and I used your method to require you to support those statements. You are one of the guys around here that demands people prove themselves.
OK, Don. Never mind. I'll do your work for you. I gave you an opportunity ..
Here's a goofy Christian site that looks like a good place to get started : https://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php
There are a lot of statements that need following up on, and I will, but not now. I have work to do. It's been fun though.-Jeff

After watching you two, almost a waste of time, there should be a spanking for both.
Jeff, how can you base your "spirituality" (whatever does that mean?) on science? Science is one of the few disciplines that stands only to correct itself. It makes no claim for any truth, just facts, only measures the "outside" of stuff, and when wrong, immediately reverts or moves onto something that is parsimonious and does not expand the human being! I am in shock and awe!
As for your "experience" being another "ground" for the same: when I walk away from you and you remain stationary, you "experience" me getting smaller. So am I? Well, maybe in other posts, but in "reality" I am not, but that is not your "experience", although it is naive experience. Then how does one know what is NOT naive experience, especially in light of science? I mean ALL we can know of our experience IS what our nervous system tells us, no? No, wait, you DID answer that already in, "I agree that obvious truths are ... obvious. Other truths develop with the accumulation of evidence.".
But in the end, you are right again. We got stuff to do and this takes more time than we have in this life.
As for you, Don.....more later. :2cents:

thewholetruth

05-06-2008, 01:26 PM

After watching you two, almost a waste of time, there should be a spanking for both.

Uh-oh. Now we did it.

We got stuff to do and this takes more time than we have in this life.

I'm on vacation. Not going to Hawaii this time, just not going to work this week. So, it seems, anyhow, with my perspective, that I do have the time right now.

As for you, Don.....more later. :2cents: 

I sense that it's going to be quite the spanking this time, Lenny. I suspect that perhaps I deserve it. Perhaps. More will be revealed.

Don

Lorrie

05-06-2008, 02:15 PM

Don and Jeff I did some research on line... Just a little
the search I did was "Marijuana Related Crimes"

I found a few sights but this is one I think you both should read...
I saw this part Don: Fact: Every serious scholar and government commission examining the relationship between marijuana use and crime has reached the same conclusion: marijuana does not cause crime. The vast majority of marijuana users do not commit crimes other than the crime of possessing marijuana. Among marijuana users who do commit crimes, marijuana plays no causal role. Almost all human and animal studies show that marijuana decreases rather than increases aggression.
on this site:https://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

and:
ViolenceViolent crime is not frequently associated with the abuse of marijuana in New York. Marijuana abusers generally are characterized as nonviolent, and the drug's effects typically depend upon the user's personality and expectations. Low doses of marijuana tend to induce relaxation, and high doses may cause image distortion, loss of personal identity, fantasies, and hallucinations.
https://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs2/2580/marijuan.htm
and:
75% of drug-related criminal charges are connected to marijuana.
65% of people arrested for marijuana related crimes are for simple possession.https://www.addictionnomore.com/pot_addiction.html
AND:
In the case of violent crime, we find a statistically significant association with arrests but not reported crime, suggesting that marijuana use may just influence the likelihood of getting caught committing these crimes.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w10046

Most all of these sites report that the marijuana related crimes when involving the smoker is simply possession. The violent crimes are caused by those who sell or grow. or people that want what those who sell or grow have.

Pot smokers themselves are not violent criminals, but because the law is as it is... they are criminals for possession.
:2cents:

thewholetruth

05-06-2008, 04:53 PM

Don and Jeff I did some research on line... Just a little
the search I did was "Marijuana Related Crimes"

Thanks for going to the trouble, Lorrie. As a professional working with addicts in recovery, I admit that it would be easy for someone to make a case for legalization if you only looked at some of the facts. If you add in some very significant additional information such as the fact that most methamphetamine addicts, heroin addicts and crack addicts got their start on pot, it sort of changes how attractive legalization appears. Unless, of course, you wouldn't mind risking your son or daughter getting their start on pot.

Young people who smoke marijuana are two to five times more likely to move on to harder drugs. That is the formal opinion of researchers, who published their conclusions from a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). https://www.marijuana-detox.com/news-left.htm?aid=49

Did you read that fact, Lorrie? Young people who smoke marijuana are two to five times more likely to move on to harder drugs. Makes me wonder how people like Jeff can say that pot is harmless. It's just not true.

Jeff is correct when he said he can't teach me anything, Lorrie. I pull people out of the fire every single day, people who, like me, were taught that "pot is harmless". Who is teaching them that pot is harmless? People who use/abuse/are addicted, who are already dependent on, abuse and/or are addicted to pot and other drugs. I get to see, up close, the devastated lives, the broken families, the severed relationships with parents, spouses and children, bright, talented and capable men and women who have become homeless and/or incarcerated who apply for our program, and the drug of choice they list is "pot".

You can gather up all the statistics you want, Lorrie. They don't stand up to the walking, talking statistics I work with every day who struggle to overcome the irresposible misinformation that the world has filled their heads with and taught them all their lives, which, as it turns out, isn't true. Pot isn't harmless.

That's like saying heroin is harmless. 'It's the USE, not the drug, that is harmful.' That's what every addict says. It's a lie from Hell. Pot is not harmless, Lorrie.

Don

Zeno Swijtink

05-06-2008, 05:24 PM

Young people who smoke marijuana are two to five times more likely to move on to harder drugs. That is the formal opinion of researchers, who published their conclusions from a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). https://www.marijuana-detox.com/news-left.htm?aid=49

Here is the JAMA editorial that accompanies the study Don's source is referring to. The editorial concludes that the study did not establish that a true causal link exists between the use of marijuana and other drugs.

****

Vol. 289 No. 4, January 22, 2003

Does Marijuana Use Cause the Use of Other Drugs?
Denise B. Kandel, PhD
JAMA.*2003;289:482-483.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author and Reprints: Denise B. Kandel, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, 1051 Riverside Dr, Unit 20, New York, NY 10032.
Editorials represent the opinions of the authors and THE JOURNAL and not those of the American Medical Association.

A developmental sequence of involvement in drugs is one of the best replicated findings in the epidemiology of drug use. Regular sequences and stages of progression in which the use of alcohol and cigarettes precedes the use of marijuana (cannabis), and, in turn, the use of marijuana precedes the use of other illicit drugs, has been observed in the United States as well as in other western societies.1 Very few individuals who have tried cocaine and heroin have not already used marijuana; the majority have previously used alcohol or tobacco. Such behavioral regularities are subsumed under the "gateway hypothesis." The gateway hypothesis implies 3 interrelated propositions about sequencing, association of initiation, and causation.1 Sequencing implies that there is a fixed relationship between 2 substances, such that one substance is regularly initiated before the other. Association implies that initiation of one substance increases the likelihood of initiation of the second substance. Causation implies that use of the first substance actually causes use of the second substance. Causation, a controversial proposition, is the one most widely invoked in policy debates and is the proposition addressed in the article by Lynskey et al in this issue of THE JOURNAL.2

Several strategies are available for determining the causal role of a lower-stage drug in the sequence on initiation of a higher-stage drug. In one strategy, epidemiologists attempt to specify the role of prior drug use on the subsequent use of other drug classes by controlling for theoretically relevant covariates and other confounding factors. Analyses based on this approach find that marijuana retains a significant association with the subsequent use of other illicit drugs even after control for risk and protective factors.3-4

However, in naturalistic population studies, it is not possible to control for all potential relevant factors. Morral et al5 have attempted to overcome this limitation by developing a simulation model, which assumes that the use of marijuana and other illicit drugs is explained solely by a general propensity to use drugs and the ages at first opportunity to use and at first actual use of marijuana and other illicit drugs. This common-factor model replicates the empirical association between marijuana and other illicit drugs observed in a national sample without positing an effect of the use of marijuana itself.5 However, the fit of this model was not compared with one in which the causal effect of marijuana use on initiation of use of other illicit drugs would also explicitly be taken into account. The argument would be stronger if the 2 models had been tested and the common-factor model was found to provide as good a fit as the causal model. While the simulation model of Morral et al does not disprove the existence of a causal relationship between marijuana and other illicit drugs, it provides an alternative interpretation.

A second strategy is to evaluate the impact of prevention or intervention programs implemented among youths to prevent or reduce drug use. Such programs provide an imperfect substitution for an unrealizable social experiment in which adolescents would be randomly assigned to initiate the use of different drugs. However, programs designed to prevent or stop use of lower-stage drugs also seem to stop or reduce use of higher-stage drugs, as reported in Kandel.1

Still a third strategy is the use of genetically informative samples. This approach has not previously been implemented to test the gateway hypothesis and represents a unique contribution of the work of Lynskey et al.2 In a previous report6 based on data from a large sample of Australian twins born in 1964 to 1971, Lynskey et al concluded that genetic risk factors are important determinants of the risk of marijuana dependence, at least among men. In the current report, based on a subsample of 311 same-sex twin pairs from the Australian cohort who were discordant for early marijuana use by age 17 years, Lynskey et al find that early marijuana use by itself, even after control for other covariates, increases significantly the use of other illicit drugs.2 As the authors emphasize, the strength of the twin design is that twins are assumed to share the same environment and family experiences, and monozygotic pairs share the same genetic risk. If these factors explained the association between early marijuana use and the use of other illicit drugs, the risk of using these drugs would be the same for early marijuana-using twins and their discordant co-twins. But it is not. Thus, Lynskey at al conclude that "The results . . . were consistent with early cannabis use having a causal role as a risk factor for other drug use and for any drug abuse or dependence."2 But is the assumption of common environmental influences among twins too strong? An argument can be made that even identical twins do not share the same environment during adolescence and that environmental differences can lead to learned differences in the brain, which in turn would lead to differences in behaviors. The effect attributed to early marijuana use could in part be due to nonshared environmental influences.

One of the best strategies to test the gateway hypothesis may be the use of animal models, such as rats or mice, in which animals can be assigned to a number of different drug use paradigms. Animal models provide a test of progression in which drug seeking can be observed in relation to well-defined prior experiences with specific drugs and independent of any social, legal, or moral definitions regarding the use of various substances. Such models may also help identify some of the critical biological processes involved in drug use behavior. Prior exposure to one class of drug may sensitize the animal to the use of other drug classes and increase the consumption of these drugs.7

While animal models cannot mimic the variety of cultural, social, and psychological factors that determine drug behavior in human populations, eg, norms, peer influences, personal meanings, personal traits, and so on, animal models can examine whether prior use of a drug per se increases the risk of the use of another drug class. This is the fundamental question that underlies the gateway hypothesis. But very few such animal experiments have been conducted, especially with marijuana, and most have focused on priming by one class of drug on the subsequent use of the same drug. Lynskey et al cite 2 recent studies. The work by Cardoni et al8 is of particular interest because it has documented not only cross-sensitization between repeated exposure to 9-tetrahydrocannabinol and opiates, but also reverse sensitization between morphine and cannabinoids. These experiments have important implications for human drug behavior and for the gateway hypothesis. With cross-sensitization, exposure to one class of drug increases consumption of other drug classes, consistent with the existence of a gateway effect. Reverse sensitization suggests that the particular sequence observed in any society may be determined by availability, cultural norms, or other factors.

Whether or not a true causal link exists between the use of marijuana and other drugs, the association between the 2 has been well established. It is important, however, to appreciate that the progression is not inevitable. Not all those who try marijuana will subsequently use cocaine or become heroin addicts. For policy makers, the gateway hypothesis raises 2 issues depending on whether the population of interest has or has not yet used marijuana. For a population of nonusers, the issue is: will preventing the use of marijuana prevent the use of other illicit drugs? Hopefully it will, for prevention efforts will presumably affect the underlying risk and protective factors related to the onset of marijuana use, whether or not these factors are shared with the onset of the use of other illicit drugs. For youths who have already used marijuana, the issue is: can and should intervention programs be developed to target this group at very high risk for progressing to other substances? It appears so. A marijuana user is at risk for using other illicit drugs, and measures to prevent subsequent use of these drugs are warranted. Interventions should focus on those factors that are associated with the use of illicit drugs, whether they are common to marijuana and the use of other illicit drugs or whether they are specific to illicit drugs other than marijuana. As noted by Lynskey et al,2 there are health risks associated with chronic marijuana use that also support intervention.

Finally, what inferences can be drawn about the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes? Will medical use increase the risk of using other illicit drugs? There are, unfortunately, no empirical data to guide policy. However, inferences can be made from appropriate medical use of morphine, which does not lead to addiction. This is a curious phenomenon that points out the complexity of drug behavior and the role of psychological and social conditions in shaping its development.

Thus, the central question remains: does marijuana use cause the use of other illicit drugs? The search for causes in the absence of direct experimental manipulation may be elusive. Nevertheless, the search for mechanisms is necessary if only to explain the association between the use of different drug classes. In particular, the progression from marijuana to other illicit drugs needs to be pursued. In this search, epidemiologists must collaborate with scientists who study drug behavior in animal models because each has much to contribute to the other's quest. In this collaboration, epidemiologists can pose and specify the overall questions that need to be addressed, whereas animal researchers can use their models to test causation and provide insights into the neurobiological mechanisms underlying progression in drug use. But only in a human—"a model organism for the gods,"as poetically defined by Sydney Brenner in his recent Nobel Prize lecture9—can one explore the many other social, psychological, and contextual factors that are also important in drug use behavior.

Funding/Support: Work on this editorial was supported by Research Scientist Award DA00081 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Author Affiliations: Department of Sociomedical Sciences, School of Public Health, and Department of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, and New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY.

REFERENCES

1. Kandel DB, ed. Stages and Pathways of Drug Involvement: Examining the Gateway Hypothesis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2002.

2. Lynskey MT, Heath AC, Bucholz KK, et al. Escalation of drug use in early-onset cannabis users vs co-twin controls. JAMA. 2003;289:427-433. FREE FULL TEXT

3. Yamaguchi K, Kandel DB. Patterns of drug use from adolescence to young adulthood, III: predictors of progression. Am J Public Health. 1984;74:673-681. FREE FULL TEXT

4. Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ. Early onset cannabis use and psychosocial adjustment in young adults. Addiction. 1997;92:279-296. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED

5. Morral AR, McCaffrey DF, Paddock SM. Reassessing the marijuana gateway effect. Addiction. 2002;97:1493-1503. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED

6. Lynskey MT, Heath AC, Nelson EC, et al. Genetic and environmental contributions to cannabis dependence in a national young adult twin sample. Psychol Med. 2002;32:195-207. ISI | PUBMED

7. Schenk S. Sensitization as a process underlying the progression of drug use via gateway drugs. In: Kandel DB, ed. Stages and Pathways of Drug Involvement: Examining the Gateway Hypothesis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2002:318-336.

8. Cardoni C, Pisanu A, Solinas M, et al. Behavioural sensitization after repeated exposure to 9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cross-sensitization with morphine. Psychopharmacology. 2001;158:259-266. FULL TEXT | PUBMED

9. Brenner S. Nature's gift to science. Lecture, Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. Presented at: The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet; December 8, 2002; Stockholm, Sweden.

RELATED ARTICLE

Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls
Michael T. Lynskey, Andrew C. Heath, Kathleen K. Bucholz, Wendy S. Slutske, Pamela A. F. Madden, Elliot C. Nelson, Dixie J. Statham, and Nicholas G. Martin
JAMA. 2003;289(4):427-433.

Braggi

05-06-2008, 05:36 PM

... Makes me wonder how people like Jeff can say that pot is harmless. ... Pot is not harmless, Lorrie. ...

You're pretty good at the straw man arguments, Don. I never said pot is harmless and neither did Lorrie.

However, your blinders do prevent you from understanding the bottom line of the articles Lorrie posted: the greatest harms from pot come from the fact that it's illegal.

For Lenny: nhttps://www.naturalnews.com/023172.html

For Ron Paul supporters (isn't that you Don?):
https://www.nolanchart.com/article3688.html

For those who think pot isn't medicine: https://www.counterpunch.org/gardner05032008.html

I don't think you actually follow any of these links, Don. Perhaps if you did you'd be better informed.

Blessings,

-Jeff

Braggi

05-06-2008, 08:12 PM

...
I don't believe I made any such comments, Jeff. More of "your truth" rather than THE truth? Show me my "comments about pride being a sin", will you? Or at least admit you made that up. ...

I think it was this one that I had in mind: "Choosing to practice humility displaces pride. One can't be humble and prideful at the same time, in the same way that we can't be in fear and in faith at the same time. Humility, faith, perseverence, self-discipline, compassion, patience, love, honesty, willingness - all are principles that we can either choose to practice or refuse to practice. Practicing them gives us peace and draws us closer to God. Not practicing them makes us miserable and draws us closer to the enemy. One cannot be in self-will and God's will at the same time, either. There is spiritual warfare going on out there, although the spiritually asleep always deny that."

That was quite a sermon, although the mirror would be a place to study it's points.

I realize you didn't say that pride is a sin, exactly. Forgive me for that misstatement.

In any case, humility certainly isn't your strong suit. Not here at least.

-Jeff

PS. I can't resist commenting on the spiritual warfare mention. I'm sorry for you that you feel the need to be at war with yourself (I have to guess that's what you mean: that your inner demons are at war). I've heard Christian ministers waxing on about just that issue. Perhaps some meditation would help. I don't think most Buddhists, for example, are engaging in spiritual warfare. But then, they don't believe in your Satan, so it's easier for them.

Braggi

05-06-2008, 08:17 PM

...
I sense that it's going to be quite the spanking this time, Lenny. I suspect that perhaps I deserve it. Perhaps. More will be revealed.

Don

I nominate Tinque to do the spanking!!!

:whip:

-Jeff

Braggi

05-06-2008, 08:24 PM

Quote:
Braggi wrote:
Bonus question:
Don, do you know what the one drug of abuse is that has dropped in number of users every year for decades? ... and why? -Jeff

...
Is this even relevant, Jeff? :wink:

Yes it is, because if you know the answer it will tell me you've been paying attention and that you actually know something about the subject you claim to be an expert on.

It will also be a good issue to further flesh out this topic.

But, I have not known you to bother to do anything that requires research or learning of any sort in this conversation. It seems to me that you are intellectually lazy, Don.

So here's the challenge: answer that question.

Then we'll have something solid to discuss further. There is something that's working and it's on this one particular drug of abuse. You should know about it if you don't. It's the one hope to turn this mess around.

Good luck,

-Jeff

Braggi

05-06-2008, 08:30 PM

...
Jeff, how can you base your "spirituality" (whatever does that mean?) on science? Science is one of the few disciplines that stands only to correct itself. It makes no claim for any truth, just facts, only measures the "outside" of stuff, and when wrong, immediately reverts or moves onto something that is parsimonious and does not expand the human being! I am in shock and awe!
As for your "experience" being another "ground" for the same: when I walk away from you and you remain stationary, you "experience" me getting smaller. So am I? Well, maybe in other posts, but in "reality" I am not, but that is not your "experience", although it is naive experience. Then how does one know what is NOT naive experience, especially in light of science? I mean ALL we can know of our experience IS what our nervous system tells us, no? ...

Well, Lenny, you don't understand. I'm not surprised.

Some things should just remain a mystery.

-Jeff

Braggi

05-06-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:
Braggi wrote:
I'm really tired but I do have to address a couple more points. Sorry readers, please bear with me.

You might want to tell your ego that perhaps we're the only readers of your comments, Jeff. I hope you aren't imagining you have an audience. People tend to perform for audiences. I would hope you could manage to just be honest here. Performing is so droll in a conversation. ...

Don, once again you expose your ignorance and your arrogance.

This is how Waccobb.net works: most of the members subscribe to the "Daily Digest." You probably have about 5,000 people watching you embarrass yourself.

How about that? We are performing before an audience!

-Jeff

Valley Oak

05-06-2008, 08:43 PM

Thank you, Jeff! I had a hearty, out loud laugh when I read this.

Edward

Quote:
Braggi wrote:

...You probably have about 5,000 people watching you embarrass yourself...

-Jeff

Braggi

05-07-2008, 08:03 AM

...

The truth is that there has been such an increase in pot related crimes, serious crimes like home invasions, robberies, shootings and killings, Jeff. This isn't about some imaginary problem. This is about getting shot and robbed. THAT is why they are REcriminalizing pot. ...

Don, this is actually real simple. I asked you to think about it, but I realize that's a challenge for you.

The problem with Mendocino County being a safe haven for growers is that it is illegal in the rest of the state and the rest of North America. Got that?

I would be plentiful and cheap or free if it were legalized. There would be no home invasions, robberies, shootings etc. Don. If you can't see that I think it's more evidence how hobbled you are by the blinders of your own experience. Again I ask you, open your mind if you can.

If it were legalized associated crime would nearly disappear because the value would drop to nearly nothing.

The police could then focus on actual crimes, like the ones you mentioned, but the cause of those crimes would be something else; such as thieves going after money or prescription drugs. It would be a good thing if the cops didn't have to waste their time going after people growing plants.

Here's something you might enjoy reading: https://lists.csociety.org/pipermail/purduenorml-news/2004-February/000042.html

"No Adverse Impact On Driving Performance, Study Says
London, United Kingdom: Volunteers who had previously consumed cannabis
performed better than non-users on a driving simulator test, according
to findings of a study published this week by Britain's Evening News.
A group of 20 volunteers participated in the study, which tested
respondents' performances on a video game that simulated driving. Half
of the drivers played the game after smoking the equivalent of half a
marijuana cigarette.
"The results showed that for those who had smoked ... cannabis: 80
percent demonstrated superior reaction times; 60 percent finished a lap
faster; 70 percent experienced a lower number of collisions; 60 percent
reached a higher level in the game," the Evening News reported. In head
to head match-ups versus non-users, cannabis users performed better in
eight out of ten match-ups. However, when the dosage was increased to
the equivalent of two marijuana cigarettes, non-users won the majority
of one-on-one contests. ... [end quote]

So there you have it, Don. Limit your smoking to one joint and you'll be a better driver. (No, I don't actually believe it's a good thing to smoke and drive, but this is an interesting study nonetheless.)

-Jeff

Lorrie

05-07-2008, 09:44 AM

MsTerry

05-07-2008, 10:02 AM

Can you show me the specific examples and names of the people involved in the violent crimes you mentioned that pertain specifically to pot smoking only?
Cause I couldn't find any...
LMAO Lorrie
There is only one person on this board that consistently uses the word The Truth as if he owns it, this same person fabricates facts as if it is a commodity.
Why do you think Sir Don accuses others of lying when he can't stand a test of scrutiny himself?

thewholetruth

05-07-2008, 12:39 PM

Uh, Don, I was as Braggi pointed out only talking about the violent crimes you talked about: you said, "The truth is that there has been such an increase in pot related crimes, serious crimes like home invasions, robberies, shootings and killings..."

That is correct. I was referring specifically to Mendocino County, as I said in that post.

Those studies and reports I posted don't agree with what you say for the "average" user. I think that most user don't use enough to cause any harm. A coupla hits and everythings great!

Lorrie, three things: 1) I was talking specifically about the problems Mendocino has now that they've legalized pot. They are REcriminalizing it, Lorrie, because there has been such an increase in pot related crimes, serious crimes like home invasions, robberies, shooting and killings in Mendocino County. 2) Studies show that children who smoke pot are 2 to 5 times more likely to use hard drugs, everythings NOT great when your kids are getting stoned. 3) A coupla hits and everything isn't great, Lorrie. You're just stoned now, imagining that things are great. Nothing's really changed except that you're now loaded. It's an illusion, Lorrie, that "everything's great". Just an illusion.

Now, I am sure there are the serious users... 2 joints in the morning to joints just to pass the time 2 joints at night... like that song...But I think they would be too stoned to do anything else in public.
And I don't think that is an average pot smoker... at least that is not my experience when dealing with the pot smokers I know. As a matter of fact all of the pot smokers I know do not have an inkling to do any VIOLENT crimes.
The crime is possession for them, if caught. And in California if you are in possession of under an ounce I think? Its either dismissed or some fine or probation or something leinent.

We were talking about legalization, Lorrie, not using illegal substances.

Can you show me the specific examples and names of the people involved in the violent crimes you mentioned that pertain specifically to pot smoking only?
Cause I couldn't find any...

Try here, Lorrie. https://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ Look under their archives perhaps. THere are some propositions up there which will REcriminalize pot. You could always read the paper if you want to know what's going on up there, like I do. I've been following the news ongoing in the PD, and I have news for you: Everything's not great, Lorrie. You're just too stoned to see that. :wink:

Don

Braggi

05-07-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:
Braggi wrote:
Nice to know you're compassionate with medical use, at least. You should know, and I mean, you really should know, that no doctor gives "prescriptions" for medical pot. A doctor can give a "recommendation" and there is a big difference. You still have to go out and "score" afterward.

...
Not true, Jeff. Prescription + medical marijuana card = scoring at the Medical Marijuana Grocer nearest you.

Quote:
Braggi wrote:
Good luck with that. I'm not sure the kid on the street corner would trust you. -Jeff

The kid on the street corner will never see me, Jeff, until he decides he needs help. :wink:

Don, I'm trying to educate you here. Listen up. In California there is no such thing as a marijuana "prescription." It is not legal for a physician to write such a prescription and there is no pharmacy that stocks it, so the prescription would be useless.

What Prop. 15 provides for, since its authors knew the above, is for physicians to write "recommendations" for marijuana if the physician believes it would be a reasonable treatment.

That's the law, Don. TheWholeTruth? Well, I don't claim that, but you can read the law if you wish to verify what I'm saying.

-Jeff

Braggi

05-07-2008, 01:17 PM

...
Jeff, you're doing nothing but engaging in Ad Hominum crap now. I get it. You can't handle the truth. The entire rest of your post is 100% ad hominum attack, and it's pathetic. Oh, I get it. You believe you've lost this argument so you resort to this. I agree. You've lost the argument when you stoop to this sort of thing. ...

Ad Homiinum it was but the only thing I apologize for is that I posted it here. I should have sent it as a private email. That said, it's now out so let's talk about why I resorted to it.

First, it was sincere and I truly believe it. You have some serious personality issues that no therapist should avoid facing vin themselves. I think you could really use some help, but perhaps some study and meditation would help. Even though thousands of people are reading along with us, few are willing to participate with someone as arrogant and insulting as you are Don.

You've called me names and insulted me a great many times in this exchange. If I've offended you, I think I've earned the right. Turn about is fair play, I've heard. Thing is, I can support what I've said and you can't.

For instance, your pretty constant refrain is that I'm deluded (which is an actual psychiatricly definable condition), that I use substances to escape from my life, that my thinking is dulled and on and on. Dozens of times, Don. That's rude and beneath contempt coming from someone who's supposed to be a therapist. And I've demonstrated over and over, if you actually read what I write, that I'm neither deluded nor is my thinking very dull. Most think I'm actually pretty sharp! What a surprise.

Conditions I've accused you of you have amply demonstrated in this forum. The rest is my opinion, which I claim as my own and implied or directly stated as such. (The statement "I think ..." or the equivalent means I claim it as an opinion.)

I don't know you Don, and yet, I know things about you that you are unwilling to face when I state them. Avoidance is the term you used, and aptly so with regard to yourself. I guess both of us could use some time looking in that mirror. Thing is, I actually do self examination on a regular basis. Do you?

You've avoided nearly every question any poster here has asked you. You purposefully twist what people say into something they didn't mean and then trash that meaning. You are unwilling to do much of anything in the way of reading or study to support your points of view. If you do you don't share the links with us. I suppose that's because your sources wouldn't stand up to scrutiny as with your recent post linking pot use to further drug use.

You don't have much integrity around here Don. That could change, but you'll have to earn it.

-Jeff

Lorrie

05-07-2008, 01:52 PM

You know what, Don dear...?
I don't care what you were talking about. Don. I asked a specific question, one apparently, you could not answer. (which I come across alot hence my other posting)

Now, you have made me angry. Because you are being rude, assumptive and calling me names. And I am pissed. Did you think this would get your point (whatever that is anymore) across?

First of all I am NOT stoned.

Boy I guess I just asked to be attacked when I decided to get into this conversation, is that it? Geesh.

That is correct. I was referring specifically to Mendocino County, as I said in that post.

I was not, to me it did not matter where. I wanted you to back up what you were saying with hard evidence... you show me an online newspaper that says what I have been saying.

Lorrie, three things: 1) I was talking specifically about the problems Mendocino has now that they've legalized pot. They are REcriminalizing it, Lorrie, because there has been such an increase in pot related crimes, serious crimes like home invasions, robberies, shooting and killings in Mendocino County. Don, The newspaper you pointed to were not at all VIOLENT crimes. One was about people house being raided...they were growning and in possesion...but! There were other more serious (imo) drugs too. No violence there though. 2nd article was about possesion again + more serious drugs too. But no violence. 3rd article was possession as well. + other drugs too... Were is the VIOLENCE? Only people home invading were cops.
No guns, nobody died. SHOW ME DON where, with only pot involved does that happen SHOW ME!!! Where is the increase? Show me where this violence is with ONLY Pot involved and no other drugs!
2) Studies show that children who smoke pot are 2 to 5 times more likely to use hard drugs, everythings NOT great when your kids are getting stoned.
I don't care about the choices kids make, with the help of pier pressure or parental examples, about moving on to other drugs...the statistics I have read do not support what you say. I am only talking about POT ALONE!

3) A coupla hits and everything isn't great, Lorrie. You're just stoned now, imagining that things are great. Nothing's really changed except that you're now loaded. It's an illusion, Lorrie, that "everything's great". Just an illusion.

THIS IS ONLY YOUR OPINION THIS IS NOT FACT. YOU ARE TOTALLY OVER EXAGGERATING WITH NO EXECPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALLITY, QUANTITIES, OR CIRCUMSTANCE~!~!
I also think well, what the hell good is it for them to smoke pot if they didn't get an illusion out of it! There would be no reason to smoke it if so many people did not have good things to say or experience from it! People like it. More people like it than those who don't.

I say more power to those who have no coping skills, at least they don't have to worry about it for alittle while...then again it depends on how sever the thing they have to cope with is! Its probably not their fault they don't have coping skills anyway! Where does that fault lie if they don't have coping skills?
Could be medicinal here!

You would be put more to good use with your ranting if you were concentrating on much harder drugs with which to rescue people.

Those other drugs are the ones that will cause violence, hallucinations, illusions and everything else that they can do i.e. destroy families etc. I have lost many a friend to meth. I am not experienced with examples of heroin or other stuff. But I do know they will cause much damage to a person's life, and how they can really loose their mental capacities, til they are no longer the person I once knew.

I know that the people I know that smoke pot are not strung out and can function just fine in their everyday lives, they all have great jobs, houses, cars and money. They are the same just a little more relaxed when smoking pot only.

They do not grow it and they do not sell it

We were talking about legalization, Lorrie, not using illegal substances. So! I moved on to a different subject. I wasn't talking about either one of those Don. I was talking about where you talked about how violent crimes were evident (per "The truth is that there has been such an increase in pot related crimes, serious crimes like home invasions, robberies, shootings and killings")...where only pot was consumed.

Try here, Lorrie. https://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ Look under their archives perhaps. THere are some propositions up there which will REcriminalize pot. You could always read the paper if you want to know what's going on up there, like I do. I've been following the news ongoing in the PD, and I have news for you: Everything's not great, Lorrie. You're just too stoned to see that. :wink:

Don

Again I am NOT stoned and You have not proved anything true about pot alone. The people in everyday life are fine with a couple a hits in the evening or whenever responsibly. I think you are exposed to the worst of the worst but they are probably so far gone from the other drugs they are illegally taking, that my guess Don is that you don't even have to confront pot issues with them, if this is what you think and cannot prove otherwise.

You should just go back and smoke some. DON! and chill. But I know that you don't want to break the law and that is probably the only reason that you dont.

Don Do you think you could give a guess on how many people out there in the whole entire world is smoking this stuff.

I THINK THAT SAYS SOMETHING!:thumbsup:

thewholetruth

05-07-2008, 02:32 PM

Um, Lorrie? I was responding to this comment you made, honey:

A coupla hits and everythings great!

So I said everything is NOT great, Lorrie, that you're just stoned. You said it. I just commented on it.

Do you think you could give a guess on how many people out there in the whole entire world is smoking this stuff.

I know that when I smoked it, I thought everyone else did too. When I stopped smoking it and starting hanging out with straight people, I noticed that it's a very, very small percentage of the population that smokes pot, Lorrie. Most people do just fine without it. Hence, the problem getting it legalized.

Are you under the impression that everyone smokes pot, Lorrie?

Don

Lenny

05-07-2008, 04:12 PM

Is smoking pot any of the high road to insight and happiness as I feel many advocates of its use say it to be? After becoming legal does it deserve anymore of our attention then drinking tomato juice or chewing cranberries?

I really don't like reading about alcohol related diseases and tragedies, so I guess when it does become legal it won't be as innocuous as munching cranberries. More ink, more recovery classes, higher insurance rates, more social intervention by those that have issues. A whole new industry! Including taxes for all the social infrastructures, which won't be offset by the taxes collected for buying/selling the pernicious weed. Oh, what a "venture"!

Lorrie

05-07-2008, 04:13 PM

Well yes! At least once. I mean you have too right?

So Don, why did you not answer my question? You notice I answered yours...and why Don, do I have to ask you why you did not answer my question?

And, Don... I wrote too much for me to respond to you any longer if you are not going to participate directly in the corespondence that is being presented to you. I have tried to make clear to you twice. And you skipped over it as though it (or I) didn't exsist...but I will try again...

The question I will try to put simply this time Don... Where is an article in (your) newspaper or any paper, anywhere... or a paper written by some scholar or knowlegable person that will say when and by whom a Violent act (as you mentioned) was caused by pot alone?

Huh Don? Huh?:hmmm:

There is more people...read

Um, Lorrie? I was responding to this comment you made, honey:

Where is it? What comment? this is what you said:

So I said everything is NOT great, Lorrie, that you're just stoned. You said it. I just commented on it. Said what?
I don't understand Don what are you tryng to say?

I know that when I smoked it, I thought everyone else did too. When I stopped smoking it and starting hanging out with straight people, I noticed that it's a very, very small percentage of the population that smokes pot, Lorrie. Most people do just fine without it. Hence, the problem getting it legalized.
No, you are wrong. I think. There are waaaaaayyyyy more than a few people smoking it.

Are you under the impression that everyone smokes pot, Lorrie?

Let's see! Everyone if you have or have not smoked pot in the last year May 07 to May 08. Please say I have or I have not. If you want to. Let see.

Don

Braggi

05-07-2008, 04:15 PM

...

Are you under the impression that everyone smokes pot, Lorrie?

Don

The number of persons who used marijuana in the past month was 14.8 million. (these are 2006 US Govt. numbers)

https://www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k6NSDUH/Alts.htm#Fig2-8

They also say 2.1 million a year try it for the first time. At that rate, in a few decades everyone will smoke pot, Don.

So the answer to your question is: not yet, but be patient.

Do a little research, Don. That way your arguments will appear to have a little more authority.

-Jeff

Lenny

05-07-2008, 05:01 PM

You're pretty good at the straw man arguments, Don. I never said pot is harmless and neither did Lorrie.
However, your blinders do prevent you from understanding the bottom line of the articles Lorrie posted: the greatest harms from pot come from the fact that it's illegal.
For Lenny: nhttps://www.naturalnews.com/023172.html
For Ron Paul supporters (isn't that you Don?):
https://www.nolanchart.com/article3688.html
For those who think pot isn't medicine: https://www.counterpunch.org/gardner05032008.html
I don't think you actually follow any of these links, Don. Perhaps if you did you'd be better informed.
Blessings,-Jeff

Jeff, as you know pot is NOT harmless, and not knowing the extent of potential harm that science has yet to discover, how could you ethically wish it to be legal? When I left science behind it was just discovered that pot accumulates on the fat cells of the nerve which would effect neural transmission. And that was 30 years ago. I can only imagine what it does to the lungs! I almost recall it was effecting kidney function as well. At least histological issues were beginning to be identified. All not "good" for the person's body thingy.
Oh, and your site is great. Thanks. It confused me a little, no biggie, since you know me. For example the advertisement that says MARIJUANA REHAB TREATMENT on that page stands in support for......well, I'll stop being so judgmental and let it speak for itself.
But the article is what I found interesting, at least the content; seems that they simply want the feds to declassify pot from a Schedule 1 status to do more studies. Another lobby! And you know as well as I, a couple of medical guys that belong to ACP (not the whole ACP fellows) are kicking this forward, with the notion of getting the grant MONEY for their research.
There probably may be some medical issues that pot may have a beneficial effect. There are existent drugs that will "do" all that pot is said to address. Yes, I know it could be done cheaper by "growing your own", but the dangers of that, both in control of potency and delivery to achieve medical certainty, would be out of hand. And, as in all things there are side effects. Oh, and the article is not for the legalization, but simply to study medical pot. It is NOT for the pathological issues of the drug may (will) cause, but the "beneficial" aspects. IOW, they won't be looking for the harm, but minimize such effects. Tough to do on people already suffering from MS, cancer, AIDS. And impossible to find such effects due to the disease! More "great science"!
But I love the language (long live George Orwell) of the article, like, "what many consider overwhelming scientific evidence of its medicinal usefulness" is truly meaningless while at the same time very persuasive in its presentation. The tone of the article is reflected in the above, possibly to get true believers more support?
It's good the article debunks the "harder drugs" notion. Reasonably speaking the reason pot "leads" to harder drugs is because of the creeps that sell it also have access to all the other illicit, harmful, and illegal things. From hard drugs to guns, body parts, you-name-it. We are familiar with that fallacious approach. The UC San Diego kids busted today have no idea what kind of nasty characters were at the OTHER end of that chain. Sweet kids but not too far away were some not-so-sweet-goons.
Sorry, but keeping pot illegal just avoids so much more.
Reminds me of that bumper sticker I like, "If you think education is to expensive, try the alternative".

Zeno Swijtink

05-07-2008, 05:26 PM

Jeff, as you know pot is NOT harmless, and not knowing the extent of potential harm that science has yet to discover, how could you ethically wish it to be legal? When I left science behind it was just discovered that pot accumulates on the fat cells of the nerve which would effect neural transmission. And that was 30 years ago. I can only imagine what it does to the lungs! I almost recall it was effecting kidney function as well. At least histological issues were beginning to be identified. All not "good" for the person's body thingy.

Ask me for the full report, if interested - Zeno

Sci. STKE, 29 May 2007
Vol. 2007, Issue 388, p. tw191
[DOI: 10.1126/stke.3882007tw191]

EDITORS' CHOICE

Neuroscience
Marijuana and Developmental Damage

Peter Stern

Science, AAAS, Cambridge CB2 1LQ, UK

The effects of marijuana are mediated by cannabinoid receptors on neurons in the brain, and a causal relation between marijuana use during pregnancy and permanent cognitive deficits in the offspring has been identified. Berghuis et al. now define the molecular hierarchy that controls marijuana actions within single neurons and show that activation of cannabinoid receptors by their natural ligands controls the establishment of functional connections between neurons in the brain. These findings define the cellular context through which prenatal marijuana use perturbs brain development.

P. Berghuis, A. M. Rajnicek, Y. M. Morozov, R. A. Ross, J. Mulder, G. M. Urbán, K. Monory, G. Marsicano, M. Matteoli, A. Canty, A. J. Irving, I. Katona, Y. Yanagawa, P. Rakic, B. Lutz, K. Mackie, T. Harkany, Hardwiring the brain: Endocannabinoids shape neuronal connectivity. Science 316, 1212-1216 (2007). [Abstract] [Full Text]

Citation: P. Stern, Marijuana and Developmental Damage. Sci. STKE 2007, tw191 (2007).

Lenny

05-07-2008, 05:36 PM

That was quite a sermon, although the mirror would be a place to study it's points.I realize you didn't say that pride is a sin, exactly. Forgive me for that misstatement.
PS. I can't resist commenting on the spiritual warfare mention. I'm sorry for you that you feel the need to be at war with yourself (I have to guess that's what you mean: that your inner demons are at war). I've heard Christian ministers waxing on about just that issue. Perhaps some meditation would help. I don't think most Buddhists, for example, are engaging in spiritual warfare. But then, they don't believe in your Satan, so it's easier for them.

I found that in Buddhism, Buddha taught that "desire" was the root of all the evils we suffer. Even the desire to be free from desire is a hindrance to achieving that Nothingness they offer. Rather empty in the true sense of the word!
Christians teach that Pride was the First Sin. Some teach it is the only sin. Both with Adam and Satan, Pride was the main issue. Both wanted to be "like God". Or God Himself. According to Mr. Clemens, the snake was telling the truth: we now KNOW the difference between Good and Evil, just like God. :2cents:

thewholetruth

05-07-2008, 05:49 PM

The number of persons who used marijuana in the past month was 14.8 million. (these are 2006 US Govt. numbers)

https://www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k6NSDUH/Alts.htm#Fig2-8

Which means less than 1 out of 20. Standing in a store or sitting in a restaurant, if you're a pot smoker, odds are that there at least 19 people around you who do not smoke pot. Thanks for making my point, Jeff.

[quote=Braggi;57779]They also say 2.1 million a year try it for the first time. At that rate, in a few decades everyone will smoke pot, Don.

Only a drug abuser would think that is logical reasoning, Jeff. We've been smoking pot socially on a large scale for 50 years. Shouldn't "everyone" be smoking it by now? LOL

So the answer to your question is: not yet, but be patient.

The real answer, sir, is put down the bong if you really believe that one day "everyone will smoke pot", Jeff. BTW, that's what I thought when I was a pot smoker. All pot smokers think like that. It's part of the Denial system that rationalizes your own use/abuse/addiction.

Do a little research, Don. That way your arguments will appear to have a little more authority.

You mean like yours? *polite smile* I've done the research, Jeff. I'm one of the 19 people around you who doesn't smoke pot. Remember? The vast majority of Americans do not smoke pot.

Don

thewholetruth

05-07-2008, 05:55 PM

Um, Lorrie? I answered all your questions in posts 129 and 133. You'll see if you actually read them.

Don :thumbsup:

Well yes! At least once. I mean you have too right?

So Don, why did you not answer my question? You notice I answered yours...and why Don, do I have to ask you why you did not answer my question?

And, Don... I wrote too much for me to respond to you any longer if you are not going to participate directly in the corespondence that is being presented to you. I have tried to make clear to you twice. And you skipped over it as though it (or I) didn't exsist...but I will try again...

The question I will try to put simply this time Don... Where is an article in (your) newspaper or any paper, anywhere... or a paper written by some scholar or knowlegable person that will say when and by whom a Violent act (as you mentioned) was caused by pot alone?

Huh Don? Huh?:hmmm:

There is more people...read

thewholetruth

05-07-2008, 05:56 PM

Please. You're encouraging him, Lenny. :wink:

Don

I found that in Buddhism, Buddha taught that "desire" was the root of all the evils we suffer. Even the desire to be free from desire is a hindrance to achieving that Nothingness they offer. Rather empty in the true sense of the word!
Christians teach that Pride was the First Sin. Some teach it is the only sin. Both with Adam and Satan, Pride was the main issue. Both wanted to be "like God". Or God Himself. According to Mr. Clemens, the snake was telling the truth: we now KNOW the difference between Good and Evil, just like God. :2cents:

thewholetruth

05-07-2008, 06:09 PM

I have to address what at least appears to be at least a little delusional, perhaps even egomania consistent in both yours and Jeff's posts.

There is more people...read

I've been posting to message boards for about 15 years now. Excite, Yahoo, some others. Big boards with lots and lots of members. No matter how many people are members, it seems that with a few exceptions, only the few who actually post actually read this stuff and/or follow these threads. And when it gets into Ad Hominum stuff like you and Jeff are engaging in so eloquently right now, that number dwindles.

You and Jeff seem to believe that you've got this 6,000+ audience who are hanging on your every word, and I hate to disappoint you but...well, never mind...

Okay, I'll just say it: I think it's probably just us reading this stuff, to a great degree, Lorrie. Not really the kind of writing that attracts an audience when two or three people are just picking at each other. :wink:

I suppose you could email all your friends and ask them to prove I'm wrong about this by posting here on this thread. But, well, confidentially, after 15 years of doing this, I'll probably just suspect you emailed them and asked them to help you. *polite smile*

Don

thewholetruth

05-07-2008, 06:17 PM

Ad Homiinum it was but the only thing I apologize for is that I posted it here. I should have sent it as a private email.

Apology accepted. I apologize too, Jeff. I've gotten a little off track here lately. It must be that "too-much-time-on-my-hands-now-that-I'm-on-vacation" thing. I apologize for being rude with you. There's no excuse for that.

That said, it's now out so let's talk about why I resorted to it.

Let me get this straight: You apologized, but now you're going to do it some more? LOL I'd rather get back to the issues, Jeff, as interesting as your psychoanalysis of me might be, albeit at least somewhat affected by the drug use you've announced that you engage in.

Don

Valley Oak

05-07-2008, 07:47 PM

Braggi

05-07-2008, 08:58 PM

I found that in Buddhism, Buddha taught that "desire" was the root of all the evils we suffer. Even the desire to be free from desire is a hindrance to achieving that Nothingness they offer. Rather empty in the true sense of the word!
Christians teach that Pride was the First Sin. Some teach it is the only sin. Both with Adam and Satan, Pride was the main issue. Both wanted to be "like God". Or God Himself. According to Mr. Clemens, the snake was telling the truth: we now KNOW the difference between Good and Evil, just like God. :2cents:

Well, I disagree with most of what Buddha taught. The Four Noble Truths, for instance, I find neither noble nor true. Not for me. Not with my values. There are things about Buddhists to like. "Many of my friends are Buddhists." :):

While I think pride is an asset and a goal, I think arrogance is a trap, and one that gets me all too frequently. It's been one of my yogas for many years to get a handle on that one. I'm doing better ...

And I agree with Mr. Clemens, that Jealous was lying and the cunning serpent tells the truth. But then Jealous is a brutal war monger in that mythology and the serpent represents ... what does s(he) represent? It's not clear, except wisdom and pleasure, perhaps. Not to mention individuality. Maybe bravery in the face of unreasonable rules.

Nice story. Sort of. Makes Eve look bad though. Outlawed belly dancing in that culture. Sad and cruel.

-Jeff

Braggi

05-07-2008, 09:07 PM

...
Let me get this straight: You apologized, but now you're going to do it some more? LOL I'd rather get back to the issues, Jeff, as interesting as your psychoanalysis of me might be, albeit at least somewhat affected by the drug use you've announced that you engage in. ...

Heh heh. Agreed, we can do something with the issues, but nothing constructive with insults. No analysis, BTW, only observations. I don't pretend to be qualified even as a low level therapist let alone an analyst. I married my education and some of that does rub off, but I don't claim to be qualified.

Now there you go again with that drug use stuff. How do you know the drugs I've chosen to take don't make me a clearer thinker instead of a foggier one? I could send you numerous articles on numerous drugs improving all kinds of cognitive function. You'll be pleased to know, for instance, that our fighter pilots in war are on Adderall (or something similar) to improve reaction times. Never mind. That's a dead end with you. They gave 'em meth in the old days.

Back to the issues!!!!

-Jeff

Braggi

05-07-2008, 09:28 PM

Jeff, as you know pot is NOT harmless, and not knowing the extent of potential harm that science has yet to discover, how could you ethically wish it to be legal? ...

Wait. You seem to be stuck in the '70s with your information on pot. Look to the latest research. Pot doesn't cause cancer and that's settled and many researchers think it fights cancer. The connections with interfering with brain function, if they exist at all, are slight enough that decades of study haven't put it's finger on it. In fact, pot is perhaps the most studied herb or substance of any kind on the planet. Most of the research has looked for harm and it's just not turning up. Some benefits have turned up as in the British driving study I posted earlier. Also the Jamacian mother / child study in which it was determined that the mothers who smoked heavily all though pregnancy and young childhood had only one noticeable difference from those mothers who didn't smoke: the mother / child bond was stronger and more affectionate among the pot smokers. Intelligence and other cognitive measures among the kids was identical.

All that said, I never said it was harmless. I know that even moderate smoking can irritate bronchitis. So those with bronchitis shouldn't smoke. But I'll let the individual decide on that based on the mountains of really good information now available on the subject.

Republican and libertarian types (myself included) are big on individual rights and responsibilities, but when it comes to a relatively harmless herb (less carcinogenic than celery) that has many proven benefits as medicine (do the research Lenny), some of which are unique, you think it's too dangerous to trust otherwise rational, responsible human beings with.

That is not consistent.

Whether it's completely harmless or not isn't the question. Can society tolerate (define as you wish) legality and be one step more consistent in personal freedoms over a nearly completely irrational illegality that is bankrupting our country? I suggest the harms will be orders of magnitudes lessened if we legalize. The drug dealing element will be put out of business with regard to pot since every gardening granny will grow a few plants. Prices will plummet.

Oh, I should mention, on the price issue: DonC1955 asked if prices have gone down in Mendocino County as a result of the decriminalized status. The answer is yes, to the point that everyone i know from there hands it out when they go to parties. It's free Don. Can't get any cheaper than that. The market is flooded already. People have cellars full of it and can't move it. So the answer is yes. Even the Sonoma county growers have a surplus.

-Jeff

Braggi

05-07-2008, 09:32 PM

[quote=Braggi;57779]The number of persons who used marijuana in the past month was 14.8 million. (these are 2006 US Govt. numbers)

Which means less than 1 out of 20. Standing in a store or sitting in a restaurant, if you're a pot smoker, odds are that there at least 19 people around you who do not smoke pot. Thanks for making my point, Jeff.

Only a drug abuser would think that is logical reasoning, Jeff. We've been smoking pot socially on a large scale for 50 years. Shouldn't "everyone" be smoking it by now? LOL

The real answer, sir, is put down the bong if you really believe that one day "everyone will smoke pot", Jeff. BTW, that's what I thought when I was a pot smoker. All pot smokers think like that. It's part of the Denial system that rationalizes your own use/abuse/addiction. ...

Calm down Don. It was a joke.

Joking aside, a lot of people smoke it. Especially in California.

And the numbers go up, not down. Pun intended.

-Jeff

kpage9

05-07-2008, 09:58 PM

Hello Don,

A couple of questions--both are "yes" or "no":

1) (I asked you privately but didn't get an answer) Do you believe everyone has the same needs as you?

2) Are you a licensed counselor?

I wonder if you'll be willing to answer the second question.

Kathy

Apology accepted. I apologize too, Jeff. I've gotten a little off track here lately. It must be that "too-much-time-on-my-hands-now-that-I'm-on-vacation" thing. I apologize for being rude with you. There's no excuse for that.

Let me get this straight: You apologized, but now you're going to do it some more? LOL I'd rather get back to the issues, Jeff, as interesting as your psychoanalysis of me might be, albeit at least somewhat affected by the drug use you've announced that you engage in.

Don

thewholetruth

05-08-2008, 05:06 AM

May I please see the full report? I'm interested.

Don

Ask me for the full report, if interested - Zeno

Sci. STKE, 29 May 2007
Vol. 2007, Issue 388, p. tw191
[DOI: 10.1126/stke.3882007tw191]

EDITORS' CHOICE

Neuroscience
Marijuana and Developmental Damage

Peter Stern

Science, AAAS, Cambridge CB2 1LQ, UK

The effects of marijuana are mediated by cannabinoid receptors on neurons in the brain, and a causal relation between marijuana use during pregnancy and permanent cognitive deficits in the offspring has been identified.

thewholetruth

05-08-2008, 05:26 AM

Hello Don,

A couple of questions--both are "yes" or "no":

1) (I asked you privately but didn't get an answer)

I didn't have a private email from you, Kathy.

Do you believe everyone has the same needs as you?

If you want a yes or a no, I have to say no. The truth is that we do all have the same basic needs.

2) Are you a licensed counselor?

I wonder if you'll be willing to answer the second question.

Kathy

Yes I am.

I always cringe when someone wants to dig into my personal life, as that's not what message boards are supposed to be about. That's how people get into Ad Hominum Abusive attacks, rather than just responding to someone's comments. Suffice it to say that if you don't agree with my comments, or if you can find evidence that I'm incorrect, you can say so and you can reply to my comments. I hesitate to put much specific personal information online because several years ago my family was horribly violated online by proabortionists. They did that because, well, because they lack integrity, of course, and they simply didn't agree with my Prolife position and they resented my courage in expressing it. They were unable to separate the comments from the person.

Again, you probably won't get much deeper about my personal life, Kathy. If you don't agree with me on something, that's your perogative. Please let it be about my comments, and not about me.

Don

MsTerry

05-08-2008, 06:50 AM

Kathy,
You have to understand that Sir Don is not using his real name, he instills an aura of believability by dropping names and numbers, but so far his facts just don't add up.
Sir Don probably was raised by a verbally dominant parent or guardian., and he is still trying to prove that he is right to the community at large.
His need to WIN an argument exceeds his need to tell the truth.
Even though I think he is capable of distinguishing between a lie and the truth, he rarely bothers to do so..His narcissistic ego prevents him from seeing the harm he is doing to himself, but since he is anonymous on this board, he feels he can get away with it.

Hello Don,

A couple of questions--both are "yes" or "no":

1) (I asked you privately but didn't get an answer) Do you believe everyone has the same needs as you?

2) Are you a licensed counselor?

I wonder if you'll be willing to answer the second question.

Kathy

Zeno Swijtink

05-08-2008, 07:05 AM

Kathy,
You have to understand that Sir Don is not using his real name,

Now, who's talking, mysterious MsChameleon!! :hmmm:

Don _is_ using his real name, has even a website!

MsTerry

05-08-2008, 07:18 AM

Now, who's talking, mysterious MsChameleon!! :hmmm:

Don _is_ using his real name, has even a website!

C is his last name?
What is his Website?

thewholetruth

05-08-2008, 07:20 AM

It appears that MsChameleon is projecting again. Imagine that. Lying, projecting. You gotta love that in a person.

Oh, wait...:wink:

Don

Now, who's talking, mysterious MsChameleon!! :hmmm:

Don _is_ using his real name, has even a website!

MsTerry

05-08-2008, 07:23 AM

I put in Don C 1955 in a search and all I got was references to Don Quixote. LOL
How Appropriate!!!

Now, who's talking, mysterious MsChameleon!! :hmmm:

Don _is_ using his real name, has even a website!

Braggi

05-08-2008, 07:49 AM

...
I always cringe when someone wants to dig into my personal life, as that's not what message boards are supposed to be about. That's how people get into Ad Hominum Abusive attacks, rather than just responding to someone's comments. ...

That's pretty rich coming from you. You use every personal detail someone confesses against them at every opportunity, and when lacking detail, you make up your own (accusing Lorrie of smoking pot for instance).

...
I hesitate to put much specific personal information online because several years ago my family was horribly violated online by proabortionists. They did that because, well, because they lack integrity, of course, and they simply didn't agree with my Prolife position and they resented my courage in expressing it. They were unable to separate the comments from the person.
...

First of all, it's pretty lame and possibly illegal to go after someone in private life for what they say online, but that aside, when you put yourself out there, especially while condemning other people's opinions or lifestyles, you're asking for reprisals online. Separate the comments from the person? All we have is the comments Don. There's no separation. On a bulletin board you are your comments.

-Jeff

MsTerry

05-08-2008, 08:04 AM

Now, who's talking, mysterious MsTerry!! :hmmm:

Zeno, you have to realize that I was nearly captured by Anti-abortion fanatics, who were going to imprison me and force me to have a baby that they were going to abduct and parade as an Anchor-Baby!
A woman has to be careful these days.:wink:

Zeno Swijtink

05-08-2008, 08:50 AM

I put in Don C 1955 in a search and all I got was references to Don Quixote. LOL
How Appropriate!!!

Zeno, you have to realize that I was nearly captured by Anti-abortion fanatics, who were going to imprison me and force me to have a baby that they were going to abduct and parade as an Anchor-Baby!
A woman has to be careful these days.:wink:

I thought you to be a more nifty sleuth!!

It's true Don has been covering his tracks a little since arriving on these boards, but then you gave yourself a makeover early last year so I assume we all have our fears.

In 2007 Zeno Swijtink wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=26665#post26665

DePhiant is in the rich tradition of the jester, fool, or narr. Every interesting bulletin board needs one I think.

https://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/640914.html

His 2nd level screen name is Lul DeGrote (Dutch for Giant Prick). Lul is now bastardized as Lulu, evoking the gender ambiguous character of the jester.

The quick wordplay on my name ZenoPhobia (litt. GodFearing) as a variant of Xenophobia suggests a way with words, characteristic of the jester.

PS Lul DeGrote has now officially changed his/her screenname to Lulu DeGrote further adding to the confusion (Lulu is the Dutch name of choice for an extremely seductive and elusive woman).

https://www.moviemeter.nl/images/covers/34000/34146.jpg

thewholetruth

05-08-2008, 09:09 AM

That's pretty rich coming from you. You use every personal detail someone confesses against them at every opportunity, and when lacking detail, you make up your own (accusing Lorrie of smoking pot for instance).

I didn't "accuse" Lorrie of anything, silly man. I was responding to her claim that 'A couple of hits and everything's great', Jeff. I didn't "accuse" her of anything. I simply responded to her comment.

First of all, it's pretty lame and possibly illegal to go after someone in private life for what they say online, but that aside, when you put yourself out there, especially while condemning other people's opinions or lifestyles you're asking for reprisals online.

Conclusionary thinking, Jeff. I'm just expressing myself. I'm not even asking for responses. I'm certainly not, as you falsely claim, "asking for reprisals". That's ludicrous, Jeff.

Separate the comments from the person? All we have is the comments Don. There's no separation.

Hmmm. That's pathological, Jeff, if you can't tell the difference between someone's comments and the person. (Definition #3 here: https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pathology)

On a bulletin board you are your comments.

Wow. I just shake my head, Jeff. That comment is so far from reality.

Don

MsTerry

05-08-2008, 09:54 AM

I thought you to be a more nifty sleuth!!

No, I am not a sleuth and neither are you. LOL
I can't even find the post where you said that I was NOT the un-mentionable one.
Zeno/Zeyes???
:thumbsup:

Valley Oak

05-08-2008, 10:53 AM

So, MsTerry, is it true, did you used to be The Phiant? You don't have to answer me if you don't want to or even give me a 'straight one,' for that matter ;-D

Kisses,

Edward

No, I am not a sleuth and neither are you. LOL
I can't even find the post where you said that I was NOT the un-mentionable one.
Zeno/Zeyes???
:thumbsup:

Lorrie

05-08-2008, 11:21 AM

thewholetruth

05-08-2008, 01:12 PM

No, Don I did read them those posts and you did not answer my question or why would I have asked again and again?
Why don't you be clear. You did not answer my question.

Where is it again, a paper or professor that points to VIOLENT CRIMES ie Killings home invasions etc. where pot alone was involved. Answer it again clearly and not hidden in abunch of other crap you write.

I already answered you, Lorrie, in post number 129.

I think you are delusional antagonistic and not quite aware of your effect. You don't back up what you say with anything except what you think. And that is not good enough. For all 5000 + people on this board.

You're entitled to your opinion, Lorrie. I disagree completely, however.

I don't think I can appreciate you as much as I did when you first started on this thread.

Well, dang! There goes my reason for being here, now doesn't it.

You don't answer question directly.

Yes I do.

You insult other people intelligence...

Other people insult my intelligence. I make the same kinds of observations about you that you make about me, that everyone else makes about everyone else. What does that make us then?

And it is stupid for you to think you are somehow superior.

I don't think I'm superior to anyone here, Lorrie. I don't think anyone is superior to anyone else. I think it's a level playing field and, well, we're supposed to be playing on it, not getting all worked up when someone disagrees with us.

You seem like a crabby old man to me.

You seem like a classic pot head to me. Perhaps we're both right. :thumbsup:

Can we back to discussing issues, now that we've cleared the air?

Don

Zeno Swijtink

05-08-2008, 01:40 PM

No, I am not a sleuth and neither are you. LOL

That's right. I am a Pastry Chef. My Signature Dish? Koekjes-van-eigen-deeg. :wink:

Zeno Swijtink

05-08-2008, 01:46 PM

Zeno, those questions are more substantial than they look.

The short answers are: could be but probably not, and yes, definitely.

Better answers tomorrow.

-Jeff

Hope you get back to this Jeff. I my experience, among SSU students, regularly smoking pot is correlated with failing college.

Valley Oak

05-08-2008, 01:53 PM

Gee, Zeno, you're a lot more conservative than you normally appear to be. I am a graduate student at SSU, where you work, and I smoke pot. People are not even considered for a masters program unless they've achieved a minimum 3.0 gpa (B average). There are exceptions in the admittance process, of course. I'm doing fine, as I did when I got my BA, and I expect to graduate in a couple of years, and I will be smoking along the way.

Furthermore, I have met plenty of SSU students who smoke pot and were among the best and the brightest in my classes.

Edward

Hope you get back to this Jeff. I my experience, among SSU students, regularly smoking pot is correlated with failing college.

Zeno Swijtink

05-08-2008, 02:45 PM

This does not need to be all political. Here I am trying to follow the evidence. Note that I talk of regular use and call it a correlation.

See also:

Correlates of college student marijuana use: results of a US National Survey. By: Bell, Rick, Wechsler, Henry, Addiction, 09652140, May97, Vol. 92, Issue 5

Abstract
This study examines which personal student background and college characteristics are associated with marijuana we. A self-administered survey was mailed to a national representative sample of 17 592 students at 140 American colleges. One of four (24.8%) students reported using marijuana within the past year. Rates of use among the colleges ranged from zero per cent at the lowest use schools to 54% at the highest use schools. Multiple regression models, constructed to determine the college and student characteristics predicting marijuana use, suggest that use was higher among students at non-commuter colleges and at colleges with pubs on campus. Student characteristics associated with marijuana use included being single, white, spending more time at parties and socializing with friends, and less time studying. Marijuana use was higher among students who participate in other high risk behaviors such as binge drinking, cigarette smoking and having multiple sexual partners, and among students who perceived parties as important, and religion and community service as not important. The study points to the social nature of drug use in college, and demonstrates that this behavior is of continuing concern for public health.

Gee, Zeno, you're a lot more conservative than you normally appear to be. I am a graduate student at SSU, where you work, and I smoke pot. People are not even considered for a masters program unless they've achieved a minimum 3.0 gpa (B average). There are exceptions in the admittance process, of course. I'm doing fine, as I did when I got my BA, and I expect to graduate in a couple of years, and I will be smoking along the way.

Furthermore, I have met plenty of SSU students who smoke pot and were among the best and the brightest in my classes.

Edward

Lorrie

05-08-2008, 04:29 PM

bOY THIS IS FRUSTRATING: Why will you not please just reanswer the question instead of pointing to posts that have too much other info in them to get clear on what your answer is.

I already answered you, Lorrie, in post number 129.

I remember you pointed to a Ukiah online newspaper but when I went and read that paper I didn't not find that there was any violent crime associated to only pot alone. The only crime I saw was possesion.

You're entitled to your opinion, Lorrie. I disagree completely, however.
Of course you do, did you think I didn't know you would?

Well, dang! There goes my reason for being here, now doesn't it.

wink wink

Yes I do.

Not for me.

Other people insult my intelligence. I make the same kinds of observations about you that you make about me, that everyone else makes about everyone else. What does that make us then?

People with insulted intelligences?

I don't think I'm superior to anyone here, Lorrie. I don't think anyone is superior to anyone else. I think it's a level playing field and, well, we're supposed to be playing on it, not getting all worked up when someone disagrees with us.

Couldn't tell that with all the assumptions you make about people.

You seem like a classic pot head to me. Perhaps we're both right. :thumbsup:

So now you are calling me names. How do you know? I have never said that I smoked. Only talk about people I know who do.

Can we back to discussing issues, now that we've cleared the air? Just as soon as you answer my question clearly.

Don

Lorrie

05-08-2008, 04:52 PM

Well Don, I went back to read those two post and NO, you did not clearly answer my question you only pointed to a Ukiah newpaper. Where the only crime I found was possession not voilent crimes.
Did you go back and read those two posts?
Post 133 said nothing about my question about pot alone and violent crime. ie Killings, home invasions, guns etc. as you mentioned.

Um, Lorrie? I answered all your questions in posts 129 and 133. You'll see if you actually read them.

Don :thumbsup:

MsTerry

05-08-2008, 04:54 PM

bOY THIS IS FRUSTRATING: Why will you not please just reanswer the question instead of pointing to posts that have too much other info in them to get clear on what your answer is.
LOL
Don Quixote doesn't answer questions, he only attacks them!

MsTerry

05-08-2008, 04:58 PM

That's right. I am a Pastry Chef. My Signature Dish? Koekjes-van-eigen-deeg. :wink:
That is so sweet of you, next time I see you, I'll make sure to get you some Billekoek.

thewholetruth

05-08-2008, 05:01 PM

bOY THIS IS FRUSTRATING: Why will you not please just reanswer the question instead of pointing to posts that have too much other info in them to get clear on what your answer is.

I pointed you to the Ukiah newspaper, Lorrie, and told you that I have been reading this stuff in the paper.

Don

MsTerry

05-08-2008, 05:08 PM

So, MsTerry, is it true, did you used to be The Phiant? You don't have to answer me if you don't want to or even give me a 'straight one,' for that matter ;-D

Kisses,

Edward
Oh Edward,
if ThePhiant where with us today, she would have made chopped liver out of those two cowboys.It is those kind of hypocrites that would make her sit up straight and deliver.
Zeno is just getting a little stuffy from all his reading, he needed a little chuckle.
No, I am not half as witty or fast as LuLu, but sometimes I try.

Kisses to you too (even though you are only half an Anchor baby):wink:

thewholetruth

05-08-2008, 05:10 PM

I pointed you to the Ukiah newspaper, Lorrie, and told you that I have been reading this stuff in the paper.

Don

In fact, it's the PD that I read, Lorrie. I pointed you to the Ukiah paper because if it's in the PD, I figured it must be in the Ukiah paper. Before you say I didn't answer your question, I did - I said that I read the paper and I suggested you read it too. That was my answer.

Perhaps it's not the answer you wanted, but it's the answer I gave you. I only brought it up (REcriminalizing) because I read it. I'm not some attorney trying to make a case. LOL

Don

MsTerry

05-08-2008, 05:15 PM

He is like a bad magic show.
You know he is doing tricks, but it is so obvious how he does it, that you want your money back.
And he'll say; But your money disappeared, so I must be good.

Well Don, I went back to read those two post and NO, you did not clearly answer my question you only pointed to a Ukiah newpaper. Where the only crime I found was possession not voilent crimes.
Did you go back and read those two posts?
Post 133 said nothing about my question about pot alone and violent crime. ie Killings, home invasions, guns etc. as you mentioned.

Lenny

05-08-2008, 05:17 PM

Ask me for the full report, if interested - Zeno
Sci. STKE, 29 May 2007
Vol. 2007, Issue 388, p. tw191
[DOI: 10.1126/stke.3882007tw191]
EDITORS' CHOICE
Neuroscience
Marijuana and Developmental Damage
Peter Stern
Science, AAAS, Cambridge CB2 1LQ, UK
The effects of marijuana are mediated by cannabinoid receptors on neurons in the brain, and a causal relation between marijuana use during pregnancy and permanent cognitive deficits in the offspring has been identified. Berghuis et al. now define the molecular hierarchy that controls marijuana actions within single neurons and show that activation of cannabinoid receptors by their natural ligands controls the establishment of functional connections between neurons in the brain. These findings define the cellular context through which prenatal marijuana use perturbs brain development.
P. Berghuis, A. M. Rajnicek, Y. M. Morozov, R. A. Ross, J. Mulder, G. M. Urbán, K. Monory, G. Marsicano, M. Matteoli, A. Canty, A. J. Irving, I. Katona, Y. Yanagawa, P. Rakic, B. Lutz, K. Mackie, T. Harkany, Hardwiring the brain: Endocannabinoids shape neuronal connectivity. Science 316, 1212-1216 (2007). [Abstract] [Full Text]Citation: P. Stern, Marijuana and Developmental Damage. Sci. STKE 2007, tw191 (2007).

Why thank you, sir! But even then, I trust there are other studies that point to bodily damage of fully functional humans, not just critters getting knitted in the belly box. And it's been more than a weekend since I was reading abstracts and full texts, so allow me to respectfully decline. From what I gather in the above, there have been identified receptacles on the neuron (cannabinoid) whose function is to uptake and process pot? GADZ! We've come a long way since 1972 when the word "neuroscience" was hardly coined! Thanks. More than I can say.

Lenny

05-08-2008, 05:20 PM

Please. You're encouraging him, Lenny. :wink:
Don

Don, that IS what we do! :thumbsup:
It just makes their trip longer.

Lenny

05-08-2008, 06:08 PM

Gee, Lenny, I didn't know you were also a religious man. How can you be a Libertarian and be so religious at the same time? Where are the values of personal freedom and liberty and social libertarianism that your party espouses? Or is it that in reality the Libertarian party simply stands for a blend of social conservatism and 100% Laissez-faire capitalism. Not even that! Because you don't support the decriminalized marketing and taxation of marijuana! What a contradiction.
Milton Friedman, a very conservative economist, simply said that the 'war on drugs is lost' and that it is best to decriminalize all drugs and tax them and regulate them. This would be the best way to control them.
Milton Friedman's economic theories are consistent with a true Libertarian, which you are not. What do you stand for? Do you even know? Why do you espouse an ideology that you disagree with so frequently? For example, the denial on the Libertarian Party to completely legalize and commercialize drugs is one of the most blatant hypocrisies of that party. Can you explain yourself? Probably not. You are no different from the rest.
Edward

Friedman? what do you want an economist to say? He is looking at it from a "utilitarian" and monetary POV and would make money off of it, instead of spending money to stop it. So of course he thinks of legalization in terms of money. As money seems to be The Thing Most Folks Love, why not, eh? Of course, giving the government MORE money via taxes, will make a "better" government, no? Or just bigger? You answer that one, but not to me.
And what party do I espouse? Just because I voted for Ron Paul, that's what makes me...whatever you think I am, hook, line, and sinker? I doubt if you're a party man, in the political sense, that is. Besides, Dr. Paul ran as a Republican, not a Libertarian. You are stuck in the last two elections. But why should you put that political party jacket on me?
As to what I stand for....25 words or less? Give it a rest, cupcake. No person can put down in writing "what they stand for", unless another wants to read endless drivle. Both of us don't.
As for religion! Aren't you the guy that had "god" under his avatar?

You know, Ed, just put me back on your list. Your tone and last sentence truly show you willingness to do so. Just do it, as we know you will after another hissy fit over something said, unsaid, or whatever goes on in your clear thinking pot smoking head. Please. And thank you. Not even :2cents:

Lenny

05-08-2008, 06:47 PM

Well, I disagree with most of what Buddha taught. The Four Noble Truths, for instance, I find neither noble nor true. Not for me. Not with my values. There are things about Buddhists to like. "Many of my friends are Buddhists." :):
-Jeff

The funny thing about Buddha is that he claimed to have found 'enlightenment' through his own experience and spoke about it, as you note. He further claimed that whether he spoke of it or not, such truths would exist. They were "universal truths" (Chain of Causation, Four Noble Truths, etc) if he came and spoke or didn't never existed.
In contrast, the Jesus issue (Luke, there is a change in the force) is that HE did not make such a claim, nor speak from HIS experience. The objective content is different but according to far to many, what the two have in common is both were simply expounding their religious theories.
If so, then we all simply have to chose which one "got it right". Except that neither Gautama nor Jesus would agree to that notion.
Gautama never asked for another to take it in faith; he claimed he was not special to this enlightenment and that anyone, if they followed in his steps can attain it. He never claimed to discover a truth that was not available to anyone.
Jesus was radically different. He taught as "having authority". He expounded no truth transcendent to himself. What he taught was unknowable and inaccessible. Who knew? There was no "heavenly Father" that loved and cared for us. Such a truth is not obvious, for sure. It is not self evident that God cares for every sparrow that falls, or hairs on our head. So the religious message of Jesus cannot be separated from the authority of his own person, unlike Gautama. No, his "but I say to you" is central to the message and permeates it. I think this is what perturbs folks the most. His claim that he is the sole way to what he called "Our Father". Everybody wants their way. And that is OK, as we both know.
Sorry for the rant, but it's been on my chest for more than a week!

While I think pride is an asset and a goal, I think arrogance is a trap, and one that gets me all too frequently. It's been one of my yogas for many years to get a handle on that one. I'm doing better ...-Jeff

Yeah, the Pride thing is a bugger. That's why I like the Greek. They had more than one way to say it. Some was good, but most of it wasn't.

Lenny

05-08-2008, 07:19 PM

Wait. You seem to be stuck in the '70s with your information on pot. Look to the latest research. Pot doesn't cause cancer and that's settled and many researchers think it fights cancer. The connections with interfering with brain function, if they exist at all, are slight enough that decades of study haven't put it's finger on it. In fact, pot is perhaps the most studied herb or substance of any kind on the planet. Most of the research has looked for harm and it's just not turning up. Some benefits have turned up as in the British driving study I posted earlier. Also the Jamacian mother / child study in which it was determined that the mothers who smoked heavily all though pregnancy and young childhood had only one noticeable difference from those mothers who didn't smoke: the mother / child bond was stronger and more affectionate among the pot smokers. Intelligence and other cognitive measures among the kids was identical.-Jeff

Well, you are right, I am "stuck" in the 70's about pot. That's about the last time I looked at it. Don't look back either, as no need to. Aside from a few politically and economically motivated individuals, I have to doubt that not much more has developed. And I get that from those that I trust.
The person that foisted the Jamacian study on pregnant women should have their gonads hung high from the wire at town square. Period.
You know as well as I that such studies are as fallacious as all get out.
Ever hear of that band Steppenwolf? Did a song around that time called, Goddamn the Pusher Man. Sums it up for me.

All that said, I never said it was harmless. I know that even moderate smoking can irritate bronchitis. So those with bronchitis shouldn't smoke. But I'll let the individual decide on that based on the mountains of really good information now available on the subject.

So then, you are for smoking in public? Restaurants, libraries, etc?

Republican and libertarian types (myself included) are big on individual rights and responsibilities, but when it comes to a relatively harmless herb (less carcinogenic than celery) that has many proven benefits as medicine (do the research Lenny), some of which are unique, you think it's too dangerous to trust otherwise rational, responsible human beings with.That is not consistent.

Zounds. You are right. I am not consistent. We have almost reached an impasse, or at least a circularity, in that idea, for the most part, with exceptions duly noted, those that smoke the herb for grins and giggles do not have the capacity to exercise those responsibilities that the rights are contingent upon. If I speak Japanese fluently, but you can't understand it, then there is no connection to what is said. We are incapable of taking action. We all love the RIGHTS, but the RESPONSIBILITIES is what gives folks fits. And, in my opinion, pot keeps that part in check.

Whether it's completely harmless or not isn't the question. Can society tolerate (define as you wish) legality and be one step more consistent in personal freedoms over a nearly completely irrational illegality that is bankrupting our country? I suggest the harms will be orders of magnitudes lessened if we legalize. The drug dealing element will be put out of business with regard to pot since every gardening granny will grow a few plants. Prices will plummet. Oh, I should mention, on the price issue: DonC1955 asked if prices have gone down in Mendocino County as a result of the decriminalized status. The answer is yes, to the point that everyone i know from there hands it out when they go to parties. It's free Don. Can't get any cheaper than that. The market is flooded already. People have cellars full of it and can't move it. So the answer is yes. Even the Sonoma county growers have a surplus. -Jeff

I could not care less if prices plummet or go sky high. What you propose is very rational, and a tough argument, but the price is not worth it. We may be strong enough (at this time and place) to allow such a misery out of the box, but I suppose I am not a good enough American, in that it is more than what is bankrupting this country that keeps me on this side of the fence. I KNOW the "utilitarian" approach is 100% American, and practically speaking we could use the money on far better endeavors, but the ethical and moral issue of degrading a human being via an exogenous substance outweighs that angle. Each person is worth it. Or at least more than the :2cents: .

Braggi

05-08-2008, 07:42 PM

bOY THIS IS FRUSTRATING: Why will you not please just reanswer the question instead of pointing to posts that have too much other info in them to get clear on what your answer is.

I think that's really why Don's here Lorrie. He likes seeing how much he can frustrate people. I've looked over a lot of his posts and he just about always avoids answering questions in any way that would actually answer the intent of the questioner.

On questions of substance he has no answers but insults the questioner instead. That's how it feels to me.

He claims to be a substance abuse expert but doesn't know the answer to basic questions most high school kids would know.

He's surprised we have cannabinoid receptors in our brains, but that's about the first thing you learn when you study substance abuse: that it's neurotransmitters that plug into receptors that cause our feelings, and drugs either mimic or duplicate those neurotransmitters. That's one of the basics of brain function, and without that knowledge, a substance abuse expert would lack basic understanding of why people use substances in the first place.

Perhaps he came here to learn.

-Jeff

Braggi

05-08-2008, 07:45 PM

I pointed you to the Ukiah newspaper, Lorrie, and told you that I have been reading this stuff in the paper.

Don

Face it Don, you're too lazy to do research to support your statements.

Perhaps you're afraid you'll discover you don't know what you're talking about.

-Jeff

Valley Oak

05-08-2008, 08:16 PM

Lenny, I will watch my tone from now on. Word of honor. And if I go back on my word of honor you can smear it all over the Wacco list and rightfully state that Edward is incapable of keeping his word.

That aside, I have a few things that I'm going to make perfectly clear here and now and they have to do with

Friedman? what do you want an economist to say? He is looking at it from a "utilitarian" and monetary POV and would make money off of it, instead of spending money to stop it. So of course he thinks of legalization in terms of money. As money seems to be The Thing Most Folks Love, why not, eh? Of course, giving the government MORE money via taxes, will make a "better" government, no? Or just bigger? You answer that one, but not to me.
And what party do I espouse? Just because I voted for Ron Paul, that's what makes me...whatever you think I am, hook, line, and sinker? I doubt if you're a party man, in the political sense, that is. Besides, Dr. Paul ran as a Republican, not a Libertarian. You are stuck in the last two elections. But why should you put that political party jacket on me?
As to what I stand for....25 words or less? Give it a rest, cupcake. No person can put down in writing "what they stand for", unless another wants to read endless drivle. Both of us don't.
As for religion! Aren't you the guy that had "god" under his avatar?

You know, Ed, just put me back on your list. Your tone and last sentence truly show you willingness to do so. Just do it, as we know you will after another hissy fit over something said, unsaid, or whatever goes on in your clear thinking pot smoking head. Please. And thank you. Not even :2cents:

thewholetruth

05-08-2008, 08:20 PM

I think that's really why Don's here Lorrie. He likes seeing how much he can frustrate people. I've looked over a lot of his posts and he just about always avoids answering questions in any way that would actually answer the intent of the questioner.

On questions of substance he has no answers but insults the questioner instead.

Again with the Ad Hominum Abusive, Jeff? I'm disappointed.

That's how it feels to me.

And is that little 6 word sentence supposed to cancel out the fact that you spent 2 paragraphs attacking me personally? *polite smile*

He claims to be a substance abuse expert but doesn't know the answer to basic questions most high school kids would know.

More Ad Hominum Abusive, Jeff? It's starting to seem habitual now. I am a substance abuse expert. Please show me a "basic question" I don't "know the answer to", Jeff, to which you're referring. I'm curious.

He's surprised we have cannabinoid receptors in our brains, but that's about the first thing you learn when you study substance abuse: that it's neurotransmitters that plug into receptors that cause our feelings, and drugs either mimic or duplicate those neurotransmitters. That's one of the basics of brain function, and without that knowledge, a substance abuse expert would lack basic understanding of why people use substances in the first place.

Put down the crack pipe, Jeff. That wasn't me. You've confused me with Lenny.

Perhaps he came here to learn.-Jeff

Perhaps you came here to bash.

Don

Braggi

05-08-2008, 08:20 PM

Well, you are right, I am "stuck" in the 70's about pot. That's about the last time I looked at it. ...
....

And the only thing you learned then was Govt. propaganda, or so it would appear. We've actually uncovered some FACTS since then, Lenny. The propaganda of that day was wrong.

...
The person that foisted the Jamacian study on pregnant women should have their gonads hung high from the wire at town square. Period.
You know as well as I that such studies are as fallacious as all get out.
...

Well you didn't read the study so you don't know. The women didn't have anything foisted on them, Lenny. They were Rastafarians and smoke daily as part of their spiritual practice. The researchers were documenting their habits and the health of the women and their children. They uncovered no negative health effects to everyone's surprise. The study, of course, was buried and never reported in the US media except on the Dr. Dean Edell radio show (as far as I know).

...
Ever hear of that band Steppenwolf? Did a song around that time called, Goddamn the Pusher Man. Sums it up for me. ...

One of my favorite bands. I've actually seen them in concert a couple of times. The first time a little known band from the Bay Area opened for them: Santana. It was a very good concert. :):

But do you really remember that song? Remember the first line? Remember anything else about John Kay?

...
So then, you are for smoking in public? Restaurants, libraries, etc? ...

I think that's illegal and reasonably so, Lenny. Wouldn't you agree?

... We all love the RIGHTS, but the RESPONSIBILITIES is what gives folks fits. And, in my opinion, pot keeps that part in check. ...

Yeah, pot smoking is kind of self limiting. In the sense that those who smoke pot usually are responsible enough to just stay home and not go out and get in trouble. Oh, but that might be bad for the economy because they're not out there burning gasoline and running up their credit cards. So maybe that's why pot is still illegal. But I digress ...

... What you propose is very rational, and a tough argument, but the price is not worth it. We may be strong enough (at this time and place) to allow such a misery out of the box, but I suppose I am not a good enough American, in that it is more than what is bankrupting this country that keeps me on this side of the fence. ...

Well, how generous of you. You'll not allow people to be responsible with their own bodies and brains but you are willing to put us all in the poor house trying to prosecute a "War" that can't be "won" but to what end, Lenny? What will it look like if we do "win?" Everyone who wants to smoke pot or take another substance will be tied up in a straight jacket so they can't hurt themselves while the rest of us get a second or third job so we can pay our taxes? That's insane.

... I KNOW the "utilitarian" approach is 100% American, and practically speaking we could use the money on far better endeavors, but the ethical and moral issue of degrading a human being via an exogenous substance outweighs that angle. Each person is worth it. Or at least more than the :2cents: .

Have you heard the saying "to each his own." How about "beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" Your values are not the same as everyone else's. Some people actually feel life is much better because of their use of exogenous substances. In fact, a lot of people would be dead or seriously ill without them.

Let people have their medicines. Let people practice their religions. Let people have their fun. If they break laws that actually hurt someone, prosecute them for the crime. If they're not bothering anyone, leave them alone.

That's the way of freedom. That's the way of liberty. That's the way the USA is supposed to be.

-Jeff

Braggi

05-08-2008, 08:26 PM

... More Ad Hominum Abusive, Jeff? It's starting to seem habitual now. I am a substance abuse expert. Please show me a "basic question" I don't "know the answer to", Jeff, to which you're referring. I'm curious. ...

I've asked you twice. And yes, it's relevant to this conversation.

What substance of abuse has seen a decline in use every year for decades in the United States?

It's a basic question with a one word answer; assuming you know it. If you don't know it do some bloody research.

Yes, Don. It's quite frustrating attempting to communicate with you.

-Jeff

Braggi

05-08-2008, 08:33 PM

...
Put down the crack pipe, Jeff. That wasn't me. You've confused me with Lenny.
...

Sorry Don. My mistake.

'scuse me while I have another toke on my little glass tube.

-Jeff

Zeno Swijtink

05-08-2008, 08:58 PM

Lenny (...) you didn't read the [Jamacian] study so you don't know.

Where can we read this study, Jeff?

thewholetruth

05-08-2008, 09:17 PM

I've asked you twice. And yes, it's relevant to this conversation.

What substance of abuse has seen a decline in use every year for decades in the United States?

Jeff, why don't you just tell me. I'm in the people business, sir, teaching men and women how to cope with life without drugs and alcohol. I'm not into stats. In fact, Zeno probably knows. Stats seem to be his forte.

It's a basic question with a one word answer; assuming you know it. If you don't know it do some bloody research.

The research I did showed me that both cocaine and pot have been in decline for decades, but I knew I needed to do more research, as you were adamant that there is only one. I only found the one source and didn't continue looking. I figured you'd tell me eventually. You know, like waving the bloody glove around for me to see? :wink:

Yes, Don. It's quite frustrating attempting to communicate with you. -Jeff

I'm sure I'm not the only person who frustrates you, Jeff.

Don

Braggi

05-08-2008, 09:23 PM

Is smoking pot any of the high road to insight and happiness as I feel many advocates of its use say it to be? After becoming legal does it deserve anymore of our attention then drinking tomato juice or chewing cranberries?

For me, pot has its uses. I think of it as a sacred medicine, but as one of the lesser sacred medicines. Still, it should be used consciously and not without purpose. I can be useful as an adjunct to a medicine journey on one of the more substantial plant teachers, but on its own I don't find it particularly enlightening.

Happiness? I don't think of any substance as a key to happiness. Some people do have insightful experiences on medicine journeys, but whether they bring happiness or not depends on what is done with the insights. Too many take little advantage, or even bother to "ask" the questions that would open oneself to insight. But that's not only about substance use. That's kind of basic to life.

Does legal pot deserve attention? Strange question. I'm not sure exactly how you mean it. Perhaps the most important consideration is how industrial use of hemp will literally blossom after the shameful prohibition on pot is overturned. Once the lure of the forbidden is removed, perhaps fewer kids will becoming interested in pot at so young an age. With distribution out of the hands of criminals, fewer will be exposed to meth, cocaine and heroin although I wouldn't expect dramatic changes in any of those except meth.

I'll guess a lot of the people that wind up on meth only do so because they couldn't get inexpensive pot. That's how it was when I was in high school. It's probably the same now.

But I don't think I'm answering your question because I don't know what your question is.

Pot is a drug and should be handled as a drug. It's also a simple plant and a medicinal one at that. It can be healing to the very ground it grows in. It takes little and gives back much.

The US is falling way behind the rest of the world in developing industrial uses of hemp. It's time we got our act together. First, we'll have to get over our fear of pot and begin real education. Honest education. The kids will appreciate that. They've never gotten it in this country.

-Jeff

PS. I don't think students should smoke dope. I never helped me in my studies. Some can study just fine after smoking. For me it's a bad idea.

MsTerry

05-08-2008, 09:27 PM

This was well-intended humor, Zeno

Where can we read this study, Jeff?

thewholetruth

05-08-2008, 09:27 PM

Where can we read this study, Jeff?

Zeno, just so there is no misunderstanding about my last post: I'm seriously impressed with your talent and afinity for stats. I always fancied myself a numbers guy, but after I started smoking pot in high school, that gift just faded away pronto. Despite being quick with numbers, basic numbers as in add/sub/mult/divide, I was sorry that I seemed to hit a wall.

Again, my comment about you came with the utmost respect, sir. Reading through some of your stuff has really given me respect for you. :thumbsup:

Don

Braggi

05-08-2008, 09:36 PM

Jeff, why don't you just tell me. ...

Sure, the drug is tobacco. It's legal. The reason for its decline is education. Real education with facts, not silly scare tactics and false statistics.

If pot is a gateway drug it's because it's the drug kids learn adults lie about. Once they think adults lie, they won't believe warnings about other drugs.

But tobacco is different. The truth is out. The kids respect that and are paying attention.

...
The research I did showed me that both cocaine and pot have been in decline for decades, ..

... as availability of meth increase and use rates skyrocket. Wouldn't it be better if more stuck with pot? I do think both coke and meth should remain illegal, BTW.

...
I'm sure I'm not the only person who frustrates you, Jeff. ...

Don, you're the only person who frustrates me on Wacco.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to do here.

-Jeff

Braggi

05-08-2008, 09:42 PM

Where can we read this study, Jeff?

google works: https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/can-babies.htm

Lots of other links.

-Jeff

MsTerry

05-08-2008, 09:53 PM

Oh,oh, I'll take it back
forgot
Jeff doesn't do humor before 12 pm

Where can we read this study, Jeff?

kpage9

05-08-2008, 09:56 PM

Just a couple thoughts as I follow this energetic thread:

"Gateway" drugs--it's been well established now that the real gateway drugs are tobacco and alcohol. Also that most kids who try pot do not go on to abuse any substance (that's NIDA's info, Don, one of the most conservative sources of drug info around).
Prenatal effects of pot--one of the other results the feds don't want us to read is that hand-eye coordination is better in babies exposed to pot prenatally
Much more urgently in need of our attention as a society--prenatal alcohol, affecting roughly 4% of us, causes AD/HD symptoms complicated by poor memory, reasoning and judgment. It's the single largest contributor to mental retardation even though most have normal IQ. One out of 25 of us. Totally preventable.
In general alcohol and tobacco wreak massively more havoc than any illegal substance.And as for pot--I just wish it weren't so dang powerful these days. I used to love smoking pot because it always brought me a different perspective, usually via visual images, not my normal channel. Now it just makes me forget everything I start to say or think. Yes yes, menopause might have something to do with that!

Don, are you really saying that you don't believe there is such a thing as moderate use of mood-altering substances?

(Do you eat dessert? Drink coffee?)

Kathy

"With distribution out of the hands of criminals, fewer will be exposed to meth, cocaine and heroin although I wouldn't expect dramatic changes in any of those except meth.

I'll guess a lot of the people that wind up on meth only do so because they couldn't get inexpensive pot. That's how it was when I was in high school. It's probably the same now.

Zeno Swijtink

05-08-2008, 10:25 PM

For me, pot has its uses. I think of it as a sacred medicine, but as one of the lesser sacred medicines. Still, it should be used consciously and not without purpose. I can be useful as an adjunct to a medicine journey on one of the more substantial plant teachers, but on its own I don't find it particularly enlightening.

Thanks for this posting which, I think, makes much clearer where you come from, which tends to disappear in a cloud of foul smelling dust when you squabble with Don.

On the other hand, as well as I can discern the direction you come from, the shape of your persona is vague. Maybe you could unpack for us the term "sacred"?

Your writing here smells of Carlos Castaneda with his The Teachings of Don Juan, an elaborate literary and anthropological hoax.

Braggi

05-08-2008, 11:00 PM

...
Your writing here smells of Carlos Castaneda with his The Teachings of Don Juan, an elaborate literary and anthropological hoax.

No. Never read any of that stuff. Always looked phony to me.

More later,

-Jeff