[Trenacker]

Quote:

Comparing modern African Americans to other modern minorities makes more sense than comparing modern African Americans to Confederate society 150 years ago.

I've offered a comparison in context; yours is a comparison outside context, and therefore misleading. What we are talking about here -- after accounting for the fact that the real populations of interest are the under-privileged of any race -- are typically ghettoized communities. It makes no sense to draw comparisons across communities that are substantially unalike.

We are talking about the theory of Affirmative Action, defined here as policy designed to serve the needs of one particular community deemed to have quantifiably inadequate access to opportunities and/or institutions. I am in strong agreement as to the ineffectiveness of policies that have been applied thus far.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Psudo wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Pot is listed as Sched.1 NOT just because it's claimed to have no medicinal value(more bullshit) but because the FDA is also claiming pot is more addictive than cocaine, amphetamines and morphine

The difference between Schedule I and Schedule II is not a difference in addictiveness, but a difference in medical applications. This fact is demonstrated by the definitions listed by the DoJ, as I linked to before,http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/index.html#define

Wow, I do get tired of repeating things. IF there's no medical use for pot, then why are the pharma companies fucking around with synthesized versions of it ie; Marinol and Sativex? Obviously, the FDA or whoever approves drug research in the US doesn't believe the horseshit it's feeding the general population.

Psudo wrote:

Substances in Schedule I have a high potential for abuse,

Huh, and yet in reality pot has one of the lowest addiction/ dependency rates, even lower than alcohol and tobacco.

Psudo wrote:

have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,

That should read; "No currently accepted medical use in treatment that pharma companies can take advantage of...yet".

Psudo wrote:

and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Oh my goodness gracious, there's no accepted safety for a substance that is impossible to OD on. I mean my God, it's amazing I'm still alive without having had some medical guardian making sure I take it as directed.

Psudo wrote:

Lester Grinspoon disputes the mainstream understanding of the toxicity of marijuana and claims it has valid medical uses that should be legally recognized. If he (and his allies) can convince mainstream medicine of the medical uses, marijuana would be moved to Schedule II. Toxicity is not mentioned in the schedule definitions, so that argument doesn't legally matter. Maybe those definitions should be changed, but even if so you're still wrong about how the US government currently classifies drugs.

Again, it seems to primarily be the US federal gov't that refuses to officially recognize a medical use for pot.
Several US states have recognized it's medical benefits. Health Canada not only recognizes it, it provides information and forms so one can get a medical exemption to possess and grow pot. Hell, I can even designate someone to grow it for me if I really want to. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but in Canada, pot is a Sched.2 drug with possession up to 30 grams being little more than a misdemeanor for non-medicinal users.

Psudo wrote:

Incidentally, I like his spelling for it. "Marihuana."

Oddly enough, that how Health Canada spells it.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Yet the very "studies" you posted (gov't propaganda and a blog) show that pot is actually the least addictive of the more popular substances.

Psudo wrote:

I'm not asserting that it's more addictive than other popular drugs. I'm asserting that it's more addictive than the definition of Schedule III drugs. Show me studies that show THC is equally or less addictive than any Schedule III drug and you'll have a point. Otherwise, discarding my evidence is not the same as providing your own.

I dunno man I have grave doubts about pot being more addictive than Vicodin, or even Valium or Halcions for that matter(Sched IV). I've seen people addicted to those and the withdrawal symtoms were pretty similar to narcotic or alcohol withdrawal.

Psudo wrote:

If I were acting as you have, I'd cast doubt on Lester Grinspoon's opinion based on the fact that you linked to a biased pro-cannabis advocacy website. After all, you discounted my sources because they were from the US government or "a blog." (What is the relevance of that last distinction? The article from "the blog" was written by a Ph.D. who linked to other articles by other Ph.D.s that agreed.) I am not going to do that because that would be closed-minded ideological loyalty, not reasonable investigation. Take a lesson.

Don't need a lesson from you. I posted those to make a point. The Grinspoon link was from a Harvard Medical School psychiatrist and one of the leading authorities on medical marijuana. His studies were done in the real world with real people, not some caged lab rats. The 2nd link was a lesson you should take. I can find ANY number of blogs with articles written by medical professionals on the benefits of medical marijuana. The one from MarijuanaMD was only one of many. Posting links from doctors in general though is pointless primarily because there is no one sided agreement among them. For every doctor that you link to that says pot it bad, I can link to just as many that see the benefits of pot and vice versa I'm sure.

Unsound wrote:

I wonder if we can read anything into the fact that a thread about the candidates for the GOP nomination has turned into a debate about weed?

Psudo wrote:

I read into it that the election is more than a year away and the GOP candidates are uninteresting and uninspiring, whereas PublicAnimalNo9's bad logic is entertaining.

The only bad logic is coming from south of Canada's border. To reiterate, pot is a Sched.1 in the US primarily because it has no medical use as you state. Yet US pharma companies are trying to synthesize the active ingredients in pot for medicinal purposes.
One can only reach one of two conclusions. The FDA and the federal gov't are feeding everyone a line of bullshit, or US pharma companies are run by complete retards. Although the latter isn't an impossibility, I'm betting it's the former.

[Psudo]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Substances in Schedule I have a high potential for abuse,

pot has one of the lowest addiction/ dependency rates

Lowest out of what? Not all drugs, surely. Most drugs are not addictive at all (aspirin, for example). It could be one of the least addictive drugs in Schedule I without there being some violation of the definition involved. No matter what definition you use, some drugs are going to be the least addictive within that range. That's not the same as saying it shouldn't be classified there.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

[...] even lower than alcohol and tobacco.

That's not saying much. Both are known to be very addictive. They are exempted from medical regulation because of tradition and popular support, not safety.

It seems to me that you're not looking to establish a reasonable principle regarding recreational chemicals generally. You're only looking to make marijuana yet another random exemption for no reason other than because you got enough power (votes) to make it so. That's just as stupid as the broken law that treats alcohol and tobacco differently than marijuana. That's what arouses my opposition. I'd be fine with marijuana becoming legal as a side effect of changing the law to make some kinda sense, but I care about law and you care about pot. That's the basis of our conflict.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

I have grave doubts about pot being more addictive than Vicodin, or even Valium or Halcions for that matter(Sched IV). I've seen people addicted to those and the withdrawal symtoms were pretty similar to narcotic or alcohol withdrawal.

Are you talking about addiction rates or severity of withdrawal symptoms? I think the scheduling classification looks to addiction rates. Everything I read seems to agree that THC's withdrawal symptoms are relatively mild, but serious addiction in one in eleven cases applied to millions of tokers seems far more significant.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

To reiterate, pot is a Sched.1 in the US primarily because it has no medical use as you state. Yet US pharma companies are trying to synthesize the active ingredients in pot for medicinal purposes.

First, they already synthesized it (which I mentioned earlier). Second, "no accepted medical use" doesn't mean it can't possibly help any medical ailment. It means there's no medical ailment for which it is ever the best choice. It is pretty well accepted that marijuana can be used medically for glaucoma, for example, but so can a whole mess of other drugs that aren't addictive. There is no medical reason to prefer THC treatment to some other form.

It's interesting that the synthetic version comes with a warning that can be addictive. They've synthetically adjusted it to be less addictive (some folks around the internet complain that it doesn't "taste as good" as regular pot), but it's still a medically significant worry.

[Murray_Smith]

PublicAnimalNumberNine, someday I will go up to where you live with some fine California kush (when I get sufficient money to do what I want) and we'll have a grand old time just smoking and shooting the bull.

That being said, you are refusing to accept fact.

Marijuana is harmful. Weed is not some miraculous plant that cures what ails ye with no side effects. Consider some of the side effects of marijuana: Euphoria, paranoia, coughing fits (from smoke inhalation!), blood sugar spikes (if you can't control the munchies), memory loss, and a piss-poor attention span.

Marijuana is addictive. I suffer withdrawal symptoms for 24-48 hours after I stop smoking for a while. They are very mild, but withdrawal symptoms nonetheless. And don't even get me started on the psychological addiction. The fact that these addictions are not typically as strong as those to nicotine or alcohol is legally irrelevant.

Psudo seems to be arguing (among other things) that the criminalization of marijuana is only a symptom of our broken drug policy. His logic is that if we're going to reform marijuana's status, we should at least review the statuses of other drugs for the sake of consistency.

Psudo wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

[...] even lower than alcohol and tobacco.

That's not saying much. Both are known to be very addictive. They are exempted from medical regulation because of tradition and popular support, not safety.

By the end of the century, cannabis will likely have both. That's not an argument; I'm simply responding to the real legal weight of the ad populum fallacy.

Psudo wrote:

It seems to me that you're not looking to establish a reasonable principle regarding recreational chemicals generally. You're only looking to make marijuana yet another random exemption for no reason other than because you got enough power (votes) to make it so. That's just as stupid as the broken law that treats alcohol and tobacco differently than marijuana. That's what arouses my opposition. I'd be fine with marijuana becoming legal as a side effect of changing the law to make some kinda sense, but I care about law and you care about pot. That's the basis of our conflict.

Cannabis is a bit of a black sheep among drugs because it can be used for other things as well: fabric, paper, and even food (the seeds are edible and are not psychoactive). Even if it isn't the absolute best choice for any one of the above, well, that's what the free market is for. That is why the damn hippies push to legalize weed as opposed to, say, the plethora of hallucinogens out there; there are no such utilitarian arguments for the latter.

Psudo wrote:

It's not worth the effort to switch out one broken law for another.

I was under the impression that switching out one broken law for a less broken law was the way we do things around here. Zing?

Psudo wrote:

I refuse to live a veneer of celebration stretched tight over an abyss of misery.

THEN YOU WILL NEVER LIVE AT ALL.

[Psudo]

Murray_Smith wrote:

Cannabis is a bit of a black sheep among drugs because it can be used for other things as well: fabric, paper, and even food (the seeds are edible and are not psychoactive). Even if it isn't the absolute best choice for any one of the above, well, that's what the free market is for. That is why the damn hippies push to legalize weed as opposed to, say, the plethora of hallucinogens out there; there are no such utilitarian arguments for the latter.

That's generally true, except that 1) people do push to legalize other drugs, too, only with less success, and 2) "black sheep" suggests that it's worse than other drugs, where it's generally considered milder or better.

Murray_Smith wrote:

Psudo wrote:

It's not worth the effort to switch out one broken law for another.

I was under the impression that switching out one broken law for a less broken law was the way we do things around here. Zing?

Less broken would be great. That's not what PublicAnimal is pushing for. He's not advocating that the standard be changed at all, only that one specific drug be moved to the other side of the standard.

Murray_Smith wrote:

Psudo wrote:

I refuse to live a veneer of celebration stretched tight over an abyss of misery.

THEN YOU WILL NEVER LIVE AT ALL.

"Let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die," eh? That quote comes from Isaiah (22:13) predicting the downfall of society.

You and I need not agree on what it is to truly live, but your argument is not persuasive. I remain convinced that correcting the abyss is living, not hiding it.

[CKASlacker]

DanSC wrote:

CKASlacker wrote:

Does anyone here think they drive better sober than Michael Schumacher (former F1 driver champion) after he had 2,3, hell 6 beers?

Yes.

Hah! Never saw that before -- quite funny.

Still, if he *did* ever have a few beers and drive, I still think he's better able to handle a sports car than any of us.

[Psudo]

Being a good driver consists of two traits: ability and good habits. To drive drunk is to give up some ability and a significant good habit. It makes you a bad driver in both senses.

Michael Schumacher would still have more ability than us, but the fact he is (hypothetically) driving drunk makes his habits worse than most of the world. Overall, one cannot say he is a better driver under those circumstances.

[andyt]

Who's to say MS is such a good driver in ordinary traffic? It's a totally different situation. He may be inattentive, or have bad habits like not signalling or following too closely. Driving in traffic is about a lot more than having quick reactions and being able to handle your car skillfully. Which is why the young male demographic has the most accidents.

[bootlegga]

Psudo wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

I also remember seeing about two dozen little crosses at the side of the road on sharp corner near a bridge later during that trip. That was pretty sobering too.

Those are a brilliant tradition.

A better tradition would be fewer accidents...

[CKASlacker]

andyt wrote:

Who's to say MS is such a good driver in ordinary traffic? It's a totally different situation. He may be inattentive, or have bad habits like not signalling or following too closely. Driving in traffic is about a lot more than having quick reactions and being able to handle your car skillfully. Which is why the young male demographic has the most accidents.

Are you saying that in F1 he could get by being inattentive? Or not being able to drive in traffic (ie. start grid)?

Of course it's more than just having good reactions -- being able to anticipate what other drivers are doing, anticipate their mistakes. Reactions are a part of the whole of both F1 and regular driving.

[andyt]

I'm saying that F1 is totally different than ordinary traffic. And that he won't drive in ordinary traffic with the same focus that he races with. Who knows, maybe he has all sorts of bad habits when driving on the road. If he regularly runs red lights, say, then all his skill probably won't help him.

[CKASlacker]

Psudo wrote:

Being a good driver consists of two traits: ability and good habits. To drive drunk is to give up some ability and a significant good habit. It makes you a bad driver in both senses.

Michael Schumacher would still have more ability than us, but the fact he is (hypothetically) driving drunk makes his habits worse than most of the world. Overall, one cannot say he is a better driver under those circumstances.

Depends how much he had to drink -- obviously if he's unconscious he's a lousy driver! In most provinces/states the legal limit is 0.08 BAC -- which is probably really low for some like Schumacher -- I contend even with lessened ability and possibly magnified bad habits at 0.08 he'd still be miles better than most sober drivers on the road.

Texting while driving is probably much more of a distraction -- and while illegal in some states and provinces, doesn't carry nearly the same punishment:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81553792/

[Psudo]

bootlegga wrote:

A better tradition would be fewer accidents...

Of course. But since they do happen, those roadside memorials are a very sobering warning to reduce future accidents. That's why I like them.

bootlegga wrote:

Psudo wrote:

the fact he is (hypothetically) driving drunk makes his habits worse than most of the world.

Depends how much he had to drink

That is not the answer he would give (just listen to him in the video), because he believes in the principle of good driving habits and it is a lousy driving habit to drive distracted or under the influence in any sense.

The tendency to make excuses for bad driving habits is the reason there are overly intrusive traffic laws and a high annual traffic fatality rate. Good drivers do not indulge or excuse bad driving habits.