GMG Classical Music Forum

The Back Room => The Diner => Topic started by: lisa needs braces on October 21, 2016, 03:14:23 PM

Title: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: lisa needs braces on October 21, 2016, 03:14:23 PM
American states that allow ballot measures are all increasingly choosing to legalize marijuana. In this election cycle California is poised to vote for a regulated cannabis market like Colorado's, making recreational cannabis official in that state and doing away with their 20 year old wink-wink arrangement. Legalization will also be voted on by the residents of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Maine and Massachusetts, and a spattering of states will consider medical marijuana. Given California's rich economy and population size, its decision to legalize will have national and international repercussions about drug policy. After this election cycle, if most of the ballot measures are successful, legalization might start happening via state governments themselves, and several New England states have promised to do so (as well as New Jersey) if Massachusetts' ballot measure is successful.

But since this is a music forum, my real goal with this thread is to ask: Have any of you listened to music while under the influence of cannabis especially the sativa strain? The few times I've done this have been wondrous experiences -- I've found that sound is so much fuller and richer and my artistic sensitivity is increased three fold. Oddly though, I've found everything is more engaging when under the influence of the sativa variety via edible form -- I remember listening to a history podcast (Hardcore History, the series on WW1) and finding it to be the most engaging thing ever.

In conclusion: What do you guys think of cannabis intoxication as a means to enhance artistic sensitivity and perception?

Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 21, 2016, 03:39:02 PM
I have never used it.  :blank:

I strongly support legalization. Of most drugs actually, cocaine for instance. Never used that either.  :blank: I'd legalize pretty much everything except antibiotics, antivirals and antifungals ( because of resistant strains).  I think a lot of these drugs are dangerous and bad for you, but so are laws against them.

Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ghost Sonata on October 21, 2016, 04:42:07 PM
Rather sensitive, yes.  I lost my high school best bud to drugs and the false promises of Huxley's Doors of Perception, a book he revered.  The number of classical musicians with addictions (less publicized than rock or jazz musicians, one might speculate why) would surprise.  Drugs (and drink) are a spur to creativity, initially, and can make up for a lack of self-esteem or courage.  But for many souls, most?, the devil will eventually have his due.  In the case of my friend, a very talented writer and violinist, he accomplished nothing other than being quoted in several encyclopedias of Psychedelia.  Of course would we have the Symphonie Fantastique without opium?  Or say, Leibowitz's: Marijuana: Variations non sérieuses?  Obviously not.  Still, I wonder if such things are worth the damage done.  Perhaps my age is showing, or grief at the loss of my friend, but I think not.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: lisa needs braces on October 21, 2016, 05:21:19 PM
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 21, 2016, 04:42:07 PM
Rather sensitive, yes.  I lost my high school best bud to drugs and the false promises of Huxley's Doors of Perception, a book he revered.  The number of classical musicians with addictions (less publicized than rock or jazz musicians, one might speculate why) would surprise.  Drugs (and drink) are a spur to creativity, initially, and can make up for a lack of self-esteem or courage.  But for many souls, most?, the devil will eventually have his due.  In the case of my friend, a very talented writer and violinist, he accomplished nothing other than being quoted in several encyclopedias of Psychedelia.  Of course would we have the Symphonie Fantastique without opium?  Or say, Leibowitz's: Marijuana: Variations non sérieuses?  Obviously not.  Still, I wonder if such things are worth the damage done.  Perhaps my age is showing, but I think not.

Perhaps your friend wouldn't have been lost to drugs if the government didn't treat cannabis and heroin as equally harmful, thereby sending wrong and confusing signals about the relative safety of drugs when an individual discovers that habitual use of cannabis is practically harmless.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ghost Sonata on October 21, 2016, 05:46:35 PM
Maybe, abe, but looking back I think he had an addictive personality and a regrettable tendency to pseudo-intellectualize his drug experiences. Mostly, it was nothing more than self-indulgence. Fwiw, I agree with the Kenster and you, legalization is preferable to the so-called war on drugs, one that can only be lost in any case. But drugs for many folks are a Pandora's Box it would be better not to open.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: lisa needs braces on October 21, 2016, 05:55:38 PM
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 21, 2016, 05:46:35 PM
Maybe, abe, but looking back I think he had an addictive personality and a regrettable tendency to pseudo-intellectualize his drug experiences. Mostly, it was nothing more than self-indulgence. Fwiw, I agree with the Kenster and you, legalization is preferable to the so-called war on drugs, one that can only be lost in any case. But drugs for many folks are a Pandora's Box it would be better not to open.

"Self-indulgence" is a meaningless phrase. Are we not being self-indulgent by listening to music that does nothing more than tickle the pleasure centers of our brains?
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: mc ukrneal on October 21, 2016, 06:46:56 PM
Quote from: -abe- on October 21, 2016, 05:21:19 PM
...when an individual discovers that habitual use of cannabis is practically harmless.
Unfortunately this is not true. There is too much unknown about the long term effects as so little research has been done on the topic to date. Perhaps you will be able to say this in some years, but you will have to wait for that research to catch up, assuming of course this is what they discover. Personally, I doubt it. 
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ghost Sonata on October 21, 2016, 06:57:50 PM
The term "self-indulgence" is hardly meaningless, abe; if it were, you could not legitimately use it to describe my own listening habits, which I agree with you are fairly "self-indulgent." About others' here, I could not authoritatively say.  If you meant that as an apologia for drug use, it's a poor comparison. My classical music addiction, if you will, hurts no one and does me no physical or mental harm - indeed, is prob. healthy for me and has no negative impact on society at large.

In sum, my feelings about drugs are these: they are rather like guns. They are dangerous. Not every gun in a given hand is going to maim or kill, nor is every drug on a given tongue. But the capacity of either to inflict harm and grief is elevated; some drugs (and guns) more, some less. caveat emptor.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 21, 2016, 07:32:19 PM
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 21, 2016, 06:57:50 PM
The term "self-indulgence" is hardly meaningless, abe; if it were, you could not legitimately use it to describe my own listening habits, which I agree with you are fairly "self-indulgent." About others' here, I could not authoritatively say.  If you meant that as an apologia for drug use, it's a poor comparison. My classical music addiction, if you will, hurts no one and does me no physical or mental harm - indeed, is prob. healthy for me and has no negative impact on society at large.

In sum, my feelings about drugs are these: they are rather like guns. They are dangerous. Not every gun in a given hand is going to maim or kill, nor is every drug on a given tongue. But the capacity of either to inflict harm and grief is elevated; some drugs (and guns) more, some less. caveat emptor.

A liking for Dumbarton Oaks is in no sense self-indulgent. A liking for Turangalila is. And Neal has a point about long term dangers. The Stravinsky has been around long enough we can pronounce it safe, but the other? Best not risk it.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Mirror Image on October 21, 2016, 07:34:36 PM
I'm against it. Some could say as long as they're not hurting anyone, then what does it matter? My view: you can't take any chances like that. I can see someone being allowed to use marijuana if they're terminally ill. That's a completely different matter altogether. I just don't want to walk out and see accident upon accident happen. People are crazy enough with no kind of drug in their body!
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: lisa needs braces on October 21, 2016, 08:10:05 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 21, 2016, 07:34:36 PM
I'm against it. Some could say as long as they're not hurting anyone, then what does it matter? My view: you can't take any chances like that. I can see someone being allowed to use marijuana if they're terminally ill. That's a completely different matter altogether. I just don't want to walk out and see accident upon accident happen. People are crazy enough with no kind of drug in their body!

Marijuana has effectively been legal in California for 20 years such that anyone who wanted it could say they had "headaches" or "back pain" and get a prescription for it -- the measure that passed in 1996 was so broad that it effectively legalized cannabis in that state for anyone willing to fork over less than $100 per year to get a medical marijuana card.

Did the sky fall? Did accidents after accidents occur on the numerous roadways of California? Same with regards to Colorado since 2013.

I'm aghast at the knee jerk puritan attitudes on display here.

Ghost Sonata -- my friend, you needlessly broadened the discussion to one about all drugs whereas I limited it to cannabis which currently near 60% of the U.S populace wants legalized. There is no such demand for or approval of other substances.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: lisa needs braces on October 21, 2016, 08:12:50 PM
I give you GMGs most popular drug related thread:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,89.0.html (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,89.0.html)

Let's look down on these folk.  $:)
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: lisa needs braces on October 21, 2016, 08:15:26 PM
Quote from: Ken B on October 21, 2016, 07:32:19 PM
A liking for Dumbarton Oaks is in no sense self-indulgent. A liking for Turangalila is. And Neal has a point about long term dangers. The Stravinsky has been around long enough we can pronounce it safe, but the other? Best not risk it.

;D
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 21, 2016, 08:18:55 PM
Quote from: -abe- on October 21, 2016, 08:10:05 PM
Marijuana has effectively been legal in California for 20 years such that anyone who wanted it could say they had "headaches" or "back pain" and get a prescription for it -- the measure that passed in 1996 was so broad that it effectively legalized cannabis in that state for anyone willing to fork over less than $100 per year to get a medical marijuana card.

Did the sky fall? Did accidents after accidents occur on the numerous roadways of California? Same with regards to Colorado since 2013.

I'm aghast at the knee jerk puritan attitudes on display here.


Marijuana has been widely available pretty much everywhere in the country for decades.
Aghast at either the knee-jerk or the puritan at GMG? Are you new here? You might as well be aghast at all the Shostakovich postings.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Mirror Image on October 21, 2016, 08:27:40 PM
Quote from: -abe- on October 21, 2016, 08:10:05 PM
Marijuana has effectively been legal in California for 20 years such that anyone who wanted it could say they had "headaches" or "back pain" and get a prescription for it -- the measure that passed in 1996 was so broad that it effectively legalized cannabis in that state for anyone willing to fork over less than $100 per year to get a medical marijuana card.

Did the sky fall? Did accidents after accidents occur on the numerous roadways of California? Same with regards to Colorado since 2013.

I'm aghast at the knee jerk puritan attitudes on display here.

Ghost Sonata -- my friend, you needlessly broadened the discussion to one about all drugs whereas I limited it to cannabis which currently near 60% of the U.S populace wants legalized. There is no such demand for or approval of other substances.

I'm exaggerating a bit, yes, but I still stand by statement that it's not good for our society just like people who get drunk and kill innocent people in car accidents isn't good for society and there are countless more examples. I'm liberal on many issues, but this isn't one of them. No good comes out of doing drugs that are aimed at altering your state of mind. As I said, people are already batshit crazy without the drugs in their system, they don't need any extra incentive. I think someone can have a good time without cannabis or any kind of drug. Also, your comment about us who oppose cannabis usage is a typical response from someone who can't accept a differing opinion. God forbid, I disagree with you! ::)

Let me also state that there are a lot of things I disagree with about our society, but what can I do about it? I have to accept it and move on. But there's a reason why cannabis isn't legal nationwide.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: zamyrabyrd on October 22, 2016, 12:39:51 AM
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 21, 2016, 04:42:07 PM
...Drugs (and drink) are a spur to creativity, initially, and can make up for a lack of self-esteem or courage.  But for many souls, most?, the devil will eventually have his due.  In the case of my friend, a very talented writer and violinist, he accomplished nothing other than being quoted in several encyclopedias of Psychedelia.  Of course would we have the Symphonie Fantastique without opium? 

With all due respect, the Symphonie Fantastique was crafted together from previous works, a ballet on Faust and the proposed Francs-Juges opera. The march from latter became "Marche au supplice" to which was added the idée fixe and a different ending. It makes for interesting copy to say he was in an opium haze when composing it, like Beethoven supposedly taking dictation from the heavens. As for being under the influence, Berlioz actually planned to commit murder but a chain of circumstances stopped him from killing the woman who dumped him and her fiancé. He also had severe health problems from the middle of his life that could have been exacerbated by drugs he was ingesting. His physician father apparently suffered from a similar stomach ailment that he himself took opium for.

Marijuana is bad news, not for what it does immediately, apart from killing ambition, but its toxic residues accumulate in the liver. We have a friend who is suffering from a severe neurological ailment and I can't help but wonder if it is not in part from his liberal indulgence in it over years. I read that states that already legalized it, have higher incidence of traffic accidents while under the influence. We get into tricky territory whether the government has a right to prohibit what consenting adults decide to do. The problem is how their actions affect others like children. How about second hand smoke from pot, or being in the way of an out of control vehicle? OK, the sale of alcohol and tobacco are regulated to the extent the government gets a large chunk of revenue by taxing them. Drugs like marijuana are just as bad if not worse.



Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on October 22, 2016, 07:25:07 AM
Quote from: -abe- on October 21, 2016, 05:55:38 PM
"Self-indulgence" is a meaningless phrase. Are we not being self-indulgent by listening to music that does nothing more than tickle the pleasure centers of our brains?

I think that is an example of what they call a false equivalence.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on October 22, 2016, 07:27:40 AM
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 22, 2016, 12:39:51 AM
With all due respect, the Symphonie Fantastique was crafted together from previous works, a ballet on Faust and the proposed Francs-Juges opera. The march from latter became "Marche au supplice" to which was added the idée fixe and a different ending. It makes for interesting copy to say he was in an opium haze when composing it, like Beethoven supposedly taking dictation from the heavens.

I'd modify your analysis, and say that it incorporates some pre-existing elements, rather than simply crafting it from previous works.

And your point is entirely well taken:  it is a profound misunderstanding of literature, to mistake the program of the Symphonie fantastique for autobiography.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: zamyrabyrd on October 22, 2016, 08:48:23 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 22, 2016, 07:27:40 AM
I'd modify your analysis, and say that it incorporates some pre-existing elements, rather than simply crafting it from previous works. And your point is entirely well taken:  it is a profound misunderstanding of literature, to mistake the program of the Symphonie fantastique for autobiography.

OK, however he did, it was a felicitous combination in the end!
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ghost Sonata on October 22, 2016, 09:02:23 AM
Quote from: -abe- on October 21, 2016, 08:10:05 PM

Ghost Sonata -- my friend, you needlessly broadened the discussion to one about all drugs whereas I limited it to cannabis which currently near 60% of the U.S populace wants legalized. There is no such demand for or approval of other substances.

I added those at no extra charge - a better bargain than drug dealers offer.  :) To be sure, my friend didn't die of Mary Jane; I'm well aware for some it will be a sufficient high, for others, like him, it will become a 'gateway drug.' 
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on October 22, 2016, 09:10:58 AM
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 22, 2016, 08:48:23 AM
OK, however he did, it was a felicitous combination in the end!

Aye, indeed!
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ghost Sonata on October 22, 2016, 09:22:44 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 22, 2016, 07:27:40 AM
I'd modify your analysis, and say that it incorporates some pre-existing elements, rather than simply crafting it from previous works.

And your point is entirely well taken:  it is a profound misunderstanding of literature, to mistake the program of the Symphonie fantastique for autobiography.

I recommend viewing SF as incorporating and motivated by autobiographical elements.  Berlioz was a high-strung person, and like his physician father (and many others of that period) used opium to calm himself.  Of course, that drug is essential to its program (orig. just the last two movements) and became more so as the composer altered it entire so that the whole work becomes an opium-fueled dream. Berlioz' obsession ("stalker-like" is not an exaggeration) with Harriet Smithson is clearly there in the work.  Hugh Macdonald, Berlioz biographer:  "There is no mistaking the artist or the woman as Berlioz and Harriet Smithson, and the programme spells out his dreams and fantasies in dramatic form."
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: drogulus on October 22, 2016, 02:33:29 PM

      While a wait and see attitude towards the dangers of pot might seem reasonable, it's bound to seem less so when you consider the level of damage of the war against pot users.

      Another point, pot can have dangers associated with its use that we choose to accept. It's not all "it's harmless, so we'll allow it". Not at all is it that. For both medicinal and recreational use we will accept some level of danger.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 22, 2016, 03:59:41 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 22, 2016, 02:33:29 PM
      While a wait and see attitude towards the dangers of pot might seem reasonable, it's bound to seem less so when you consider the level of damage of the war against pot users.

      Another point, pot can have dangers associated with its use that we choose to accept. It's not all "it's harmless, so we'll allow it". Not at all is it that. For both medicinal and recreational use we will accept some level of danger.

Indeed.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 22, 2016, 04:03:26 PM
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 21, 2016, 07:34:36 PM
I'm against it. Some could say as long as they're not hurting anyone, then what does it matter? My view: you can't take any chances like that. I can see someone being allowed to use marijuana if they're terminally ill. That's a completely different matter altogether. I just don't want to walk out and see accident upon accident happen. People are crazy enough with no kind of drug in their body!

Maybe when I reach John's age I'll know what's best for others and feel comfortable telling them how to live. But not yet.

I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: drogulus on October 22, 2016, 04:24:12 PM

     I accept government can regulate pot, baby food, drones, to the point I insist that they do. Also I'm super comfortable telling people how I think they should live, in exactly the same way people who think the government shouldn't tell me how to live tell me how I must live. Only a tyranny could impose libertarian absolutism, a democracy won't ever do it.

     
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: XB-70 Valkyrie on October 22, 2016, 04:41:59 PM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 22, 2016, 04:16:21 PM
Nobel worthy lyrics.

;)

Whoa there cowboy! Drake, JayZeee, and Kane West deserve to get theirs first!!!   :P
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: XB-70 Valkyrie on October 22, 2016, 04:48:06 PM
No, actually, I can't stand Dylan's sound, so have not memorized his ouevre. In any case, it is possibly a slippery slope until Drake gets his (Still not as bad as Kissinger winning the peace prize!)

Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Mirror Image on October 22, 2016, 07:26:01 PM
Quote from: Ken B on October 22, 2016, 04:03:26 PMMaybe when I reach John's age I'll know what's best for others and feel comfortable telling them how to live. But not yet.

I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now


???

I'm not telling anyone how to live or what they should or should not be doing with their lives. Where did you read that or read any implication that is what I said? Anyway, if they want to kill brains cells, then, hell, have fun! Smoke'em up! :) I will say that I don't have to nod along and say I agree with it. Like I said, I'm against it and unless someone is terminally ill, I don't agree that it should be used for recreation, but I don't make the laws.

Edit: I can't stand Bob Dylan, but recognize he's a great songwriter. That's about all he is.

Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Andante on October 22, 2016, 07:35:15 PM
I wonder how many of the killers in mass shootings that happen in the USA were affected by drugs, how many road accidents are down to drugged drivers, how many crimes are committed to get money for drugs.
I recently had to travel in a mini bus for 2 ½ hrs behind me was a young guy 18-20 he stank of Marijuana (not smoking it) and was coughing and hawking all the way, as to the comments that it does no harm just ask the medical professionals. Crystal Meth "methamphetamine" is a bigger problem why not make that legal as well.
No I am with Mirror Image and am totally against legalisation, you must be a sad individual if you have to rely on the stuff.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: zamyrabyrd on October 22, 2016, 10:22:11 PM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 22, 2016, 04:39:50 PM
Sure. We had a democracy in this country from 1776-1861 and there was no regulation of pot.  I am not for prohibition, and had thought it was a proven failure.

The hypocrisy of taxation on alcohol and tobacco has to do with shoveling into government coffers, big money from people harming themselves while sanctimoniously preaching these items are "not good for you".
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: snyprrr on October 22, 2016, 10:27:01 PM
Quote from: drogulus on October 22, 2016, 04:24:12 PM
     I accept government can regulate pot, baby food, drones, to the point I insist that they do. Also I'm super comfortable telling people how I think they should live, in exactly the same way people who think the government shouldn't tell me how to live tell me how I must live. Only a tyranny could impose libertarian absolutism, a democracy won't ever do it.

   

The only sane thing to do is to DE-CLASSIFY it. It is grass that grows on the side of the road. Period.


(No, mom, I'm not Posting in the Pot Thread!!!)
Title: Is It An Herb or Is It A Weed??
Post by: snyprrr on October 22, 2016, 10:29:53 PM
inquiring minds
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: snyprrr on October 22, 2016, 10:34:28 PM
Quote from: -abe- on October 21, 2016, 03:14:23 PM
American states that allow ballot measures are all increasingly choosing to legalize marijuana. In this election cycle California is poised to vote for a regulated cannabis market like Colorado's, making recreational cannabis official in that state and doing away with their 20 year old wink-wink arrangement. Legalization will also be voted on by the residents of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Maine and Massachusetts, and a spattering of states will consider medical marijuana. Given California's rich economy and population size, its decision to legalize will have national and international repercussions about drug policy. After this election cycle, if most of the ballot measures are successful, legalization might start happening via state governments themselves, and several New England states have promised to do so (as well as New Jersey) if Massachusetts' ballot measure is successful.

But since this is a music forum, my real goal with this thread is to ask: Have any of you listened to music while under the influence of cannabis especially the sativa strain? The few times I've done this have been wondrous experiences -- I've found that sound is so much fuller and richer and my artistic sensitivity is increased three fold. Oddly though, I've found everything is more engaging when under the influence of the sativa variety via edible form -- I remember listening to a history podcast (Hardcore History, the series on WW1) and finding it to be the most engaging thing ever.

In conclusion: What do you guys think of cannabis intoxication as a means to enhance artistic sensitivity and perception?

I'm reporting you to the proper authorities. I had an uncle who died from only one marijuana, Nixon was right!!












GO CUBS!!!! $:)
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on October 23, 2016, 03:22:52 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on October 22, 2016, 10:27:01 PM
The only sane thing to do [....]

Dude, if you only knew how amusing it is to read this phrase, posted by your bad self.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 05:44:06 AM
Quote from: drogulus on October 22, 2016, 04:24:12 PM
     I accept government can regulate pot, baby food, drones, to the point I insist that they do. Also I'm super comfortable telling people how I think they should live, in exactly the same way people who think the government shouldn't tell me how to live tell me how I must live. Only a tyranny could impose libertarian absolutism, a democracy won't ever do it.

   

You cannot distinguish between telling people how they should live and telling them how one thinks they should lie? One is passing and enforcing rules and one is expressing an opinion. I think no-one should waste time watching college football but I don't want a law against it.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ghost Sonata on October 23, 2016, 06:07:01 AM
Quote from: Andante on October 22, 2016, 07:35:15 PM
I wonder how many...how many road accidents are down to drugged drivers...


Wonder no more, Andante : the all-too-predictable result - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/10/marijuana-related-fatal-car-accidents-surge-washin/   Similar reports are coming from California and Colorado.  One might well ask whether marijuana decriminalization laws permit users to smoke pot or protect their right to weed us out on the road. Meanwhile, research is being done to better measure drivers' marijuana-induced intoxication levels as well as specific effects on their driving.  The added administrative costs of all this require...guess? : more taxation on pot sales.  If you want Bo, get used to it.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Mirror Image on October 23, 2016, 07:13:28 AM
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 23, 2016, 06:07:01 AM
Wonder no more, Andante : the all-too-predictable result - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/10/marijuana-related-fatal-car-accidents-surge-washin/   Similar reports are coming from California and Colorado.  One might well ask whether marijuana decriminalization laws permit users to smoke pot or protect their right to weed us out on the road. Meanwhile, research is being done to better measure drivers' marijuana-induced intoxication levels as well as specific effects on their driving.  The added administrative costs of all this require...guess? : more taxation on pot sales.  If you want Bo, get used to it.

But this is what's good for our society! (repeat statement 10 times in row for full sarcastic and obnoxious effect) ;D
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ghost Sonata on October 23, 2016, 07:57:55 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 23, 2016, 07:13:28 AM
But this is what's good for our society! (repeat statement 10 times in row for full sarcastic and obnoxious effect) ;D

Yeah, i'll make it my mantra. Hope I can at least hum it on the way to the hospital...
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Mirror Image on October 23, 2016, 08:05:06 AM
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 23, 2016, 07:57:55 AM
Yeah, i'll make it my mantra. Hope I can at least hum it on the way to the hospital...

Or the casket...
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 09:23:24 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 21, 2016, 07:34:36 PM
I'm against it. Some could say as long as they're not hurting anyone, then what does it matter? My view: you can't take any chances like that. I can see someone being allowed to use marijuana if they're terminally ill. That's a completely different matter altogether. I just don't want to walk out and see accident upon accident happen. People are crazy enough with no kind of drug in their body!
If I knew how to cross -post I'd post this on Cato's grammar thread, because I want to illustrate the difference between precis and epitome. A precis is a compression of an argument or writing substantially in its own words.  Here is my precis of John's argument:
Quoteyou can't take any chances... accident upon accident...People are crazy enough   
An epitome is a compression of an argument by characterization, in the epitomist's words. Here is my epitome of John's argument
QuoteBecause zombie apocalypse
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Jo498 on October 23, 2016, 09:55:18 AM
The argument with traffic accidents could be used for a total prohibition of alcohol as well. I think everybody has to admit that there is no simple solution. There are pragmatic as well as principal reasons for a more liberal drug policy and there are of course also good arguments against them. But one problem is that one of the worst drugs (if abused), namely alcohol, is handled liberally in most countries (almost everywhere in the West less prohibitive than in the US) and that alcohol prohibition was a desaster, all things considered. So is the "War on Drugs". I do not see why a more liberal drug policy wrt to pot, or even cocaine and opiates should not have some restrictions still in place and be combined with "aggressive" information policy wrt to the bad effects of those drugs while getting rid of the worst side effects of the war on drugs.

As for indulgent friends: Probably everyone has lost someone because of some unhealthy habit, be it alcohol abuse or smoking tobacco or unhealthy eating/obesity. But we all seem to agree that unhealthy food should not be banned and tobacco at most restricted etc. The reasons for the ban on other drugs are mostly historically contingent or politically motivated, not mainly medically. (AFAIK the physical addiction to alcohol can be as bad as opiate addiction.)
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 11:49:11 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on October 23, 2016, 09:55:18 AM
The argument with traffic accidents could be used for a total prohibition of alcohol as well. I think everybody has to admit that there is no simple solution. There are pragmatic as well as principal reasons for a more liberal drug policy and there are of course also good arguments against them. But one problem is that one of the worst drugs (if abused), namely alcohol, is handled liberally in most countries (almost everywhere in the West less prohibitive than in the US) and that alcohol prohibition was a desaster, all things considered. So is the "War on Drugs". I do not see why a more liberal drug policy wrt to pot, or even cocaine and opiates should not have some restrictions still in place and be combined with "aggressive" information policy wrt to the bad effects of those drugs while getting rid of the worst side effects of the war on drugs.

As for indulgent friends: Probably everyone has lost someone because of some unhealthy habit, be it alcohol abuse or smoking tobacco or unhealthy eating/obesity. But we all seem to agree that unhealthy food should not be banned and tobacco at most restricted etc. The reasons for the ban on other drugs are mostly historically contingent or politically motivated, not mainly medically. (AFAIK the physical addiction to alcohol can be as bad as opiate addiction.)

I think sex between consenting adults should be legal. I don't think it should be legal while driving. Driving distracted or impaired is and should be illegal no matter what the cause of impairment. This is really a separate issue and a smokescreen. Even those pain-wracked dying souls on legal medical marijuana shouldn't be allowed to drive stoned. But the objection is foregone there, because even those who would deny others pleasure, solace, and autonomy can be too embarrassed to also deny them pain relief.
Some here have their faculties so addled by La Mer that perhaps, to prevent accident after accident, we should ban it entirely.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Andante on October 23, 2016, 12:05:47 PM
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 23, 2016, 06:07:01 AM
Wonder no more, Andante : the all-too-predictable result - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/10/marijuana-related-fatal-car-accidents-surge-washin/   Similar reports are coming from California and Colorado.  One might well ask whether marijuana decriminalization laws permit users to smoke pot or protect their right to weed us out on the road. Meanwhile, research is being done to better measure drivers' marijuana-induced intoxication levels as well as specific effects on their driving.  The added administrative costs of all this require...guess? : more taxation on pot sales.  If you want Bo, get used to it.

That is not a good result for the "make it legal crowed" the only way you will ever reduce these figures is to keep it illegal and have heavier penalties i.e. put a large proportion of the costs of accidents onto the perpetrators this would include alcohol as well, I would assume that their insurance would not cover them. 
What is Bo??
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 12:15:09 PM
Quote from: Andante on October 23, 2016, 12:05:47 PM
That is not a good result for the "make it legal crowed" the only way you will ever reduce these figures is to keep it illegal and have heavier penalties i.e. put a large proportion of the costs of accidents onto the perpetrators this would include alcohol as well, I would assume that their insurance would not cover them. 
What is Bo??

Then answer my point about sex. Sex can impair driving. We understand you don't ban sex in toto because it can impair driving, you ban it under the circumstances where it does so. Same for alcohol. Same for cough syrup. Same for muscle relaxers. Same for anti-depressants. Same for earphones. Same for cell phones. Same for video players. Same for nutmeg. But for pot we need a total ban?
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 12:19:31 PM
Does anyone here talking about driving know anything about drunk driving rates? They are HUGELY lower than they were when I was, say, John's age. We addressed the problem of drunk driving more directly, not with some blanket indirect approach like an alcohol ban. Andante's claim that we cannot reduce intoxicated driving due to X without a complete ban on X is absurd.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Jo498 on October 23, 2016, 12:45:20 PM
This was largely my point as well. I think the relation to impaired driving is misleading. Someone else can  look up the statistics but the number of accidents due to drivers using cellphones or smartphones has certainly skyrocketed in the last decades (because it was around zero in 1990). Should we ban cellphones because they can distract and lead to accidents? (why not ban cars? this would certainly ban car accidents...)

EDIT: Sanantonio beat me by 2 minutes... ;)

Now one can argue that there is no use at all for certain drugs, only abuse. But this is begging the question. People obviously see a personal "use"/benefit in intoxication and it is not obvious why they should be largely allowed to indulge in alcohol, tobacco, overeating and other kinds of excess, potentially dangerous to themselves and others, whereas certain other drugs be banned and the users criminalized.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 12:46:37 PM
Incidentally Andante your little bot says I am running Linux and Chrome. I do not use Chrome and am not running on Linux or indeed any Unix system.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Andante on October 23, 2016, 12:57:35 PM
Quote from: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 12:15:09 PM
Then answer my point about sex. Sex can impair driving. We understand you don't ban sex in toto because it can impair driving, you ban it under the circumstances where it does so. Same for alcohol. Same for cough syrup. Same for muscle relaxers. Same for anti-depressants. Same for earphones. Same for cell phones. Same for video players. Same for nutmeg. But for pot we need a total ban?

You are comparing apples to hamburgers, marijuana and methamphetamines, are extremely addictive habit forming substances, alcohol can also be addictive to some people. If you don't ban it are you prepared to keep picking up the tab for the people that are addicted to the stuff their lives ruined. The other examples you gave were just a joke, right!  Sorry about my little bot it is probably on marijuana I will ban it sap
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: amw on October 23, 2016, 01:20:10 PM
Marijuana is actually significantly less addictive than alcohol, cigarettes or even things like caffeine, iirc. Doesn't belong in the same category as amphetamines or heroin or whatever.

Imo honestly the world is a sufficiently messed up place that, if doing whatever drug makes you feel better, go ahead. People should obviously be informed of the health effects, and not allowed to drive or operate heavy machinery or whatever under the influence, etc, but prohibition is just sending a lot of harmless people to prison and making some very unpleasant cartels very rich and very violent.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 01:25:34 PM
Quote from: Andante on October 23, 2016, 12:57:35 PM
You are comparing apples to hamburgers, marijuana and methamphetamines, are extremely addictive habit forming substances, alcohol can also be addictive to some people. If you don't ban it are you prepared to keep picking up the tab for the people that are addicted to the stuff their lives ruined. The other examples you gave were just a joke, right!  Sorry about my little bot it is probably on marijuana I will ban it sap
No of course not a joke, just extreme examples to make a point. Cough syrups really can make you slow, nutmeg really is psycho-active, La Mer really does induce sleep (OK, the La Mer thing was a joke.) We should care about impairde derivers, whatever the impairment, not impaired non -drivers sitting at home if driver safety is the issue.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Andante on October 23, 2016, 03:11:18 PM
Quote from: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 01:25:34 PM
No of course not a joke, just extreme examples to make a point. Cough syrups really can make you slow, nutmeg really is psycho-active, La Mer really does induce sleep (OK, the La Mer thing was a joke.) We should care about impairde derivers, whatever the impairment, not impaired non -drivers sitting at home if driver safety is the issue.
So cough syrup and Nutmeg are habit forming drugs wow I shall make a note
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: North Star on October 23, 2016, 03:24:26 PM
Quote from: Andante on October 23, 2016, 03:11:18 PM
So cough syrup and Nutmeg are habit forming drugs wow I shall make a note
There are formulas of cough syrup that have codeine (an opiate that metabolizes into morphine) in them, for example.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Andante on October 23, 2016, 03:30:10 PM
Quote from: North Star on October 23, 2016, 03:24:26 PM
There are formulas of cough syrup that have codeine (an opiate that metabolizes into morphine) in them, for example.

OMG whatever next? We are done for.  :o
Perhaps someone should tell the Chemist to put a warning on the bottle
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 04:14:19 PM
Quote from: Andante on October 23, 2016, 03:30:10 PM
OMG whatever next? We are done for.  :o

What in god's name are you on about? Your argument is that marijuana must be banned to make driving safer. We are refuting that argument. Whether cough syrup is addictive or not has sweet f$ck all to do with whether it impairs driving.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Andante on October 23, 2016, 07:18:51 PM
Quote from: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 04:14:19 PM
What in god's name are you on about? Your argument is that marijuana must be banned to make driving safer. We are refuting that argument.
God has nothing to do with it I think you are getting a bit confused just as my little bot was, driving is only part of the problem although a fatal part for some.
QuoteWhether cough syrup is addictive or not has sweet f$ck all to do with whether it impairs driving.
Yes that is what I was inferring did you not understand?
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ghost Sonata on October 24, 2016, 04:07:25 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 23, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
Traffic fatalities are up about 10% in the last ten years.  Most experts think this is due to use of mobile devices while driving.

Let's outlaw cell phones.

We can prohibit driving and hand-held cell phone use - as 14 sensible states have done.   
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ghost Sonata on October 24, 2016, 04:09:50 AM
Quote from: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 01:25:34 PM
No of course not a joke, just extreme examples to make a point. Cough syrups really can make you slow, nutmeg really is psycho-active, La Mer really does induce sleep (OK, the La Mer thing was a joke.) We should care about impairde derivers, whatever the impairment, not impaired non -drivers sitting at home if driver safety is the issue.

I make it a rule never listen to La Mer whilst driving; the excitement can be distracting!   ;)
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Jo498 on October 24, 2016, 04:30:58 AM
La Mer is to be listened to only while sailing, rowing, surfing, swimming or canoeing!
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ghost Sonata on October 24, 2016, 04:38:56 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on October 24, 2016, 04:30:58 AM
La Mer is to be listened to only while sailing, rowing, surfing, swimming or canoeing!

Now you've made me wanna listen to his En bateau from the Petite suite... 8)  But not while driving, for sure!
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Andante on October 24, 2016, 12:13:05 PM
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 24, 2016, 04:07:25 AM
We can prohibit driving and hand-held cell phone use - as 14 sensible states have done.

In my country the use of hand held cell phones while driving is illegal but if caught a warning is given and after say 2 or 3 warning you get fined, but it is a paltry amount $40-$50 which of course is not a deterrent now if the amount was $1000 for the first offence I suggest it would immediately reduce offending by a very large amount. 
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 24, 2016, 04:47:06 PM
Quote from: Andante on October 24, 2016, 12:13:05 PM
In my country the use of hand held cell phones while driving is illegal but if caught a warning is given and after say 2 or 3 warning you get fined, but it is a paltry amount $40-$50 which of course is not a deterrent now if the amount was $1000 for the first offence I suggest it would immediately reduce offending by a very large amount.
It probably would. Do you see that refutes your claim only total bans can work?
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Andante on October 24, 2016, 05:38:01 PM
Quote from: Ken B on October 24, 2016, 04:47:06 PM
It probably would. Do you see that refutes your claim only total bans can work?
Did I actually say that Ken? Or are you deducing from something else I said.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 25, 2016, 09:42:03 AM
Quote from: Andante on October 24, 2016, 05:38:01 PM
Did I actually say that Ken? Or are you deducing from something else I said.
Overheard:
A: "The only way Trump could lose is if he is seen shooting a woman on Fifth avenue."
B:"Or he could get very few votes."
A: "Yeah, that too."
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: lisa needs braces on October 25, 2016, 09:44:39 PM
In his topical book The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by religion and politics, psychologist Jonathan Haidt describes your reasoning self as being like a rider on an elephant. The elephant and rider describe human consciousness. We might like to think that the rider is always in charge and in control, but most often the rider merely rides along, controlling nothing and being helplessly dragged this way or that way by the elephant. The rider is helpless if the elephant wants to go in a different direction (say, not wanting to exercise) that the rider is eager to go. The rider's purpose is often merely preparing the way and making it easier for the elephant to go where it wants to go. For instance, the rider could reason his way out of exercising by saying something like "you already exercised twice this week and it's now Friday evening...screw it." In other words, the rider merely provides after the fact reasoning for believes and concepts the elephant clings onto, as if the rider is merely a lawyer for a more willful and stronger entity. The point here is that, being honest, I want marijuana legalization because that would mean that individuals who want access to cannabis will now have the means to acquire cannabis while being free from legal prosecution. As someone who experienced cannabis use, I don't believe people having this freedom is a scary or bad thing. I would like someone who opposes legalization to answer in the same way. What is your "gut level" reason for opposing cannabis legalization? What position is it that your elephant won't let go off that your reasoning self is lawyering for? I've been reading about this topic pretty heavily over the past couple of years and the anti-legalization side has 100% been riding on inertia from the era where distaste for cannabis was common and believe in government's rhetoric about it widely seen as unquestionable common-sense.

The smartest discussion on this issue is one from 2014 by Andrew Sullivan and David Frum. Frum is one of the founder's of the current top dog anti-marijuana groups (Smart Approaches to Marijuana.) You know the one clear reason Frum can give for why we should keep marijuana illegal? From the smartest of conservative minded writers?

Because it makes it easier for parents to say "don't do that, that's a bad thing."

Andrew Sullivan's point of view is that "no, it isn't a bad thing, it's gives pleasure to people and is in fact a good thing" and Frum was in no way prepared for that argument.

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/23626 (http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/23626)

This video convinced me 100% that legalization would win if that's all that prohibitionists have to bring to the table.



Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Jo498 on October 25, 2016, 11:58:39 PM
Haidt may well have deep insights into psychology but the main point of moral philosophy and legal debate should be to "bracket" the gut reactions and think in a principled fashion. This is obvious for many cases, e.g. blood and guts are disgusting but a nurse or a surgeon have to overcome this gut reaction for doing good. With drug liberalization/restriction there seem to be both arguments from general principles as well as arguments from probable consequences.

The principled argument for liberalization is based on freedom to do what I want, including ways of harming myself as long as they do not necessarily or very probably harm others. But almost anybody would still favor some restrictions, e.g. banning access to minors.
The consequentialist arguments for liberalization usually point out the many bad consequences of prohibition: jail terms/ruined careers for "victimless crimes" (possession/use), lots of funds wasted for police/control, furthering of some of the worst organized crime with countless deaths in turf wars etc. There is also the fact the prohibition does not really impede drug use very effectively although it is certainly contested to what extent the number of user would rise if liberalization took place. Finally, there is the merely historical difference in treatment between a dangerous drug like alcohol and the "illegal drugs" that is not a systematic justification.

The prohibitionist argument is mostly based on a variant of benevolent paternalism pointing out the bad consequences for the drug users whose numbers would supposedly increase with liberalization. And they might also think that drug use is deeply morally wrong and that the legal system should protect citizens from committing such evil, even if they delude themselves so that they think they are doing something good for them or mostly harmless.

I think the prohibitionist argument is very weak (even if one grants the contentious claim that most illegal drugs are extremely bad for you) but it is certainly interesting that a society that is more liberal than almost any other historical society in most respects is more restrictive/prohibitive then most historical societies wrt drugs.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: jochanaan on October 27, 2016, 02:26:19 PM
Have we considered that the big pharmaceutical corporations here in the US don't want us to legalize a natural material that, if half the good things I read about it are actually true, would cut their sales in half?  I suspect that much of the "anti" reasoning was developed in corporate boardrooms.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on October 27, 2016, 04:47:35 PM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 03:20:21 PM
Yep.  Big Pharma wants to the be only dealer in town.
Any business wants to be the only dealer. Businesses hate competition. That's precisely why we want markets.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: EddieRUKiddingVarese on October 27, 2016, 05:47:16 PM
I Oz Land, medicinal use is in the process of being Legalised..
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: lisa needs braces on October 27, 2016, 09:40:46 PM
Quote from: Jo498 on October 25, 2016, 11:58:39 PM
Haidt may well have deep insights into psychology but the main point of moral philosophy and legal debate should be to "bracket" the gut reactions and think in a principled fashion. This is obvious for many cases, e.g. blood and guts are disgusting but a nurse or a surgeon have to overcome this gut reaction for doing good. With drug liberalization/restriction there seem to be both arguments from general principles as well as arguments from probable consequences.

Haidt was presenting that information as tragic and as significantly contributing to the current high pitched divisiveness in USA politics. Anyway, I was just asking others to reveal any deeper level primal reason for their position as I had done so. I really do want cannabis to be cheaper and legally safe to access for adults across the world, but I was not really moved into this issue until I discovered a taste for that substance. It just happens that the morally superior argument for legalization is favorable to me, but in this non-informal environment I was just asking: Why is legalization not preferable to others? I want to get at the gut level distaste. 
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: zamyrabyrd on October 28, 2016, 01:56:29 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 03:20:21 PM
Yep.  Big Pharma wants to the be only dealer in town.

Indeed and Big Brother will tax it.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on October 28, 2016, 04:57:00 AM
Interesting editorial in yesterday's (I think) Globe, recommending a vote for legalization.

Separately:

As marijuana legalization spreads, more pets are getting high (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/10/28/as-marijuana-legalization-spreads-more-pets-are-getting-high/)
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Jo498 on October 28, 2016, 05:52:48 AM
Yes, I think I understand Haidt and was more generally reacting to a frequent confusion between psychology and moral philosophy (a big offender is wunderkind Joshua Greene in his book "Moral tribes" although he is aware of it he still makes a horrible muddle).

I really do not have a dog in the fight, I rarely puffed but did not inhale tobacco when I was younger but I used and occasionally abused alcohol far more. I have people pretty close to me who used too much marihuana in some times of their lifes (no really bad consequences except slightly delayed careers etc. but enough to see that the use could derail some people although this seems far more frequent with alcohol).
It might well be true that there will be some collateral damage from more liberal drug policies but I am reasonably sure that the current collateral damage from the "war on drugs" is MUCH worse. So I think the consequentialist argumentation is clearly in favor of "legalize it".
As for the arguments from principles I think this speaks even more strongly in favor of liberalization because it is simply not the state's business (and I am in many other respects very far from libertarianism) to tell people that they are allowed to get drunk but not allowed to get stoned.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: jochanaan on October 28, 2016, 11:27:21 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on October 28, 2016, 05:52:48 AM
...It might well be true that there will be some collateral damage from more liberal drug policies but I am reasonably sure that the current collateral damage from the "war on drugs" is MUCH worse. So I think the consequentialist argumentation is clearly in favor of "legalize it".
As for the arguments from principles I think this speaks even more strongly in favor of liberalization because it is simply not the state's business (and I am in many other respects very far from libertarianism) to tell people that they are allowed to get drunk but not allowed to get stoned.
Yes. +1

zamyrabyrd, BB is already taxing it heavily here in the Mile "High" State.  My friends who do it say that the prices on the weed from dispensaries are so high that they have mostly kept to their old "dark market" sources. :blank:
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on October 28, 2016, 11:28:50 AM
Quote from: jochanaan on October 28, 2016, 11:27:21 AM
Yes. +1

zamyrabyrd, BB is already taxing it heavily here in the Mile "High" State.  My friends who do it say that the prices on the weed from dispensaries are so high that they have mostly kept to their old "dark market" sources. :blank:

Yah, the tax on gasoline would be counterproductive if motorists had a back-alley source  8)
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: NikF on October 28, 2016, 12:22:39 PM
Quote from: -abe- on October 21, 2016, 03:14:23 PM
Have any of you listened to music while under the influence of cannabis especially the sativa strain?

Yes, I have. But it was usually cannabis resin.

Quote
In conclusion: What do you guys think of cannabis intoxication as a means to enhance artistic sensitivity and perception?

Back in the early 1980s I'd just bought my first place. It was located in the part of town occupied mostly by writers and actors and a variety of other artistically inclined ne'er do wells. So smoking at listening parties was a fairly common and regular occurrence.
As for the experience itself, I quickly found I could take or leave it. I kind of equate it to how that woman seated at the end of the bar starts to look better and better as the night progresses (of course, there's nothing wrong with that - especially if she's hot to begin with 8)) but I'd much rather become slightly intoxicated or have my judgement impaired by other means (preferably by the hot woman at the end of the bar  :laugh:) and I was already into training for the boxing by that time anyway, so indulging in anything other than a single malt wasn't really my bag.
Still, I can remember a number of late nights at a stranger's place, sitting on the floor half asleep with some libertine chick or another resting her head in my lap, while Lester Young or Steely Dan or perhaps Brian Eno was playing. All very warm and fuzzy - but little more than that.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Monsieur Croche on November 03, 2016, 10:37:56 AM
Smoking / eating cannabis never made anyone creative who already was not, nor does it make anyone more creative.  That is part of the illusion under the euphoria (whatever degree) the substance induces when ingested.

Whether it is cannabis, or that seemingly preferred drug of choice for writers -- what these can do is slow down or to some degree shut off the more conscious and left-lobe brain activity, thereby making less resistance for what might come from the more intuitive or subconscious, i.e. 'our creative sources.'  Both of these drugs, alcohol and cannabis, are classified depressants.  Think about that. lol.

The standard joke-truth about either is in the moment, you can have dazzling ideas and revelations -- maybe of some real value -- but the nature of the drugs and the states is such that you
1.) can not get them down on paper when high. 
2.) can't recall them once the drug has worn off.

Back to the drawing board, then.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Parsifal on November 03, 2016, 10:42:39 AM
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 03, 2016, 10:37:56 AM
Smoking / eating cannabis never made anyone creative who already was not, nor does it make anyone more creative.  That is part of the illusion under the euphoria (whatever degree) the substance induces when ingested.

Brings to mind a story told by Bertrand Russell.

QuoteWilliam James describes a man who got the experience from laughing-gas; whenever he was under its influence, he knew the secret of the universe, but when he came to, he had forgotten it. At last, with immense effort, he wrote down the secret before the vision had faded. When completely recovered, he rushed to see what he had written. It was: "A smell of petroleum prevails throughout."
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Andante on November 04, 2016, 04:30:29 PM
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 03, 2016, 10:37:56 AM
Smoking / eating cannabis never made anyone creative who already was not, nor does it make anyone more creative.  That is part of the illusion under the euphoria (whatever degree) the substance induces when ingested.

Whether it is cannabis, or that seemingly preferred drug of choice for writers -- what these can do is slow down or to some degree shut off the more conscious and left-lobe brain activity, thereby making less resistance for what might come from the more intuitive or subconscious, i.e. 'our creative sources.'  Both of these drugs, alcohol and cannabis, are classified depressants.  Think about that. lol.

The standard joke-truth about either is in the moment, you can have dazzling ideas and revelations -- maybe of some real value -- but the nature of the drugs and the states is such that you
1.) can not get them down on paper when high. 
2.) can't recall them once the drug has worn off.

Back to the drawing board, then.

It is a waste of time you will never convince the users, just let them go on their own disillusional path.
Title: WILL IT CURE MY KARL-ITIS?
Post by: snyprrr on November 05, 2016, 08:12:33 AM
???
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: jochanaan on November 08, 2016, 08:35:08 AM
Real creativity requires both halves of one's brain, plus body and spirit and will-power.  Anything that depresses any of these probably interferes with real creativity.  However, there are many who create great things despite being under various chemical influences...

Where I come down, finally, is that it's ultimately a person's choice whether to create or perform "under the influence" or not.  For nearly 80 years our nation has tried the "prohibition" approach, and it is obviously doing more harm than good.  So now it's time to try something else; perhaps simply minding our own business. :)
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: jochanaan on November 08, 2016, 08:46:13 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 08:43:35 AM
Along with the presidential and other races, citizens will be voting in a number of states for cannabis ballot measures, and I think chances of passage is good in all of them.  Obama recently told Bill Mayer (https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/obama-prohibition-not-tenable-states-legalize-tuesday) that as more states legalize pot, federal prohibition will become untenable.
I keep thinking this issue will hit the (US) Supreme Court, but that hasn't happened yet.  I wonder if "the powers that be" realize they don't have any legal, logical or reasonable basis for the prohibition, and thus don't want any legal action that would certainly change the status quo?
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Andante on November 08, 2016, 12:23:05 PM
Quote from: jochanaan on November 08, 2016, 08:35:08 AM


  For nearly 80 years our nation has tried the "prohibition" approach, and it is obviously doing more harm than good.  So now it's time to try something else; perhaps simply minding our own business. :)
Would you apply that "reasoning" to Rape, theft, murder, assault, family violence etc?  No of course you wouldn't. You are always going to get the odd ball that knows better than any one else, the trouble is that it gets out of control that is one reason that laws are made.
I am looking at this as an outsider and realise that I am hitting a wall so it's your country and nothing to do with me.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 12:47:35 PM
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 12:25:15 PM
It is silly to compare smoking or growing cannabis to rape, murder etc.

Don't be so glib David. Murder can lead to serious things.

Thomas De Quincey
QuoteIf once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begun upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Andante on November 08, 2016, 02:34:07 PM
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 12:25:15 PM
It is silly to compare smoking or growing cannabis to rape, murder etc.

Yes of course it is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with getting stoned out of you mind, enjoy.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: jochanaan on November 08, 2016, 04:02:52 PM
Quote from: Andante on November 08, 2016, 02:34:07 PM
Yes of course it is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with getting stoned out of you mind, enjoy.
Or getting drunk out of your mind? Or smoking yourself to death? But our nation is treating those two addictions as public health issues, not as criminal matters; with varying degrees of success, true, but wisely, I think.

And one could argue that just as the Eighteenth Amendment to our Constitution led to Al Capone and Bonnie and Clyde and the rest, so the prohibition of marijuana has led directly to the epidemic of violence on the Mexico-US border. As bumper stickers here put it: "Drugs Are Bad. The War On Drugs Is Worse."
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Andante on November 08, 2016, 06:41:19 PM
Quote from: jochanaan on November 08, 2016, 04:02:52 PM
Or getting drunk out of your mind? Or smoking yourself to death? But our nation is treating those two addictions as public health issues, not as criminal matters; with varying degrees of success, true, but wisely, I think.
That is up to your government to decide how to treat these problems different countries use different means.
Quote
And one could argue that just as the Eighteenth Amendment to our Constitution led to Al Capone and Bonnie and Clyde and the rest, so the prohibition of marijuana has led directly to the epidemic of violence on the Mexico-US border. As bumper stickers here put it: "Drugs Are Bad. The War On Drugs Is Worse."
I bet the people with that sticker are users, in the end we all have decisions to make your future depends on which way choose to go.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 06:44:00 PM
Quote from: Andante on November 08, 2016, 06:41:19 PM
That is up to your government to decide how to treat these problems different countries use different means.I bet the people with that sticker are users, in the end we all have decisions to make your future depends on which way choose to go.
You'd lose that bet, and if you read this thread you'd know it. I have never used pot and am possibly the most vocal advocate of drug legalization here. Are there any other sure loser bets you'd like to make? I am offering odds on Trump winning Ohio. What's say 50 bucks, 2 to 1?  ::)
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Andante on November 08, 2016, 07:09:31 PM
Quote from: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 06:44:00 PM
You'd lose that bet, and if you read this thread you'd know it. I have never used pot and am possibly the most vocal advocate of drug legalization here. Are there any other sure loser bets you'd like to make? I am offering odds on Trump winning Ohio. What's say 50 bucks, 2 to 1?  ::)
And do you have that sticker on your car?  Quite frankly I just can't understand why you would want to make drugs legal, but it takes all sorts.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 07:17:29 PM
Quote from: Andante on November 08, 2016, 07:09:31 PM
And do you have that sticker on your car?  Quite frankly I just can't understand why you would want to make drugs legal, but it takes all sorts.
I am averse to locking people up pointlessly. A quirk of mine.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: kishnevi on November 08, 2016, 07:22:31 PM
http://wsvn.com/news/local/amendment-2-legalizing-medical-marijuana-approved-in-florida/
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 07:24:40 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 08, 2016, 07:22:31 PM
http://wsvn.com/news/local/amendment-2-legalizing-medical-marijuana-approved-in-florida/

In several states apparently.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Andante on November 08, 2016, 07:27:38 PM
Quote from: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 07:17:29 PM
I am averse to locking people up pointlessly. A quirk of mine.
So why have prisons or any laws at all let everyone do as they please would that be quirky enough?
Where about on your car is the sticker?

Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Jo498 on November 08, 2016, 11:23:59 PM
So people can get stoned to bear the Trump presidency....?
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on November 09, 2016, 06:35:43 AM
Quote from: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 07:24:40 PM
In several states apparently.

On Election Day, marijuana legalization won big. (http://www.vox.com/2016/9/14/12064226/marijuana-legalization-election-vote-california-2016)
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on November 09, 2016, 11:16:56 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 09, 2016, 06:35:43 AM
On Election Day, marijuana legalization won big. (http://www.vox.com/2016/9/14/12064226/marijuana-legalization-election-vote-california-2016)
File under "Lining, silver"
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on December 20, 2016, 06:16:49 AM
Pregnant women are increasingly using marijuana for morning sickness, study finds. That's not good. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/12/20/pregnant-women-are-increasingly-using-marijuana-for-morning-sickness-study-finds-thats-not-good/?hpid=hp_hp-morning-mix_mm-marijuana%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f286a19c28be)
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Todd on December 20, 2016, 07:02:33 AM
It will be most interesting to see how a Jeff Sessions led DOJ, assuming he gets the gig, handles enforcement of federal drug laws pertaining to weed.  It would be a political mistake to crack down, but people would see how flimsy the state level laws are when confronted with the prosecutorial power of the federal government.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on September 11, 2017, 05:43:06 AM
According to the federal survey data, marijuana users are far more likely to use daily than drinkers are to drink daily. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/11/heres-one-marijuana-trend-you-should-actually-be-worried-about/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_wonkblog-marijuana-9am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ed6065ebf68f)
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: snyprrr on September 11, 2017, 06:45:22 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 11, 2017, 05:43:06 AM
According to the federal survey data, marijuana users are far more likely to use daily than drinkers are to drink daily. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/11/heres-one-marijuana-trend-you-should-actually-be-worried-about/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_wonkblog-marijuana-9am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ed6065ebf68f)

Karl... reeeally ::)

I know you've been thinking about trying the devil's lettuce for a long time now, but, let me assure you that your fears of blacking out and running down the street naked are unfounded. And, just because you do drink everyday doesn't make you a problem drinker, that just makes you an alcoholic! See?, there's always a silver lining, Karl! ;) Now go hit the bong and write that Metaphysical Space Opera you've been dreaming about!

"How many wooorlds have I traveled..."
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on September 11, 2017, 07:14:25 AM
Why does this news worry you so, hmmm?
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: BasilValentine on September 11, 2017, 09:03:52 AM
In case anyone cares, the only reason marijuana was on any narcotics or illicit drug schedule at the federal level in modern times is because of a bogus campaign instigated by Harry Anslinger, the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement from 1932-1960. Seeing his power slipping away when the Department of Prohibition, which he headed, became obsolete, he sought a new prohibition, in this case of marijuana, a drug he had formerly declared entirely harmless. This scumbag fabricated evidence of a causal relationship between crime and marijuana by citing 200 cases in which he claimed pot was a critical factor. All but two of these cases were subsequently debunked as being without any supporting evidence. The other two could not be debunked because there is no evidence the crimes ever happened. He used the new prohibition as a means to persecute jazz musicians, apparently because of racial and aesthetic animus.

Having read much of the thread above, it is full of misinformation, beginning with the general classification of the drug. It is not clearly in the depressant category, as it has depressant, stimulant, and hallucinogenic effects, the relative strength of these effects varying from one individual to another. The question of whether it should be legal is, IMO, the wrong question. The question should be why was it ever illegal in the first place.

To answer the OP: As a teen I listened to music under its influence and thought it had an enhancing effect. In retrospect, I suspect that effect was due more to concentrating attention on sensory phenomena in general rather than to any specific psychoactive effect.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on September 11, 2017, 10:49:31 AM
QuoteThe question should be why was it ever illegal in the first place.

Meh. If that can shed light on the question of whether we should legalize well and good. But just because there was a bad reason in 1947 or whenever doesn't mean there isn't a good reason now. To be clear, there isn't a good reason now, and it should be legal to use, but just as logic denying the antecedent is unsound. There wasn't good reason to ban asbestos in 1947, but there is now for example.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: BasilValentine on September 11, 2017, 11:08:00 AM
Quote from: Ken B on September 11, 2017, 10:49:31 AM
Meh. If that can shed light on the question of whether we should legalize well and good. But just because there was a bad reason in 1947 or whenever doesn't mean there isn't a good reason now. To be clear, there isn't a good reason now, and it should be legal to use, but just as logic denying the antecedent is unsound. There wasn't good reason to ban asbestos in 1947, but there is now for example.

My opinion that pot should never have been illegal in the first place has nothing to do with the history. It has to do with the properties and effects of the drug as currently understood. I thought the history is worth citing because much of the current societal opposition to legalization seems to be a reflexive response based on tradition and mythology.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Parsifal on September 11, 2017, 11:20:33 AM
Probably it should be legal, but the increased tendency of Americans to use mind-altering drugs is worrying. We should focus on building a culture in which your brain is enough.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Todd on September 11, 2017, 11:35:25 AM
I just like that governments in states where it is legal have glommed on to the accompanying regressive taxation as a good way to fund public services.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: bwv 1080 on September 11, 2017, 01:39:10 PM
Do current prohibition policies reduce the damage caused by any illegal drugs?
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: snyprrr on September 12, 2017, 07:53:20 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 11, 2017, 07:14:25 AM
Why does this news worry you so, hmmm?

I just think it's funny. It's like saying there's more "whites" on welfare, there's just more of them, that's all. The Powers That Be just want you soused, they don't want to chance you opening that third eye! ;)

I've already told you that i had a cousin who died from just one marijuana. This shit's not funny, Karl!!
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Omicron9 on September 12, 2017, 08:20:49 AM
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 22, 2016, 09:22:44 AM
I recommend viewing SF as incorporating and motivated by autobiographical elements.  Berlioz was a high-strung person, and like his physician father (and many others of that period) used opium to calm himself.  Of course, that drug is essential to its program (orig. just the last two movements) and became more so as the composer altered it entire so that the whole work becomes an opium-fueled dream. Berlioz' obsession ("stalker-like" is not an exaggeration) with Harriet Smithson is clearly there in the work.  Hugh Macdonald, Berlioz biographer:  "There is no mistaking the artist or the woman as Berlioz and Harriet Smithson, and the programme spells out his dreams and fantasies in dramatic form."

Soon Berlioz will also be legal....  :D
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on September 12, 2017, 10:49:39 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on September 12, 2017, 07:53:20 AM
I've already told you that i had a cousin who died from just one marijuana. This shit's not funny, Karl!!

I do earnestly beg your pardon, for whatever reason I had missed that.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: nodogen on September 12, 2017, 11:58:20 AM
Here's some food for thought: recreational drugs ranked by harmfulness (to self and others)

https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm (https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm)
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: bwv 1080 on September 12, 2017, 12:53:47 PM
Quote from: nodogen on September 12, 2017, 11:58:20 AM
Here's some food for thought: recreational drugs ranked by harmfulness (to self and others)

https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm (https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm)

another good graphic, Snyppr's mythical cousin / uncle notwithstanding


(http://i.imgur.com/i0NZYJ3.jpg)

Title: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on September 12, 2017, 01:30:00 PM
Are we pretending that these are An Answer to the concern raised in the article I posted?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: nodogen on September 12, 2017, 01:33:34 PM
Quote from: bwv 1080 on September 12, 2017, 12:53:47 PM
another good graphic, Snyppr's mythical cousin / uncle notwithstanding


(http://i.imgur.com/i0NZYJ3.jpg)

Who knew a nice egg custard was so risky???
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on September 13, 2017, 03:12:15 AM
I suppose my emphases are these:

1. The point that alcohol abuse is a problem, is well taken.  We all know that it is a fallacy to say, "Alcohol abuse is a problem, so the fact that there is marijuana abuse is not significant."
2. The graph suggesting that marijuana is significantly less lethal than alcohol is nice.  We all know that it is a fallacy to take that as meaning "Marijuana problems don't matter."
3. I liked the "snypsss's mythical cousin aside" aside, and I saw what was done there.  The marijuana-sanitizing graph aside, rec weed is now legal in Mass., I have a co-worker who sits about 20 feet from my cubicle, and a friend of his was killed by a motorist who was high weekend before last.

So:  Sure, it makes no difference whether a driver's incapacitation results from alcohol rather than from weed.  Sure, this is just one man's catastrophic loss which is not an argument for depriving sensible users of their weed.

When I read the paragraph:

More concerning, though, is the number of people who are getting high all the timeheavy users who smoke on a daily or near-daily basis. The federal data shows that those numbers are increasingly precipitously.

. . . I admit, I wonder if these people are doing themselves an injury, and may put themselves in situations where they do others injury.  And I think it only serves the truth and is part of the mission of a free press to report the fact.  I don't think it is anything intellectually reprehensible to suggest that this is a human toll which is a partial result of the legalization wave.  And if there are those who want to surgeon-general-nanny me into adding at every turn the caveat that "There are graphs which show that weed is way, way less lethal than alcohol, dude, so chill," I'll do that.

Personally, I think it a little callous to consider these people, and my bereaved co-worker, insignificant collateral damage.  But, whatevs.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on September 13, 2017, 03:14:14 AM
Good news:

Teen marijuana use falls to 20-year low, defying legalization opponents' predictions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/07/teen-marijuana-use-falls-to-20-year-low-defying-legalization-opponents-predictions/?utm_term=.f577a265f95e)
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on September 13, 2017, 03:14:56 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 13, 2017, 03:14:14 AM
Good news:

Teen marijuana use falls to 20-year low, defying legalization opponents' predictions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/07/teen-marijuana-use-falls-to-20-year-low-defying-legalization-opponents-predictions/?utm_term=.f577a265f95e)

Be it noted, there was a reference to this trend in the first article to which I linked.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: bwv 1080 on September 13, 2017, 03:44:23 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 13, 2017, 03:12:15 AM
I suppose my emphases are these:

1. The point that alcohol abuse is a problem, is well taken.  We all know that it is a fallacy to say, "Alcohol abuse is a problem, so the fact that there is marijuana abuse is not significant."
2. The graph suggesting that marijuana is significantly less lethal than alcohol is nice.  We all know that it is a fallacy to take that as meaning "Marijuana problems don't matter."
3. I liked the "snypsss's mythical cousin aside" aside, and I saw what was done there.  The marijuana-sanitizing graph aside, rec weed is now legal in Mass., I have a co-worker who sits about 20 feet from my cubicle, and a friend of his was killed by a motorist who was high weekend before last.

So:  Sure, it makes no difference whether a driver's incapacitation results from alcohol rather than from weed.  Sure, this is just one man's catastrophic loss which is not an argument for depriving sensible users of their weed.

When I read the paragraph:

More concerning, though, is the number of people who are getting high all the timeheavy users who smoke on a daily or near-daily basis. The federal data shows that those numbers are increasingly precipitously.

. . . I admit, I wonder if these people are doing themselves an injury, and may put themselves in situations where they do others injury.  And I think it only serves the truth and is part of the mission of a free press to report the fact.  I don't think it is anything intellectually reprehensible to suggest that this is a human toll which is a partial result of the legalization wave.  And if there are those who want to surgeon-general-nanny me into adding at every turn the caveat that "There are graphs which show that weed is way, way less lethal than alcohol, dude, so chill," I'll do that.

Personally, I think it a little callous to consider these people, and my bereaved co-worker, insignificant collateral damage.  But, whatevs.

But the issue is not whether smoking weed all the time is healthy (it's not). The issue is whether using the violence of the criminal justice system to attempt to prevent its use is ethical and /or effective.  The reality is that drug prohibition is ineffective - cannot even keep drugs out of prisons, let alone the country at large - and unethical - it has spawned massive criminal organizations that kill thousands in the US and tens of thousands in Mexico, and results in a racially biased mass incarceration that destroys the lives of underprivileged people. 
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on September 13, 2017, 03:45:49 AM
Quote from: bwv 1080 on September 13, 2017, 03:44:23 AM
But the issue is not whether smoking weed all the time is healthy (it's not). The issue is whether using the violence of the criminal justice system to attempt to prevent its use is ethical and /or effective.  The reality is that drug prohibition is ineffective - cannot even keep drugs out of prisons, let alone the country at large - and unethical - it has spawned massive criminal organizations that kill thousands in the US and tens of thousands in Mexico, and results in a racially biased mass incarceration that destroys the lives of underprivileged people. 

No quarrel there.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: snyprrr on September 13, 2017, 07:55:15 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 13, 2017, 03:12:15 AM
I have a co-worker who sits about 20 feet from my cubicle, and a friend of his was killed by a motorist who was high weekend before last.[/font]

sorry, but that's going to need a little more clarification... "high"? Did the guy admit to just smoking one marijuana, or was that all that was in his blood stream (at levels), or,... what? Can we see the perp's mugshot?- I'm sorry if I'm suspicious and think there's something else going on here. Articles? Links?

However, STUPID people seem to get even dumber on the pot, so, hmm,, it still makes me want to see the perp's face (since I can usually correctly judge someone's sexuality, political leanings, and temperament just by looking at how the corners of their mouth are curved,... just like A.I.).

Here, however, we have an opioid epidemic, with record breaking numbers of affluent white kids overdosing on Afghanistan's finest US military guarded cash crop, and/or the derivatives thereof. Almost as if this area were being... targeted,... hmmm. defence contractor heaven, one might say,....



HOWEVER, "the plant" needs to be DE-CLASSIFIED.

DE-CLASSIFIED,... it's "grass", and nothing more,... it's a "flower", nothing more,... end of DuPont hegemony. Poof!! Gone!!
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on September 13, 2017, 08:05:24 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on September 13, 2017, 07:55:15 AM
I'm sorry if I'm suspicious

Well, you're funny that way.  You're suspicious of this, but not of that.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on September 13, 2017, 08:43:49 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 13, 2017, 08:05:24 AM
Well, you're funny that way.  You're suspicious of this, but not of that.

Ain't we all?

There's a good case for having a test for THC levels and of course we need to charge impaired drivers. But I assume that the impaired driver (and let's assume he was impaired) was not on legal THC. So banning it doesn't eliminate the problem of impaired drivers. For many reasons it might even make it worse. And of course there are other crimes and misdeeds affected.

One lobby against legal pot is the legal beer industry. When pot sales go up beer sales go down. So I suggest will beer-impaired drivers.

So the net effects of things are hard to predict. That's a good argument for federalism. Try legal gay marriage in welcoming states, and when the sky doesn't fall, it spreads. Same for legal pot. I think legal pot will make us overall safer. I'm happy to let Oregonians, should they fell so inclined, test this theory for me.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on September 13, 2017, 08:47:59 AM
Quote from: Ken B on September 13, 2017, 08:43:49 AM
Ain't we all?

When you're right, you're right  :)
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Karl Henning on September 13, 2017, 08:49:35 AM
Quote from: Ken B on September 13, 2017, 08:43:49 AM
There's a good case for having a test for THC levels and of course we need to charge impaired drivers. But I assume that the impaired driver (and let's assume he was impaired) was not on legal THC. So banning it doesn't eliminate the problem of impaired drivers. For many reasons it might even make it worse. And of course there are other crimes and misdeeds affected.

This being Mass., the THC was not banned.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: amw on September 13, 2017, 09:11:07 AM
One thing that strikes me regarding the opioid epidemic in the USA is that a lot of the people currently dying from it got onto heroin via painkillers, and got onto painkillers because they were in pain.

Something else that seems to be effective for treating chronic pain, but less addictive than oxycontin or whatever, is medical marijuana, and I'm not aware of anyone who has died of a marijuana overdose. Except while driving, but the same applies to, e.g. morphine or whatever.

Maybe A Thing people should consider.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Todd on September 13, 2017, 09:18:45 AM
Quote from: Ken B on September 13, 2017, 08:43:49 AMSo I suggest will beer-impaired drivers.


Is there evidence for this?  The number of automobile accident claims have gone up in three states where marijuana is legal, but at least this article does not suggest that alcohol related incidents went down. (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/21/auto-crashes-are-on-the-rise-in-marijuana-states.html)  At the same time, Colorado showed a decrease in fatal crashes after legalization (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-us-state-where-road-fatalities-have-plummeted-since-marijuana-was-legalised-10499069.html), and in the first quarter of this year, the number of marijuana DUIs in that state dropped by a third. (http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/17/marijuana-duis-drop/)  Granted, this reflects only three small data sets, but it appears that evidence to date falls in the "inconclusive" camp.  (And this doesn't even really get into causation: was legal marijuana responsible for a statistically observable decrease in fatal accidents?  I have my doubts.)  Unfortunately, for prohibition supporters, inconclusive is bad news since it more or less demonstrates that various warnings about the risks are not panning out.  Oregon has yet to publish a lot of data on the subject, and while every once in a while there is a news story about how driver X was high on pot and caused a bad accident, they are far less common than a drunk driver causing a bad accident.  I expect more "inconclusive" results as more comprehensive data sets become available.

In some ways, prohibition arguments remind me of a hubbub here years ago involving extra-long tractor-trailers (ie, a tractor pulling three trailers).  There were warnings of sharp increases in serious and fatal accidents involving these behemoths, complete with scary commercials using scary music.  The law to allow these rigs passed, and nothing happened.  Well, aside from increased freight traffic.

bwv 1080 hit the nail on the head: legalized pot is far less destructive, and imposes far fewer social costs, than the obscene, abusive, coercive use of state power in enforcing prohibition, which, if SJW types - and statistics - are to be believed, also disproportionately impacts minority communities.  Public policy is a matter of trade offs, and so far the trade offs in states where marijuana has become legal look good to me.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Ken B on September 13, 2017, 09:25:48 AM
Quote from: Todd on September 13, 2017, 09:18:45 AM

Is there evidence for this?  The number of automobile accident claims have gone up in three states where marijuana is legal, but at least this article does not suggest that alcohol related incidents went down. (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/21/auto-crashes-are-on-the-rise-in-marijuana-states.html)  At the same time, Colorado showed a decrease in fatal crashes after legalization (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-us-state-where-road-fatalities-have-plummeted-since-marijuana-was-legalised-10499069.html), and in the first quarter of this year, the number of marijuana DUIs in that state dropped by a third. (http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/17/marijuana-duis-drop/)  Granted, this reflects only three small data sets, but it appears that evidence to date falls in the "inconclusive" camp.  (And this doesn't even really get into causation: was legal marijuana responsible for a statistically observable decrease in fatal accidents?  I have my doubts.)  Unfortunately, for prohibition supporters, inconclusive is bad news since it more or less demonstrates that various warnings about the risks are not panning out.  Oregon has yet to publish a lot of data on the subject, and while every once in a while there is a news story about how driver X was high on pot and caused a bad accident, they are far less common than a drunk driver causing a bad accident.  I expect more "inconclusive" results as more comprehensive data sets become available.

In some ways, prohibition arguments remind me of a hubbub here years ago involving extra-long tractor-trailers (ie, a tractor pulling three trailers).  There were warnings of sharp increases in serious and fatal accidents involving these behemoths, complete with scary commercials using scary music.  The law to allow these rigs passed, and nothing happened.  Well, aside from increased freight traffic.

bwv 1080 hit the nail on the head: legalized pot is far less destructive, and imposes far fewer social costs, than the obscene, abusive, coercive use of state power in enforcing prohibition, which, if SJW types - and statistics - are to be believed, also disproportionately impacts minority communities.  Public policy is a matter of trade offs, and so far the trade offs in states where marijuana has become legal look good to me.

My point, to make it clear, is that it's hard to predict consequences, which is why empirical results rather than just "but what about" are important.( This applies to impaired drivers but also to all the other side effects, such as reducing bad policing too of course. )
I think you, I, and bww all agree pretty much perfectly.
Title: Re: Perhaps a sensitive topic? re weed, ganja, cannabis
Post by: Todd on September 13, 2017, 09:43:22 AM
Quote from: Ken B on September 13, 2017, 09:25:48 AMI think you, I, and bww all agree pretty much perfectly.


I think so.  I was just reinforcing both the vague nature of the data, and, more importantly the trade offs.  Okay, so more people smoke pot daily.  So what?  If it can be shown that material harm is being caused to others and major harm to such users (I'm not sure slacking counts), then that becomes an issue to be dealt with by expanding the lower-cost/more taxpayer friendly alternative of treatment rather than continuing or reinstating prohibition, which is a far worse alternative.  Also, not to sound jaded, but I remember having to watch BS/propaganda flicks while I was in high school about the ill effects of marijuana, and one of the tropes then was about people needing to smoke every day.  It must be worse now, I guess.