Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[CONAN]

It's not irresponsible if it's unjust.

OK and let's keep in mind you said it's up to the individual to decide that. So laws only apply to people who think they are just. If you think a law is unjust, it doesn't apply to you. And this is not only ok by you but beneficial to society?

You should be willing to answer the questions you pose other people. Unless you begin doing so, this discussion is over.

You can run away from this if you want. If I'd taken your position I'd certainly be looking for an out as well. You want to be a discussion nazi and say I'm not answering yours when you won't answer mine. That's hypocritical and not very fair to say the least.

I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position before moving on. I think that's a good idea. That way we're not all forced to make reasonable assumptions when we can just get it right from the horse's mouth.

 

[CONAN]

God I hope this is intentional irony.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[Agoxlea]

OK and let's keep in mind you said it's up to the individual to decide that. So laws only apply to people who think they are just. If you think a law is unjust, it doesn't apply to you. And this is not only ok by you but beneficial to society?

The obligation isn't to prove that ALL civil disobedience is justified, but only that there are cases where laws are unjust and civil disobedience is acceptable. We aren't arguing that weed is good because there is a law against it, you are trying to argue that weed is bad because there is a law against it. Therefore, the obligation falls on you to prove that it is a just law.

 

[Agoxlea]

Favorite music to smoke weed to?

I'm listening to yo-yo ma right now which is working out pretty great

 

[GVC]

So laws only apply to people who think they are just. If you think a law is unjust, it doesn't apply to you. And this is not only ok by you but beneficial to society?

Laws apply to everyone, just or unjust.

And yes, I try to have a rational basis for my decision about the justice of a particular policy. If it is unjust, and people are unduly harmed by it, that can potentially be a pretty serious social problem. As such, I don't feel it my responsibility to uphold these laws.

With that said, I try to make good value judgements, give people the benefit of the doubt, and treat them not only as I'd like to be treated, but as they'd like to be treated. I'm not in favor of behaviors that are cruel or otherwise harmful to other individuals or society as a whole, and I try to act in accordance with those values.

 

[GVC]

Who do you think decides what is just or unjust?

Do you think civil disobedience is ever appropriate?

 

[babe]

Sorry to be so late with this one, I haven't been to this thread for a while... GVC has touched on this, so I apologize if I am repeating anything.

Everybody does things that alter brain chemistry. That is basically what governs emotion and mood. You watch a scary movie, eat a favorite food, listen to music, cheer for a team, or have sex, you're altering the chemistry of your brain. (You'll have to take my word for it on that last one, Conan.)

What about people on anti-depressants? Are they all sad and pathetic? Or pain killers? Hell, Tylenol alters your brain and it's perception of pain. Is it bad that I use ibuprofen now and then?

Marijuana is not PCP.

I used to have a job where the main reading material was the Merck Index, CRC Handbook, PDR, and such. I was intending to become a medicinal chemist. But I got sick, and the doctors had no answers. When I was recovering I went to the Eccles Medical Library at the UofU every day, day in and day out, for about a year or more, reading everything I could.

Our Pharmaceutical industry, from A to Z is held by a group of majority stockholders whose money originally came from Standard Oil when it was even more of a cartel than it is today, loosely called "The Rockefellers". "The Rockefellers were large stakeholders in German pharmaceuticals like Bayer and Pfizer and IG Farben, folks who were complicitly involved in the Nazi death camps as well as our own unethical medical experiments, largely "legitimized" by some beholden university research people.

I have done consulting work for health food companies in regard to the physiological effects of their products. The bottom line is that petoleum-based compounds generally have more severe side effects than natural-sourced unrefined "foods" or "herbs", but even natural things will have effects on your liver, pancreas, kidneys and in general on every organ of your body. Everything can be overdone, abused, and misused with all kinds of ill effects. In my observation, the powerful BigPharma lobbies are working to capture the health market and absolutely exclude competitors, particularly the small fry competitors, since the big fish are so much owned by the same people ultimately it's all in the family.

I believe these folks are not interested in actually curing our diseases and everybody knows they are making tons of money pushing their pills. Unfortunately for those who might want to use something like marijuana sensibly as a herb, or even make rope or manila envelopes from it, it is in the interests of our elites who operate the levers of our government to suppress it. The invention of Nylon which could be used for rope created the lobby to criminalize hemp.

Your best strategy for having a good life is just to avoid substance abuse and keep your liver, pancreas, and kidneys from getting plugged up with chemicals they can't clear very well. Includes eating to much of anything, drinking too much of anything, and avoiding air pollution generally.

And vote for people who will limit the power of government as our only chance to limit the influence of lobbyists working for evil men determined to set up/maintain their cash cow cartels.

 

[moevillini]

Do you think civil disobedience is ever appropriate?

not that you're directing this question at me, but I'll give my answer and an example...

Yes. Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I used to have a job where the main reading material was the Merck Index, CRC Handbook, PDR, and such. I was intending to become a medicinal chemist. But I got sick, and the doctors had no answers. When I was recovering I went to the Eccles Medical Library at the UofU every day, day in and day out, for about a year or more, reading everything I could.

Our Pharmaceutical industry, from A to Z is held by a group of majority stockholders whose money originally came from Standard Oil when it was even more of a cartel than it is today, loosely called "The Rockefellers". "The Rockefellers were large stakeholders in German pharmaceuticals like Bayer and Pfizer and IG Farben, folks who were complicitly involved in the Nazi death camps as well as our own unethical medical experiments, largely "legitimized" by some beholden university research people.

I have done consulting work for health food companies in regard to the physiological effects of their products. The bottom line is that petoleum-based compounds generally have more severe side effects than natural-sourced unrefined "foods" or "herbs", but even natural things will have effects on your liver, pancreas, kidneys and in general on every organ of your body. Everything can be overdone, abused, and misused with all kinds of ill effects. In my observation, the powerful BigPharma lobbies are working to capture the health market and absolutely exclude competitors, particularly the small fry competitors, since the big fish are so much owned by the same people ultimately it's all in the family.

I believe these folks are not interested in actually curing our diseases and everybody knows they are making tons of money pushing their pills. Unfortunately for those who might want to use something like marijuana sensibly as a herb, or even make rope or manila envelopes from it, it is in the interests of our elites who operate the levers of our government to suppress it. The invention of Nylon which could be used for rope created the lobby to criminalize hemp.

Your best strategy for having a good life is just to avoid substance abuse and keep your liver, pancreas, and kidneys from getting plugged up with chemicals they can't clear very well. Includes eating to much of anything, drinking too much of anything, and avoiding air pollution generally.

And vote for people who will limit the power of government as our only chance to limit the influence of lobbyists working for evil men determined to set up/maintain their cash cow cartels.

This

 

[Bronco70]

Ya bigtime straw man and you know it. Don't see why you are going postal over it though.

God I hope this is intentional irony.

No, this is just his usual strategy. If he can't refute a counterpoint, he resorts to juvenile antagonism. I give him a B- for the effort. Sometimes he's a little more clever than that.

 

[One Brow]

How about the previous paragraph

"Difficult to establish" refers to a current state based on current testing methods. The entire purpse of that site is to discuss testing in raod-side stops, etc., not the theoretical limitations on what can be tested.

If I have not been clear before, let me try to make this crystal clear: you ned to provide evidence that the THC level (not THC metabolite level) of a light/non-smoker is lower when the smoker describes themself as feeling high that the THC level of a heavy smoker when they are not high. This is different from saying the residual THC level of a heavy smoker, after the high, is higher than the residual level of the non-smoker. That's why evidence of the latter is insufficient to make your case. This is also different from saying that the current test methods are not geared to detecting actual intoxicatory levels. Further, it's a very straightforward notion.

For example, look at 2.10 and 3.2 on https://www.idmu.co.uk/pdfs/drugtest.pdf to see the beginnings of such an approach. I don't know if a test can be developed that is as reliable as a blood-alcohol test (which itself is not precise) or not, but I see no evidence that it connot.

You have the goal posts, very specifcally laid out. I won't move them. Can you cross them?

 

[One Brow]

Yeah, it's pretty worthless trying to have a discussion with One Brow. ... He does this in pretty much every thread where someone proves him wrong.

As a recent example, in my last discussion with GoJazz, when he accurately pointed out that Fannie Mae was indeed involved with subprime mortgages in 2007 and 2008, I acknowledged my error directly.

However, I do stand corrected on the "exclusively". You're right insofar as in 2007, Fannie Mae started to respond to the loss of market share by pursuing these loans more aggressively, ...

This happened in that thread because GoJazz did the research and found evidence of an error. I've acknowledge errors to a variety of other posters. When you can figure how to do that, and find an error, you'll get the same treatment.

 

[CONAN]

The obligation isn't to prove that ALL civil disobedience is justified, but only that there are cases where laws are unjust and civil disobedience is acceptable.

Disagree.

you are trying to argue that weed is bad because there is a law against it.

That's just one factor. It's not all of it. Like I said, I feel the same about alcohol and there are no laws against adult drinking.

Therefore, the obligation falls on you to prove that it is a just law.

It's not on me to prove that. I'm not the one arguing that individuals decide which laws to follow and which not to.

 

[Agoxlea]

"Difficult to establish" refers to a current state based on current testing methods. The entire purpse of that site is to discuss testing in raod-side stops, etc., not the theoretical limitations on what can be tested.

If I have not been clear before, let me try to make this crystal clear: you ned to provide evidence that the THC level (not THC metabolite level) of a light/non-smoker is lower when the smoker describes themself as feeling high that the THC level of a heavy smoker when they are not high. This is different from saying the residual THC level of a heavy smoker, after the high, is higher than the residual level of the non-smoker. That's why evidence of the latter is insufficient to make your case. This is also different from saying that the current test methods are not geared to detecting actual intoxicatory levels. Further, it's a very straightforward notion.

For example, look at 2.10 and 3.2 on https://www.idmu.co.uk/pdfs/drugtest.pdf to see the beginnings of such an approach. I don't know if a test can be developed that is as reliable as a blood-alcohol test (which itself is not precise) or not, but I see no evidence that it connot.

You have the goal posts, very specifcally laid out. I won't move them. Can you cross them?

I doubt anyone on this message board has enough expertise to know whether a more advanced test would be possible. I'm going to say it's probably safe to say it is, but really who knows. I am not even going to argue with you on whether a non-existent test would be possible, because I honestly don't know and that is a strange argument to be making. Most things are usually figured out eventually though.

 

[Agoxlea]

Disagree.

That wasn't my opinion, that is how logic works. If I can prove (which I'm assuming we all agree already) that there are cases where civil disobedience can be justified, then your obligation becomes to prove that the law being protested is in fact just.

That's just one factor. It's not all of it. Like I said, I feel the same about alcohol and there are no laws against adult drinking.

Ok, if you concede on that point then we still have "socially" and "chemically" as reasons you are opposed. I would like a reason for either, but specific comments like this without any reasoning other than the fact it is how you feel is why people assume you are opposed to them based on religion. If it isn't for religious reasons, the invitation is still open to explain the basis of your opinions.

It's not on me to prove that. I'm not the one arguing that individuals decide which laws to follow and which not to.

But are you in favor of that in specific instances. Gandhi, Rosa Parks, MLK, etc. More relevant would be the Whiskey Rebellion. If you agree that even just one of them were protesting unjust laws then that establishes that there are instances where a law was unjust. Return to step one of proving the law is just.

 

[CONAN]

Laws apply to everyone, just or unjust.

That's not what you said. You said the law doesn't apply to you because it is unjust. You don't have to follow it because you believe it's wrong. You can't have it both ways. Look, if you want to break the law cuz you think it's bad that's fine. But have some intellectual honesty here. Show some accountability. Breaking the law is breaking the law and that line of thinking by members of society is irresponsible. Unless you are in favor of anarchy in which case GTFO.

With that said, I try to make good value judgements, give people the benefit of the doubt, and treat them not only as I'd like to be treated, but as they'd like to be treated. I'm not in favor of behaviors that are cruel or otherwise harmful to other individuals or society as a whole, and I try to act in accordance with those values.

That's a nice sentiment and all but it's just sugar-coating social and criminal irresponsibility (those two can be lumped together I guess). You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

I readily admit to being socially and criminally irresponsible. There are laws I don't follow for whatever reason. But I'm still breaking the law and I'm not going to paint it any other way so I feel better about it.

 

[One Brow]

I am not even going to argue with you on whether a non-existent test would be possible, because I honestly don't know and that is a strange argument to be making. Most things are usually figured out eventually though.

I agree it is a strange argument to make, and I agree that it will get figured out (although that will possibly require decriminalization). Thank you for the conversation.

 

[CONAN]

No, this is just his usual strategy. If he can't refute a counterpoint, he resorts to juvenile antagonism. I give him a B- for the effort. Sometimes he's a little more clever than that.

I love that I have a biographer following me around thread to thread.

 

[One Brow]

That's not what you said. You said the law doesn't apply to you because it is unjust. You don't have to follow it because you believe it's wrong.

Actually, the law still applies to people who choose to break it, and GVC has been clear he agrees with that sentiment.

 

[CONAN]

If I can prove (which I'm assuming we all agree already) that there are cases where civil disobedience can be justified, then your obligation becomes to prove that the law being protested is in fact just.

That's irrelevant. I'm asking who decides what laws are just and unjust. And besides, it is just upon you to show how a law is unjust.

Ok, if you concede on that point

But I'm not conceding. That's my point is that it is criminally/legally/socially irresponsible to smoke weed. I'm saying that's a piece of the pie. Are you conceding it is or denying the responsibility? Once that is established I got no problem moving on to the other factors but this is a big deal. If a pothead isn't going to accept criminal/social irresponsibility then what's the point.

But are you in favor of that in specific instances. Gandhi, Rosa Parks, MLK, etc. More relevant would be the Whiskey Rebellion. If you agree that even just one of them were protesting unjust laws then that establishes that there are instances where a law was unjust. Return to step one of proving the law is just.

The point isn't are there unjust laws out there. The point isn't whether people have made stands against unjust laws. Because for every Ghandi out there you have 1 million times that number of people against laws that were perfectly just. Straw man city here.

And even Gandi took accountability.