If they are drunks, yes. You can drink a beer/wine etc and not get drunk.
The whole point of smoking pot is to get stoned.
If they are drunks, yes. You can drink a beer/wine etc and not get drunk.
The whole point of smoking pot is to get stoned.
Actually no. Sorry.
Wrong on both counts.
BTW, when you drink you get drunk. There is a little drunk, or a buzz on one end, and hammered on the other. This is true for pot too. A little means a buzz, a lot means stoned.
Medical pot users very frequently do not use it to get high, just as users of perscription opiate pain medication users do not get high, when the trigger is significant pain.
My point is that people use terms like "potheads" or "stoners" in a derogatory manner and apply it to anyone who may enjoy a toke every so often.
Yet people drink their wine, beer, and liqour every so often yet they're not being referred to as "drunks". Skybill included.
Seems like a double standard to me.
I agree. Was replying to Skybill. Total double standard.
Bill, you are clearly misinformed. In fact, your opinion has been disproven along with the entire gateway theory as applied to cannabis by several conservative organizations.
A National Academy of Sciences panel observed in a 1999 report, 'There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone on the basis of its particular drug effect.' Last year the Canadian Senate's Special Committee on Illegal Drugs likewise concluded that 'cannabis itself is not a cause of other drug use. In this sense, we reject the gateway theory.'
In 1999, drug czar Barry McCaffrey commissioned a major study on medical marijuana conducted by the venerable Institute of Medicine, which included an examination of marijuana's potential to lead to other drug use. In simple terms, the researchers explained why the gateway theory was unfounded:
Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana -- usually before they are of legal age.
There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.
In 2006, the University of Pittsburgh released a more thorough study in which researchers spent 12 years tracking a group of subjects from adolescence into adulthood and documented the initiation and progression of their drug use. The researchers found that the gateway theory was not only wrong, but also harmful to properly understanding and addressing drug abuse:
This evidence supports what’s known as the common liability model, an emerging theory that states the likelihood that someone will transition to the use of illegal drugs is determined not by the preceding use of a particular drug but instead by the user’s individual tendencies and environmental circumstances.
“The emphasis on the drugs themselves, rather than other, more important factors that shape a person’s behavior, has been detrimental to drug policy and prevention programs,” Dr. Tarter said. “To become more effective in our efforts to fight drug abuse, we should devote more attention to interventions that address these issues, particularly to parenting skills that shape the child’s behavior as well as peer and neighborhood environments.”
Of course, the simplest refutation of the gateway theory is the basic fact that most marijuana users just don't use other drugs. As the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports:
More than 100 million Americans have tried marijuana; 14.4 million Americans are estimated to be "past-month" users. Yet there are only an estimated 2,075,000 "past-month" users of cocaine and 153,000 "past-month" users of heroin. [DrugWarFacts]
So come up to speed. What you are thinking is just dead wrong and labeling all users of marijuana, both for medicinal and recreational needs/wants is truly not only juvenile on your part, but imbecilic.
Here, Bill, watch this and keep in mind none of it is true. It was financed and made by a church group and intended to be shown to parents as a morality tale attempting to teach them about the dangers of cannabis use as they saw them. Such education-exploitation films were common in the years following adoption of the stricter version of the Production Code in 1934. Other films included Esper's own earlier Marihuana (1936) and Elmer Clifton's Assassin of Youth (1937), and the subject of cannabis was particularly popular in the hysteria surrounding Anslinger's 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.
The Los Angeles Times has claimed that it was the first film that a generation embraced as "the worst". Leonard Maltin has called it "the grand-daddy of all "Worst" movies". Las Vegas CityLife named it the "worst ever" runner-up to Plan 9 from Outer Space, and AMC described it as "one of the worst movies ever made".
Times have changed. Apparently you have not. Knowledge has increased for most, but apparently on this subject you are still caught up in your own version of a"worst" movie, ever.
People don't jump out of windows because they smoked pot anymore than you are going to shoot yourself because Hillary is going to be the next president. Another way to look at it is that irresponsible gun owners sometimes kill themselves or somebody else. Irresponsible pot smokers are the stoners. They lose their jobs. If you don't want all of us to lump all the gun owners into the "irresponsible" group, stop referring to all cannabis users as potheads. Or don't and see what derision and insolence really are. It will follow you in every post you make around here. It almost already is. Your choice.
And irresponsible drinkers are drunk drivers, and often violent or criminal when drunk. Frequently abusers of various kinds too.
We've made some progress on that. Education, norms, law, options. Pot is no different. Frankly, that's true for a lot of drugs, but we can and should just deal with pot. The rest will fall in line after that.
And it will, because we will see the same approach, already doing us a lot of good, simply doing more good.
Lots of money doesn't want that to happen.
Big Pharma is vexed. They can process pot, and derive various things from it, package it, and do all manner of things with it, mostly unpatentable. Or, if it is patentable, nobody is really going to care all that much. So they mostly hate the whole thing, because it presents as a cost and risk to them, not income.
Law enforcement is mixed. A whole lot of people grok the dynamics and they see the social cost and basic human costs as we apply the wrong forces to the problem leading to more poor outcomes than not. That just isn't what the vast majority of them signed up for.
Suppliers of law enforcement? They hate it too. They hate it, because the war on drugs makes fantastic amounts of money. Private prisons love the incoming, mostly useful inmates who can perform labor for pennies, can't bitch, and who have long, stable contract arrangements, so to speak. Besides, filling beds during low crime times, otherwise known as "unprofitable", simply requires a wave of selective enforcement. Easy peasy.
That whole mess does nobody but them any real good.
Governments currently have a love hate affair. On the love part, this growing economy presents as a nice source of tax revenue. Since we've biased the income to the treasury away from the amounts needed to maintain our standard of living, in a real sense making a pay to play society increasingly filled with people who can't pay, figuring out new revenue without having to own the damage is very, very appealing. Inequality will remain a problem, but we can buy some time if we make this revenue possible.
On the hate side of things, pot tends to generate a lot of free thinkers. To me, that's one of the more notable aspects compared to something like booze, or most hard drugs. A little bit of pot is a whole lot like a little wine at the end of a day. People can relax, clear their minds, think and sometimes those thoughts go places governments would rather they not go. On a basic level, this is not desirable. Questions need to be managed, or they tend to mandate answers corrupt or unjust governments would rather not have to answer.
There is also the very simple matter of the policy being wrong. This is difficult, because fixing it implies that there is actually some material reason for the government to serve those who granted it power, in the case of the USA. The Oligarchs, who have done a fine job owning most of the messaging, that daily rewriting of history keeping us divided and uninformed, and the politicians firmly aligned with big money and it's interests, really don't want to see a populist movement gestate and come to potency and regularly spend very large amounts of money squashing it where it happens to rise in any meaningful way.
Pot can unify people in some basic ways, and the overall culture surrounding it really doesn't allow for the kinds of basic discrimination and injustices we see frequently today. A win on this would be on par with health care reform in that it would represent a second progressive type policy shift away from the last 40 years of regression and oligarchy. To them, this is not cool, and besides, they can enjoy pot all they want. Anyone of means can. It's not hard to avoid any real penalty, unless one is actually moving it cartel style and why bother with that when it's quite easy to produce most anywhere?
Of course, there will be bad associated with all of that. Not everybody will handle it, and there will be some who are a mess. No different from booze, and the movement to actually own that aspect of our humanity could very well lead to a nice shift in norms away from the authoritarian and punitive ones we see dominant today.
Democrats have a high degree of unity on this. It's not complete, but it's good enough. Libertarians are aligned with the left, though there is a serious economic and role of Government difference, it's easy enough for both groups to align on this, and they are.
Notably, Republicans have a problem. There is a fair amount of unity on that front too. A great many "Independent" voters really are Republicans who simply don't want to identify with the party for one reason or another. Many of them lean Libertarian, and are basically liberal on social issues, while being hard liners on economic ones. This makes for one of three basic splits in the party, oligarchs, Libertarians who are a growing fraction of the GOP, and social conservatives of various kinds, willing to vote anybody willing to entertain their regressive policy vision.
That's kind of a mess!
Add it all up, and there is a solid alignment with legalizing it, with the numbers growing nicely as the oldest of us age out.
Real Independent voters are a rarity. A few, maybe 10 percent of us. The rest are really partisan, but with benefits! A ton of Tea Partiers, for example, really are Libertarians who are also social conservatives. This is a near majority position in the base of the GOP at present.
The way I see it is simple: This one is going to happen like gay marriage is. Too many people are seeing how it really should work as opposed to how it does. And like gay marriage, everybody is completely free to abstain or partake as they see fit, no different than we do with booze.
Really, the big question is whether or not enough people will bother to vote and or get the basic education they need to vote their interests. This woman, BTW, saw that trend going away in Alaska and decided to maximize her impact with the intent of making the law in Alaska more clear and formal. Pot has been basically legal there for many years, with some complexities and oddities that make doing business a problem, but not overall use and to a similar, but lesser degree cultivation.
Being a business owner well poised to benefit from the move to change things, she spiked it as an investment. Rational one too. A bit rough on form, but hey she's not the first to take a risk to kick off a company and the clowns bitching about it have very likely done their own things when it was their time, and would in a second, given a similar alignment of current events, self-interest, etc...
Most importantly, there is a clear trend to ignore data we have, our own history, science, technology, on nearly every front.
Who is doing this?
The Stupid Party, who thinks you are stupid. It's not just this issue. It's all of the things we find matter right now.
And the solution is education, advocacy, action.
Convincing Skybill isn't going to matter much. Still worth doing as I hate to see somebody I know well acting on bad information. But the real job is to use advocacy and education to get those who would grok it motivated enough to act on it.
Right now, nearly across the board, the numbers and overall policy preferences align with the left. If it were not for ongoing efforts to compartmentalize (gerrymander) and suppress (voter caging) the vote, many things would be moving forward in good alignment with the general public interest, this issue included.
So it's a numbers game. And all the shit slinging going on, "liberals suck", "President Obama sucks", etc... are just an attempt to maximize the ill-informed opposition vote and minimize the motivation for the "let's get shit done" vote potential.
...which is precisely why I would write what I just did. For those reading at home, you know the drill.
If you don't actually step up and do your part, you live with the results of those who do, and if anything, the dialog here should tell you all you need to know about how that all goes and whether or not you will be better off.
Me? I'm getting young people signed up to vote and educating them on why it matters more than ever and how their generation can contribute to a much improved state of things. Young people, minorities and women have the potential, right now, to close the door on big money, ignorance and social regression.
Let's get after them people. Every one matters. Clearly.