LDS leaders on physician assisted suicide and other topics


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 Ouch, that was sort of mean. It has nothing to do with intelligence. 

Sorry - I did not intend this to be sort of mean - this was a hard lesson I first learned when checking LDS sources concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls supporting LDS doctrine.  I found that the sources quoted each other (circular sources) and not any real data.  I would point out that a great deal of sources are circular references now days.  Besides checking sources it is necessary to check the funding for any study referenced.  For example, funding from the Democratic Party or aligned PACS (tax exempt) will have data deliberately skewed against the Republican Party or candidate positions.  It has also become necessary to consider the bias of news sources.  There is no such thing as a non-bias reporting.  For example, the American Psychiatric Association has a strong bias concerning homosexuality and any study coming from them or funded by them will deliberately filter data and portray their particular bias - regardless of scientific data or lack of data.

Such problems present themselves in many pseudo-scientific claims from anti-LDS to politically charged propaganda.  Even US government is not exempt from heavy biased conclusions – including the CDC and other agencies.  Perhaps the worse are the independent news outlets from CNN to Fox – they all have a bias.  My advice is that if you do not have a clear understanding of a bias – it is best you discard such information as being complete and not having a bias – perhaps discard the information altogether.

I honestly believe that history will record this era as the most gullible generation of the modern era that falls for and swallowed anything labeled as a “scientific” study.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I honestly believe that history will record this era as the most gullible generation of the modern era that falls for and swallowed anything labeled as a “scientific” study.

We agree on that, but for the wrong reasons. When I look at how people worship organic food,  bash GMO food, don't believe that vaccines work, think the moon has an effect on behavior and that astrology works-I also feel that we are extremely gullible. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

More intelligent people check sources before believing popular main stream propaganda.  I referenced the side effects (especially long term effects on cognitive reasoning abilities) that are already known.  Specifically psychotic paranoia that we are currently observing in the Black Lives Matter movements.  To quote one such person, “I am afraid to go to work because I fear I will be shot by a policeman”.  --- When has any person (Black or otherwise) been deliberately targeted and shot while at work coconsciously doing their job – excluding drug dealers and Mafia hit men.

The Traveler

You must not have seen very many of my posts. In the grand majority I quote sources. I assure you I have studied this matter as well, including claims and details from both sides. A few books i would suggest are: 

Marijuana Debunked: A Handbook for Parents, Pundits and Politicians Who Want to Know the Case Against Legalization

In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction

Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs

El Narco: Inside Mexico's Criminal Insurgency

Please note that these books are not one sided. They include many sources and much information.

Now I see some more bias here as you try and link psychotic paranoia with the Black Lives Matter movement. I'm no fan of the victim mentality they push nor their bully tactics but neither do I agree with the broad accusation you made above. To prove my point I will consider this question you pose, "When has any person (Black or otherwise) been deliberately targeted and shot while at work coconsciously doing their job – excluding drug dealers and Mafia hit men." I need look no further than July of this year when an autistic man's therapist, who was black and on the job, followed him out into the street to make sure he got back inside. As he was in the street police came on the scene and told both men to get down. The black man laid on the street with his hands up. The autistic man sat there playing with a truck. One of the police officers shot three times and hit the black man in the leg (see http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article94009242.html). 

I urge you to better consider both sides of a matter. Including this issue with marijuana. In particular, I would ask you to be very careful about deciding that your way is the intelligent way and that others simply do not understand.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to add a great article I read here, which I would encourage anyone who is interested in this issue to read. It seriously looks at problems with marijuana and suggests what a believe is well thought out path forward.

The Real Dangers of Marijuana

To summarize, after reviewing statistics on marijuana and it's use, the author presents four real dangers to continued use:

  1. It is a performance degrader
  2. it is dependence-inducing. Marijuana is not crack, but marijuana dependence is nonetheless a real and not-uncommon consequence of prolonged use.
  3. Marijuana is, for the most part, not directly harmful to third parties. Most of marijuana's direct harms fall on its users, and the families and friends who care about them.
  4. Its health harms are, for the most part, minor. The evidence suggests that marijuana can trigger mental-health problems, But the scale of those harms per unit of use does not distinguish it from other permitted recreations, including skiing and sky diving.

He concludes with the following recommendations.

Quote

So the question remains: How should a freedom-loving, market-oriented society respond to a dependence-inducing substance that degrades performance but doesn't much damage bodies or cause harm to third parties? Some policy scholars have offered approaches that may point the way toward reasonable policies.

...In 2003, Thomas Babor and several colleagues wrote Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity, which captured the idea that, even though alcohol is a commercial commodity, public policy should not default to treating it the way we treat avocados and anchovy pizzas. Alcohol is important and distinctive enough to craft a special set of rules particular to it.

With regard to drugs and other activities (gambling, for instance) that are not dangerous enough to merit banning outright, Mark Kleiman has argued for "grudging toleration." That means allowing adults access to some legally produced supply, hopefully on liberal enough terms to undermine the black market, but with restraints and hoops for users and suppliers to jump through that will be seen as features of the regulatory regime, not wrinkles to be ironed out. For example, Kleiman suggests that even adults should be required to pass a test to earn the right to use, the way one must earn the right to drive, rather than conferring that right universally upon reaching a certain age. And such licenses could be used to enforce limits on amounts purchased per week or per month.

Marijuana is likewise no ordinary commodity but a temptation good that society should tolerate grudgingly. There are many ways of putting that philosophy into practice. One way is to start by restricting production and distribution to non-profits or for-benefit corporations whose charters mandate that they merely meet existing demand, not pursue unfettered market growth to maximize shareholders' returns and owners' wealth. It would also be wise to require these organizations' boards to be dominated by public-health and child-welfare advocates. Furthermore, regulatory authority should be put in the hands of agencies like the FDA whose loyalties are to the public welfare, not industry, and who maintain a healthy suspicion toward industry motives and practices.

...We are in the process of choosing the problem of greater drug dependence and smaller black markets. While it makes sense to appreciate the benefits of eliminating black markets and their attendant harm, sober minds ought to be honest about the tradeoffs and deeply — perhaps even urgently — engaged in how to minimize the downsides of this choice. Even if legalization is a net win, it needs to be seen as the lesser of two evils, and informal social controls need to be developed to replace the formal legal controls that are being removed.

By being honest about the risks and costs of marijuana use, sensible policymakers can ensure that future legalization, if it must occur, is managed in the safest, most responsible possible way.

 

Edited by james12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
14 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

More intelligent people check sources before believing popular main stream propaganda.  I referenced the side effects (especially long term effects on cognitive reasoning abilities) that are already known.  Specifically psychotic paranoia that we are currently observing in the Black Lives Matter movements.  To quote one such person, “I am afraid to go to work because I fear I will be shot by a policeman”.  --- When has any person (Black or otherwise) been deliberately targeted and shot while at work coconsciously doing their job – excluding drug dealers and Mafia hit men.

 

The Traveler

I've been following along on this thread, I just haven't had time to respond to the comments yet....but this one can't wait.

This is really out of line, IMO.  First of all, the fear that Black people have in our society is not psychotic paranoia.  When that person said they are afraid to go to work, they didn't mean they were afraid to be shot at work. The issue is DRIVING to work.  

You are usually more open minded than this Traveler.  I've always thought of you as someone that considers both sides of an issue before coming to a decision, but you clearly don't understand what Black people in this country feel right now.  I would be okay if you understood it and disagreed, but your comments show clearly you don't understand but are still comfortable insulting them.   But let's get back to the main discussion. I don't have the time or patience to discuss Black Lives Matter here.  

You guys can discuss this if you want to, I'm just saying I don't have time to field 20 responses telling me that I'm wrong.  I have done enough research on this topic that you will not change my mind.  On the issue of whether or not to legalize marijuana, however, I am still researching, and very much open to hear people's thoughts.  

Thank you again everyone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

@Just_A_Guy  I meant to tell you... thank you for taking time to write such a thoughtful response.  I want to respond in kind, but I have been rather busy.  I am grateful, and I am pondering yours and many of the other opinions shared here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2016 at 9:16 PM, MormonGator said:

Make sure you don't confuse "being educated" with "they must agree with me." ;)

Don't you realize they're not educated well if their conclusions don't agree with mine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Lots of folks will hear the summaries of these studies, laugh, and say "We've always known that MJ makes you stupid, and makes you do stupid things.  How much money did the eggheads spend on this crap?"

9 minutes ago, Windseeker said:

So, how much money did these eggheads spend on this crap?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, james12 said:

I have to add a great article I read here, which I would encourage anyone who is interested in this issue to read. It seriously looks at problems with marijuana and suggests what a believe is well thought out path forward.

The Real Dangers of Marijuana

To summarize, after reviewing statistics on marijuana and it's use, the author presents four real dangers to continued use:

  1. It is a performance degrader
  2. it is dependence-inducing. Marijuana is not crack, but marijuana dependence is nonetheless a real and not-uncommon consequence of prolonged use.
  3. Marijuana is, for the most part, not directly harmful to third parties. Most of marijuana's direct harms fall on its users, and the families and friends who care about them.
  4. Its health harms are, for the most part, minor. The evidence suggests that marijuana can trigger mental-health problems, But the scale of those harms per unit of use does not distinguish it from other permitted recreations, including skiing and sky diving.

He concludes with the following recommendations.

 

Step 1:  deregulate.

Step 2:  let it become a multi-billion dollar business and a cultural staple.

Step 3:  sue the heck out of the growers and distributors.

Step 4:  rinse and repeat as necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2016 at 1:04 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Hi from smoky good-feelin' Colorado.

Now MJ is fully legal here, we're in the middle of discovering the impact of legalizing it.  We're in the middle of gathering new data of how many auto accidents, people fired for cause from places of employment, instances of domestic violence, misdemeanors, felonies, homicides, etc, involve someone with MJ in their system, and how much of it is present. 

Not much in the way of completed scientific studies yet, just growing anecdotes.  As we're gathering these statistics, we keep seeing the answer "more than before legalization" over and over and over and over again.  And over again.

Except... this isn't the effect we are expecting from MJ in my understanding.

MJ is not so much a drug that causes someone to act foolish (except when they are so addicted they steal money to get their next supply) but more of a drug that causes someone to not act at all.

So, what you're looking for is a decrease in productivity and social interaction... the same measurements you can attribute to depression... so you'll have to run a study that separates the two.

But, I could be wrong on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

MJ is not so much a drug that causes someone to act foolish (except when they are so addicted they steal money to get their next supply) but more of a drug that causes someone to not act at all.

Quick question anatess2, do you know why you believe this?  Do you remember where you learned this, who taught you, and what they were using as a source?  I know the notion of the "peaceful high dude, laying on his back and being at one with the universe" is pushed hard by kids in school, users, advocates, and those lobbying for legalization.  When you search out fairly reputable sources, they often paint a slightly different picture. 

Mirkwood the police officer has spoken on other threads about his experiences fighting with violent suspects who are high on marijuana.  Hey @mirkwood - care to tell us again how many and how often?

And again, you can do news searches for stories here in smoky Colorado, about the disturbing numbers of MJ-related violence, homicides, robberies, burglaries, acts of vandalism, destruction of property etc.  Even though the stuff has been legalized, there's no end to the violent felonies being committed by people trying to get their hands on it, fighting over territory, etc.  One big promise that lots of well-meaning folks fell for, was "legalization will eliminate criminal activity".   Yeah, it's not quite happening here in CO...

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
On 10/16/2016 at 6:45 PM, NeuroTypical said:

My other issue with MJ, either MMJ or not, is unless you are dang sure where you're getting it, you may be funding the kidnapping, murderous, child-sex-slave-trading transnation transnational criminal organizations, otherwise known as "cartels".  The guy behind the counter may or may not care, may or may not tell the truth.

One big benefit of legalization is that regulation comes with it. That means legal, licensed MJ farms and a drastic fall in demand for illegally produced and transported product. And with the domestic workload of organizations like the DEA lightened by legalization, they will consequently have more time and resources to dedicate to illegal cross-border trafficking. 

Besides, that south-of-the-border "blood bud" is garbage anyway. ;)

On 10/16/2016 at 8:33 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

2)  I'm not convinced that prohibition was as fruitless as some folks like to claim.  I've seen studies saying per capita alcohol consumption went down (and didn't return to pre-Prohibition levels until the 1970s); and other studies debunking the first studies.  But common sense says that if a product is illegal, it will be harder to obtain and fewer people will use it.  (If potheads are really able to get as much pot as they want, then why do they care whether we legalize it or not?  Answer:  They know darned well that it will be easier for them to get pot, and they'll be able to increase their consumption.)  

Consumption went down and crime went through the roof. Common sense says that if a product is made illegal, people who really want it will break the law to do so. So you'd better be really sure that the benefits of criminalizing a product truly outweigh the disadvantages. In the case of both alcohol and MJ, the case for criminalization is shaky at best. 

On 10/16/2016 at 8:33 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

The potheads, by contrast, doggedly insist that there's nothing wrong with what they are doing and that the guvmint should just leave them alone.

In quite a few cases, this is probably true. Casual MJ use, like casual alcohol consumption, is virtually harmless. That's not to say that some people don't take their usage too far, but I'd say the percentage of excessive MJ users is probably a lot lower than the percentage of excessive drinkers. And when you start getting into drugs like crack and heroin, any amount is arguably too much. 

On 10/16/2016 at 8:33 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

7)  Re medical marijuana:  Again, harking back to the Utah Heroin and Opiates summit, one of the presentations was by a Dr. Jennifer Plumb, a professor at the U of U medical school and director of the Utah Naloxone Project.  (Naloxone is a drug that can be administered by injection or nasal spray, that will bring you back from a heroin OD.  If you've seen those Utah billboards about "Heroin Kills.  Naloxon Saves.  Get it." on Utah highways--her agency is behind those; and the kid in the picture is brother, who died of an overdose back in the '90s.)  Anyways, someone asked Dr. Plumb about the use of medical marijuana for pain management as an alternative to opiates.  Dr. Plumb--who, one would think, would have been eager to recommend the use of non-opiates and who one would expect to be reasonably informed on the topic--was open to further research; but she stated that there just isn't any scientific data (anecdotal stuff, yes; statistical data, no) supporting the use of medical marijuana at this point.

So a doctor who helps develop pharmaceutical drugs isn't willing to jump on board with a non-pharmaceutical medical option? Huh. That's weird. 

BTW, I'm not saying that we don't need to research the benefits of MMJ (though I have a hard time believing that it hasn't already been researched quite a bit), just that pharm developers probably aren't the best people to pose those questions to. After all, pharmaceutical companies stand to lose quite a bit from the legalization of MMJ. So it makes sense that they would try to discredit it, or at least refrain from actively legitimizing it.

 

5 hours ago, james12 said:

The Real Dangers of Marijuana

To summarize, after reviewing statistics on marijuana and it's use, the author presents four real dangers to continued use:

  1. It is a performance degrader
  2. it is dependence-inducing. Marijuana is not crack, but marijuana dependence is nonetheless a real and not-uncommon consequence of prolonged use.
  3. Marijuana is, for the most part, not directly harmful to third parties. Most of marijuana's direct harms fall on its users, and the families and friends who care about them.
  4. Its health harms are, for the most part, minor. The evidence suggests that marijuana can trigger mental-health problems, But the scale of those harms per unit of use does not distinguish it from other permitted recreations, including skiing and sky diving.

 

 

Replace the words "it" and "marijuana" in those statements with "alcohol" and they're still pretty accurate. As with all things, moderation is key. If people like Michael Phelps and Le'veon Bell can achieve great success (despite suspensions) while being pot users, it stands to reason that many ordinary Joes can do the same. And yes, spoiler alert, there are many very functional and successful people in our society who casually smoke pot. Just as there are many people who casually imbibe alcohol without succumbing to the negative social and behavioral effects. 

 

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Except... this isn't the effect we are expecting from MJ in my understanding.

MJ is not so much a drug that causes someone to act foolish (except when they are so addicted they steal money to get their next supply) but more of a drug that causes someone to not act at all.

So, what you're looking for is a decrease in productivity and social interaction... the same measurements you can attribute to depression... so you'll have to run a study that separates the two.

But, I could be wrong on that.

Again, this is an issue of moderation versus excess/addiction. It's probably safe to say that a majority of MJ users are not slovenly deadbeats who can barely function in our society, just as a majority of people who drink alcohol are not alcoholics. Like alcohol, it has a relaxive effect. And like alcohol, use in moderation doesn't necessarily effect the functionality of an individual in a significant way.

Another important thing to note about the effects of MJ in relation to alcohol is that it alters our perception, while alcohol impairs it. An altered state of perception is not necessarily an impairment. It's different, to be sure, but different isn't the same as better/worse. This is something that probably merits formal study, but I can tell you from personal experience that driving high is a considerably different (and arguably safer) experience than driving drunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Godless said:

So a doctor who helps develop pharmaceutical drugs isn't willing to jump on board with a non-pharmaceutical medical option? Huh. That's weird. 

BTW, I'm not saying that we don't need to research the benefits of MMJ (though I have a hard time believing that it hasn't already been researched quite a bit), just that pharm developers probably aren't the best people to pose those questions to. After all, pharmaceutical companies stand to lose quite a bit from the legalization of MMJ. So it makes sense that they would try to discredit it, or at least refrain from actively legitimizing it.

Not quite.  :) To my knowledge Plumb isn't involved in the development of pharmaceutical pain-relief drugs.  She's just trying to make Naloxone more readily available--not because it's a pain reliever, but because it can prevent death in the event of an opiates overdose. 

There are already initiatives in many states (including Utah) to reduce the rate at which opiates are prescribed (which *far* exceeds the prescription rate in virtually every other developed country).  Tellingly, BigPharma is not counteracting this with a bunch of phony research about how their product is completely safe, the way Big Tobacco did.  I think they see the writing on the wall; and I think if they believed THC is medically effective then they'd be quietly favoring deregulation (at least for medical purposes) and actively developing THC-based products for pain relief. 

Quote

Consumption went down and crime went through the roof. Common sense says that if a product is made illegal, people who really want it will break the law to do so. So you'd better be really sure that the benefits of criminalizing a product truly outweigh the disadvantages. In the case of both alcohol and MJ, the case for criminalization is shaky at best. 

Realistically, you're going to get some of both:  Some will quit using or find legal alternatives; others will turn to the black market.  And yeah, the collateral effects are going to be the million-dollar question--more of one type of crime, less of another type of crime, and net increases or decreases in productivity, health insurance costs, and so on.  I think states should have the liberty to ban the stuff (and alcohol, and tobacco, for that matter); but for federalism reasons I don't like the idea of the federal government imposing additional criminal sanctions above and beyond state law for abuse of controlled substances.  (I'm more ambivalent about the federal government providing funding and/or logistical support to the states for enforcement/prevention/treatment as those states see fit) 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Godless said:
Quote

My other issue with MJ, either MMJ or not, is unless you are dang sure where you're getting it, you may be funding the kidnapping, murderous, child-sex-slave-trading transnation transnational criminal organizations, otherwise known as "cartels".  The guy behind the counter may or may not care, may or may not tell the truth.

One big benefit of legalization is that regulation comes with it. That means legal, licensed MJ farms and a drastic fall in demand for illegally produced and transported product. And with the domestic workload of organizations like the DEA lightened by legalization, they will consequently have more time and resources to dedicate to illegal cross-border trafficking. 

Oh wow.  Godless?  Put on your seatbelt - steep learning curve ahead.  See, what you have there, is idealism about how things ought to flow as a natural result of certain things.  Again, here in friendly, peace-out, smoky Colorado, we've been putting the thing to the test, and we've got firsthand experience with the unstoppable force of idealism crashing into the immovable object of "Oh yeah, government regulation just makes everything work right".   

"Seed-to-sale tracking" they called it.  Created a state regulatory agency, we did.  Lauded as a national model, it was.  It was going to ensure CO buyers, legally buying, were buying from legal sources. Here's the last we all heard about it, before everyone stopped caring

I read the audit (which now seems to be behind a firewall for some reason), and picked out a few little hidden gems.  For example, from the "weak controls over MJ destruction" category, there were many examples of "gee, the cops seized the stuff, the warehouse wrote a receipt for it, but we can't find the destruction paperwork and nobody can find the stuff now".  Basically, the government either became an illegal seller of the stuff, or government employees collaborated with illegal sellers of the stuff. 

Godless, don't give up on ideals.  Sometimes regulation works.  But here in RockyMountainHigh Colorado, "Regulation" amounted to nothing more than "something we said would happen to get people to vote our way".    Kind of like how Sadaam Hussein's Iraq had a constitution that looked quite a bit like ours.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh wow.  Godless?  Put on your seatbelt - steep learning curve ahead.  See, what you have there, is idealism about how things ought to flow as a natural result of certain things.  Again, here in friendly, peace-out, smoky Colorado, we've been putting the thing to the test, and we've got firsthand experience with the unstoppable force of idealism crashing into the immovable object of "Oh yeah, government regulation just makes everything work right".   

"Seed-to-sale tracking" they called it.  Created a state regulatory agency, we did.  Lauded as a national model, it was.  It was going to ensure CO buyers, legally buying, were buying from legal sources. Here's the last we all heard about it, before everyone stopped caring

I read the audit (which now seems to be behind a firewall for some reason), and picked out a few little hidden gems.  For example, from the "weak controls over MJ destruction" category, there were many examples of "gee, the cops seized the stuff, the warehouse wrote a receipt for it, but we can't find the destruction paperwork and nobody can find the stuff now".  Basically, the government either became an illegal seller of the stuff, or folks robbed the government and became illegal sellers of the stuff. 

Godless, don't give up on ideals.  Sometimes regulation works.  But here in RockyMountainHigh Colorado, "Regulation" amounted to nothing more than "something we said would happen to get people to vote our way".    Kind of like how Sadaam Hussein's Iraq had a constitution that looked quite a bit like ours.

Full MJ legalization is a pretty new concept. As with anything run by the government, I don't expect new programs and regulations to work instantly. There's definitely a trial-and-error period that has to be worked through. Heck, some states are still trying to fix the regulatory structure around alcohol almost 100 years after Prohibition was repealed. The fact that something fails doesn't mean you stop trying. Yes, I know I'm sounding like a silly idealist again, but I honestly think it's way too early in the game to declare that pot regulation doesn't work when we've barely given ourselves a chance to work out the bugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, just understand that in CO, you gotta add a lot of scare quotes to what you're saying.  We're only "trying" to "fix" the "regulatory structure", and are only "giving ourselves a chance" to "work out" the "bugs".

By that, I mean that nobody is really doing anything, we've got legal MJ, and all the problems that went along with pre-legal-MJ.  The last ballot measure I saw had something to do with Colorado taxpayers paying legal fees for growers who went under because we changed laws so many times they went bankrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Godless said:

Full MJ legalization is a pretty new concept. As with anything run by the government, I don't expect new programs and regulations to work instantly. There's definitely a trial-and-error period that has to be worked through. Heck, some states are still trying to fix the regulatory structure around alcohol almost 100 years after Prohibition was repealed. The fact that something fails doesn't mean you stop trying. Yes, I know I'm sounding like a silly idealist again, but I honestly think it's way too early in the game to declare that pot regulation doesn't work when we've barely given ourselves a chance to work out the bugs.

I haven't done the research to back this up; but intuition suggests that in a legalization regimen the existing cartels would just use their advantages in money and supplier/consumer networks to "turn legit", while keeping a few armed goons on the back shelf in case any newcomers to the business start infringing on their market share.

How do we take people who ignored criminal statutes, and get them to suddenly start compyling with administrative regulations?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
26 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I haven't done the research to back this up; but intuition suggests that in a legalization regimen the existing cartels would just use their advantages in money and supplier/consumer networks to "turn legit", while keeping a few armed goons on the back shelf in case any newcomers to the business start infringing on their market share.

How do we take people who ignored criminal statutes, and get them to suddenly start compyling with administrative regulations?

As someone who, in my line of work, has a very love/hate relationship with alcohol code enforcement, I absolutely see it as a necessary evil in order to promote safe and responsible business practices. I think the best solution is to create similar enforcement agencies who deal strictly in marijuana regulatory compliance (and hooray, job creation!). 

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I've been following along on this thread, I just haven't had time to respond to the comments yet....but this one can't wait.

This is really out of line, IMO.  First of all, the fear that Black people have in our society is not psychotic paranoia.  When that person said they are afraid to go to work, they didn't mean they were afraid to be shot at work. The issue is DRIVING to work.  

You are usually more open minded than this Traveler.  I've always thought of you as someone that considers both sides of an issue before coming to a decision, but you clearly don't understand what Black people in this country feel right now.  I would be okay if you understood it and disagreed, but your comments show clearly you don't understand but are still comfortable insulting them.   But let's get back to the main discussion. I don't have the time or patience to discuss Black Lives Matter here.  

You guys can discuss this if you want to, I'm just saying I don't have time to field 20 responses telling me that I'm wrong.  I have done enough research on this topic that you will not change my mind.  On the issue of whether or not to legalize marijuana, however, I am still researching, and very much open to hear people's thoughts.  

Thank you again everyone.  

There is a quote from TV show Seinfeld that goes something like – it is not a lie if you actually believe it.   This notion or belief is the essence of someone suffering from a psychotic condition.  By definition a psychotic is someone; that for whatever reason –simply believes something that it is not firmly rooted in or connected to reality.  The reality is that “Hands up don’t shut” never happened in Ferguson.  By definition those that believe it did are suffering from a psychotic condition – because it is not reality – it did not happen.

This is a problem because a psychotic cannot be convinced by anything based in reality.  If anybody is actually going to deal with this problem and have any chance of fixing it – we all have to realize that it cannot be done by reality based education nor can it be done by actually changing anything in reality.  The problem has to be dealt with at a very different level – or it will only get worse – not ever better. 

I am also suggesting that drugs – including marijuana - are a major cause of psychosis.  I have yet to encounter a legitimate study that conclusively demonstrates that marijuana use has never been connected to psychosis or that psychosis is not a possible known side effect of marijuana usage.  It is not a coincidence that neighborhoods with high marijuana and other drugs usage have problems with psychosis – even with and especially with an authority figure like a policeman that results in psychotic paranoia.

I am personally suspect of the medical marijuana movement – mainly because the claimed medical properties can be separated from the properties most desired for recreational marijuana usage – but the main thrust of the marijuana for medical purposes is against the separating out the elements claimed useful for medical treatments – they want the whole drug legal and they want all possible references to psychosis as a possible side effect completely left out of the discussion.

I am open to other possibilities – If anyone can show reason to believe that there is a legitimate concern that Blacks in neighborhoods of high unemployment and high drug usage have greater danger of being shot or accosted by the police than by the criminal elements of their neighborhoods.   I have not encountered any scientific study (using reality data) that support in anyway such an idea.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On October 17, 2016 at 3:30 PM, james12 said:

Wow. When will all the side effects be known? Who are these more intelligent people and why should they control what another person decides to take in their own body? What if these lesser intelligent people don't want protection as provided by the intelligent class?

It is certainly difficult to know where to put more trust with regard to the warnings and the assurances. For me personally this is especially so when I compare marijuana and it's recreational use to the other substances and behaviors that are legal, and where availability of those substances and acceptance of the behaviors unquestioningly involves the death and injury of many more people than is attributed to availability of marijuana.  But since I know that other substances and the other behaviors I'm alluding to will never ever go away (in our society), I'm compelled to believe that the answer [to how we better protect ourselves from the potential unwanted consequences] lies in a different direction than prohibition, so-called "wars" on drugs, stricter laws, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

@Traveler,just to clarify where you are coming from, do you think the BLM movement is about one incident? If that is what you think, I can understand why you would feel the way you do.

The reason I feel the way I do is because I know it's about so much more. I  used to try and remember their names, to honor them, but I can't keep up there are so many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UT.starscoper said:

It is certainly difficult to know where to put more trust with regard to the warnings and the assurances. For me personally this is especially so when I compare marijuana and it's recreational use to the other substances and behaviors that are legal, and where availability of those substances and acceptance of the behaviors unquestioningly involves the death and injury of many more people than is attributed to availability of marijuana.  But since I know that other substances and the other behaviors I'm alluding to will never ever go away (in our society), I'm compelled to believe that the answer [to how we better protect ourselves from the potential unwanted consequences] lies in a different direction than prohibition, so-called "wars" on drugs, stricter laws, etc. 

For me it's not just an issue of marijuana and the damage it can cause to a person taking it. Instead, it's about allowing a person the freedom to do what they want with their life. I don't force an obese person to eat fewer calories even if those calories will kill him. I expect government to stay out of such a personal matter. Government should only get involved when externalities cause risks to a third party. In the case of marijuana these externalitites may include certain aspects of advertising or driving under the influence which may harm another person among others. For that reason I have said that it makes sense to control the distribution and sell but that an adult should be free to take marijuana.

It scares me when a person advocates that the "intelligent" group forcing the "unintelligent" group to do what they say. Where does such a belief end? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@James12 I agree with your overall philosophy. One interesting aspect of this particular discussion, though, is that our (for those in the effected states) encouragement to vote against legalization of marijuana is coming from our church leadership. Perhaps this hits very directly at the issue discussed in this thread:

but, how should a libertarian leaning Mormon in a state voting for the legalization of marijuana vote? Would it be "apostate" of us to vote for legalization when our prophets have asked us to vote against legalization? What does "follow the prophet" mean in a situation like this where some of us may disagree with the political position advocated by the 1st Presidency?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Traveler,just to clarify where you are coming from, do you think the BLM movement is about one incident? If that is what you think, I can understand why you would feel the way you do.

The reason I feel the way I do is because I know it's about so much more. I  used to try and remember their names, to honor them, but I can't keep up there are so many.

Speaking for myself (a bit of a threadjack, but what the heck?):  The BLM movement is about a number of incidents; but one of their problems is that they keep pointing to so many bogus incidents--Trayvon Martin (jumped a neighborhood watchman who--horror of horrors!--dared to follow Martin), Michael Brown (knocked over a convenience store and then attacked a cop), Keith Scott (apparently couldn't tell the difference between a gun and a Koran), ad nauseum

It's hard to generalize about all members of a movement; and I'm open to looking at what systemic changes we can make to give African Americans a fairer deal.  But it's hard to shake the impression that an unhealthy number of BLM supporters are just peeved that when they start shooting at white guys, the white guys (or the "white" institutions that defend them) would have the temerity to shoot back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share