Rants and Raves of a SPPACEY nature.

[collegestudent22]

Rant: What exactly is the criteria for determining whether a "street" drug is legal or not? The LD₅₀ rating of marijuana is lower than the rating for caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. It is also less addictive then tobacco (at least) according to government ratings of addictiveness (it is also lower than psychoactive drugs for mental illness - and probably just as able to control depression and other problems). So why the hell is it illegal?

Also, cocaine has a lower ratio of effective dose to lethal dose (15:1) than alcohol (10:1). THC is at 1000:1.

All of my research on the topic gives me the impression that the determination is more emotional than logical. Which is yet another reason that the "War on Drugs" is bullshit.

[StruckingFuggle]

The driver and passengers in the other car were a) stoned and b) trying to help the driver take off his sweater while driving. The action of pulling off your sweater alone while driving should be enough to have your license revoked.

a) only matters that the driver was stoned, the intoxicated state of the passengers is hardly relevant.
b) I bet I could take a sweater, be it a zip in the front or a pull over, off without losing control of the wheel or visual contact with the road for longer than it takes to check the mirrors. But still: it's not exactly a casual 'maneuver'. I wouldn't say that the act per se should get a license revoked, so much as the irresponsible driving in general. Right idea, wrong charge. That, and for driving under chemical influence. That isn't nearly a serious enough crime for how serious it is. >:| You are right, the driver should not drive again for a long time, or maybe never, depending on future behaviour.
c) although it's an understandable self-preservation instinct, the passenger possibly fails hard for not jerking the wheel back into their lane, and/or going off the road (in either direction) to avoid hitting someone else. Depends on what else was in the road.

All that said, my hat is off to the man for his heroic sacrifice.

---

Actually, cs22, the war on marijuana, at least, was an economic war against hemp that was sold by wealthy industrialists misusing their wealth on the basis of a bunch of lies and PR to manipulate the emotions of the public into supporting a law being passed. And yeah, it's weird, because alcohol is worse both for people (incidentally it's fairly easy to chemically overdoes on alcohol, and basically bio/neurologically impossible to overdose on marijuana - yes, you can consume enough that it kills you, but it's not a drug overdose any more than drinking so much water it kills you is) and for society than pot is!

Also, ask me this. Imagine someone gets intoxicated and gets irrational and aggressive. Or beats their family. Or gets into tense standoffs with the police. How many of these people are stoned, and how many of these people are drunk?

[adciv]

Actually, cs22, the war on marijuana, at least, was an economic war against hemp that was sold by wealthy industrialists misusing their wealth on the basis of a bunch of lies and PR to manipulate the emotions of the public into supporting a law being passed.

Source?

Also, ask me this. Imagine someone gets intoxicated and gets irrational and aggressive. Or beats their family. Or gets into tense standoffs with the police. How many of these people are stoned, and how many of these people are drunk?

Loaded question. More people drink alcohol than smoke marijuana and that would throw off the numbers. Combine this with you limiting it to a few types of problems and you further throw off the numbers. The question to ask is "What percentage of alcohol drinkers who get in trouble with the police while under the influence vs. the percentage of marijuana smokers who get in trouble with the police while under the influence", exclude cases where being under the influence is the sole issue. Replace the phrase "get in trouble with the police" with some form of general lawbreaking as you choose if you want to be picky.

[StruckingFuggle]

Source?

There is no source as such. People, espeically those with power who are exercising it to their own ends, such as politicians and industrialists, are never honest about their motives. But there is an effective source, still. Look into the origin of marijuana laws, William Randolph Hearst, and ... oh, I forgot part of it. Harry J. Anslinger (who needed to invent a cause to champion that needed himself to fix it so he could expand his power and prestige in the government)... I was a bit wrong. It was a conflux of a political powergrab and people who saw hemp as a threat to their economic holdings trying to keep the competition down. And look at the actual effects of marijuana on individuals compared to the fearmongering and hysterical PR campaign that was pushed on people to get them on board with this.

Loaded question. More people drink alcohol than smoke marijuana and that would throw off the numbers.

Fine. "What percent?" Same basic question.

Combine this with you limiting it to a few types of problems and you further throw off the numbers.

Can you name one problem inherent to people over-using marijuana that doesn't exist in either alcohol or cigarettes? Because I can name problems inherent to both that you don't get with marijuana. Which is still my point: you don't get more problems with marijuana, and in fact you even get less.

The question to ask is "What percentage of alcohol drinkers who get in trouble with the police while under the influence vs. the percentage of marijuana smokers who get in trouble with the police while under the influence", exclude cases where being under the influence is the sole issue.

A) Not when I'm talking about a specific kind of problem which seems far more common under alcohol
B) Not when I'm not just talking about runins between the intoxicated individuals and the police, which was only one of three example events, or even just lawbreaking in general. There's nothing against the law with being a drunk asshole, and even getting sloshed after work or when down and then smacking your family around (or going way beyond just 'smacking') isn't necessarily going to get you in trouble with the police, given how it used to be - probably still is, in some parts of the world - still socially acceptable, and how it doesn't always get reported.



Still ... let's conduct a couple experiments. First, this one doesn't actually prove anything, but I'm just curious if you really disagree with me that much. Say the following phrases: "Bob got drunk and beat his wife", and "Bob got stoned, and beat his wife." Do both really sound plausible to you? Does either? What is your internal response to those statements? How do they ping on your plausibility scale?

Second. Again, it doesn't prove anything, but it's surely evidence. If you've got access to a few or more police officers, ask them if they'd rather deal with someone who's drunk, or someone who's stoned? Every one I've ever met who talked about the issue, or who was asked, has a pretty strong preference for dealing with stoned people, and considering them less dangerous or troublesome, than drunk people.



Note, too: when we're talking about pot and booze, here, we're talking about pot and booze. If someone smokes a joint laced with pcp, then we're not talking about the effects of pot.

[maoof]

I always figured marijuana remained illegal due to the original stereotype of blacks smoking it and going on rape/murder rampages. (think Reefer Madness plus with an extra dallop of racism) ... and then the stereotype was updated during the counter-culture era to warn parents that their nice, intelligent children would become hippie Black Panther Weathermen if they smoked a joint with some brothas.

Or who knows. That's just my perception - why else would people get so steamed about some green?

[The Cid]

Rant: What exactly is the criteria for determining whether a "street" drug is legal or not? The LD₅₀ rating of marijuana is lower than the rating for caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. It is also less addictive then tobacco (at least) according to government ratings of addictiveness (it is also lower than psychoactive drugs for mental illness - and probably just as able to control depression and other problems). So why the hell is it illegal?

Maybe it wouldn't be as much fun if it were legal. Nobody ever thinks of the benefits of pot being illegal. It brings young people together and organizes them. It teaches them how to keep a secret, and how to talk in code. It makes middle-aged and older people feel young and rebellious for doing something marginally more criminal than speeding, depending on where they do it. In many people, getting high instills a sudden newfound respect for authority that they would never have had otherwise. And have you ever seen potheads gather? There's a sense of community, they all bring something, or they pitch in some money like they're at a gas station on a road trip. And then they adhere to a strict schedule! Clocks are involved! It's like having tea with the royals, it has to be at 4:20 and no sooner.

And is there any way stoners would do so much building if they could just go down the street and buy a new pipe? Gone would be the resourcefulness of the stoner, something that might come in handy in a doomsday scenario. (If, for some reason, you need a pipe made out of something anyhow.)

[adciv]

There is no source as such. People, espeically those with power who are exercising it to their own ends, such as politicians and industrialists, are never honest about their motives. But there is an effective source, still. Look into the origin of marijuana laws, William Randolph Hearst, and ... oh, I forgot part of it. Harry J. Anslinger (who needed to invent a cause to champion that needed himself to fix it so he could expand his power and prestige in the government)... I was a bit wrong. It was a conflux of a political powergrab and people who saw hemp as a threat to their economic holdings trying to keep the competition down. And look at the actual effects of marijuana on individuals compared to the fearmongering and hysterical PR campaign that was pushed on people to get them on board with this.

I repeat. Source?

Fine. "What percent?" Same basic question.

Nope, very different questions. Yours was misleading and biased.

Can you name one problem inherent to people over-using marijuana that doesn't exist in either alcohol or cigarettes? Because I can name problems inherent to both that you don't get with marijuana. Which is still my point: you don't get more problems with marijuana, and in fact you even get less.

And here you just proved my point. You intentionally limited it to two situations to skew the numbers. If you're trying to compare the effects, you look at all of them not just one or two. By the way, getting stoned, dropping your lit blunt and setting yourself on fire.

A) Not when I'm talking about a specific kind of problem which seems far more common under alcohol
B) Not when I'm not just talking about runins between the intoxicated individuals and the police, which was only one of three example events, or even just lawbreaking in general. There's nothing against the law with being a drunk asshole, and even getting sloshed after work or when down and then smacking your family around (or going way beyond just 'smacking') isn't necessarily going to get you in trouble with the police, given how it used to be - probably still is, in some parts of the world - still socially acceptable, and how it doesn't always get reported.

See previous plus:

Replace the phrase "get in trouble with the police" with some form of general lawbreaking as you choose if you want to be picky.

Still ... let's conduct a couple experiments. First, this one doesn't actually prove anything, but I'm just curious if you really disagree with me that much. Say the following phrases: "Bob got drunk and beat his wife", and "Bob got stoned, and beat his wife." Do both really sound plausible to you? Does either? What is your internal response to those statements? How do they ping on your plausibility scale?

Irrelevant. You're still trying to limit bias the questions to push a point on legality. If you are to provide an unbiased statistic, you need to look at all situations. The questions are still just as biased as "Do you still beat your wife? Answer YES or NO."

Second. Again, it doesn't prove anything, but it's surely evidence. If you've got access to a few or more police officers, ask them if they'd rather deal with someone who's drunk, or someone who's stoned? Every one I've ever met who talked about the issue, or who was asked, has a pretty strong preference for dealing with stoned people, and considering them less dangerous or troublesome, than drunk people.

I could probably substitute 'a prick' or 'a cop' for drunk and stoned respectively and get the same answer.

[collegestudent22]

Maybe it wouldn't be as much fun if it were legal. Nobody ever thinks of the benefits of pot being illegal. It brings young people together and organizes them. It teaches them how to keep a secret, and how to talk in code. It makes middle-aged and older people feel young and rebellious for doing something marginally more criminal than speeding, depending on where they do it. In many people, getting high instills a sudden newfound respect for authority that they would never have had otherwise. And have you ever seen potheads gather? There's a sense of community, they all bring something, or they pitch in some money like they're at a gas station on a road trip. And then they adhere to a strict schedule! Clocks are involved! It's like having tea with the royals, it has to be at 4:20 and no sooner.

And is there any way stoners would do so much building if they could just go down the street and buy a new pipe? Gone would be the resourcefulness of the stoner, something that might come in handy in a doomsday scenario. (If, for some reason, you need a pipe made out of something anyhow.)

I laughed. I really hope that you were merely poking fun here.

[collegestudent22]

Just in case you weren't sure that PETA has gone off the deep end...

PETA is made at Joe Biden for giving hot dogs to returning troops on Colbert.

Also, they were pissed that Lady Gaga had a "meat-dress" at the VMAs. The funny part of that? What she told Ellen Degeneres afterwards:

Gaga told Ellen DeGeneres that the dress was worn in part as a statement of protest against the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, adding, “if we don’t stand up for what we believe in and if we don’t fight for our rights, pretty soon we’re going to have as much rights as the meat on our own bones. And I am not a piece of meat.”

Er, wha?

[Springy]

Lady GaGa is fucking nuts.

And fuck PETA. Those soldiers risked their lives. The least we can do is give them a free hot dog.

Rave: A little over a month until the municipal election in Toronto!

[The Cid]

I really hope that you were merely poking fun here.

Why would you even feel the need to put this in? Did you really see any possibility that I was being serious?

I mean, I know I'm kind of "out there" sometimes, but come on.

[collegestudent22]

Actually, I had a rant, but it seems to have been erased somehow between the typing and posting stages, and so I had to add it afterwards because I didn't notice until after that hour for editing was up.

[The Cid]

fuck PETA.

Agreed...With a condom made out of fur.

Also, they were pissed that Lady Gaga had a "meat-dress" at the VMAs. The funny part of that? What she told Ellen Degeneres afterwards:

Ow. I think I broke my brain.

[Springy]

Fur AND the tears of delicious baby animals!

[adciv]

Fur? How about alligator skin? You know, the kind off an alligators back.

Rave: This article. Why is it a rave? Look at the pictures that go along with the article. The story is a big rant from someone who takes salt tablets to keep his blood pressure up in the normal range.