Paranoia, leftism, and "legalized" marijuana [Archive]

OlongJohnson

10-11-2018, 09:34 PM

I was talking last night with someone who's been involved in social work as a graduate-degree professional in the SoCal area for about twenty years. She told me that what she's seen over the past few years is that everybody is now high. The strength of the materials available on the street is intense, more so than people using them realize. And in her clinical work, she's seen a massive increase in paranoia in the people she deals with, which she considers to be likely to be a result of the drug use.

It occurred to me that this might partly explain some (obviously not all) of the extreme behavior observed coming from the left, as the "legalized" marijuana is generally prevalent in leftist strongholds.

Any SMEs around who can address the actual paranoia effects of marijuana use, and any other evidence to support or refute the hypothesis?

My area of expertise is in how machines work. Brains are not mechanical engineering, so I'm seriously out of my lane beyond here.

Lester Polfus

10-11-2018, 10:56 PM

TC215

10-11-2018, 11:01 PM

I don’t think we really know the long-term effects of using the type of domestically-produced marijuana that is prevalent in the country now. The stuff we see today is not the weed of the 60’s or 70’s (or even the 90’s).

OlongJohnson

10-11-2018, 11:42 PM

I think the real question is: are we allowing Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids, without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

The hilarious aspect of that quote is that someone who is sufficiently severely allergic to corn can actually have a negative reaction to flouridated water, even just from showering in it.

Dan_S

10-12-2018, 02:17 AM

31245

OnionsAndDragons

10-12-2018, 02:26 AM

I highly doubt it is a causal factor, but it probably has an exacerbating effect in some cases.

I’m pretty firmly of the belief that a lot of the extra crazy radical left stuff that’s popping up is a result of an entire generation of kids raised in an unhealthily safety focused environment.

There’s a bunch of shit one learns by being allowed to make mistakes and get hurt, or be able to make individual decisions or solve disputes without appealing immediately to authority.

Lots of those lessons teach an intuitive understanding of why such generally Marxist ideas might not work well, or be a catastrophe, on a larger scale.

ETA: and the craziness is directly impacted by the massive increase in political polarization in our nation. It’s really bad. Like, seriously.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

ubervic

10-12-2018, 08:09 AM

willie

10-12-2018, 08:54 AM

Google Scholar is an excellent source for articles presenting correllation between cannabis use and medical/behavioral problems in juveniles. Having worked with this group, I very seldom saw a kid that did not have drug problems. Marijuana was the common denominator. There is a medical diagnosis called cannabis disorder. When I performed security tasks for a retirement center that also had a large nursing home component, I noticed that many persons delivering health care were high. When I was a health inspector who also inspected nursing holmes,
I observed the same thing. Informal conversations with administrators verified my observations. Positive correllation does not necessarily show a cause and effect relationship, but it most certainly raises a flag.
By the way. Some people obtain jobs at such facilities and hospitals so they can sell drugs to other employees.

TR675

10-12-2018, 09:11 AM

okie john

10-12-2018, 09:47 AM

I’m pretty firmly of the belief that a lot of the extra crazy radical left stuff that’s popping up is a result of an entire generation of kids raised in an unhealthily safety focused environment.

There’s a bunch of shit one learns by being allowed to make mistakes and get hurt, or be able to make individual decisions or solve disputes without appealing immediately to authority.

Lots of those lessons teach an intuitive understanding of why such generally Marxist ideas might not work well, or be a catastrophe, on a larger scale.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20555-The-Educational-Beat-Down

Okie John

jetfire

10-12-2018, 09:54 AM

As a criminal defense attorney I can testify that there is a near 1-1 correlation between being a shitbird and smoking the reefer.

Correlation is not causation but, you know what, screw it, yes it is. #legalizenothing (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=legalizenothing) , #jobsecurity (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=jobsecurity)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah but that’s not because weed makes people in shitbirds, it’s because shitbirds like weed. I know plenty of normal folks that like to smoke weed who aren’t shitbirds.

Besides, criminals also like booze, meth, coke, hillbilly heroin, etc.

TR675

10-12-2018, 09:56 AM

No nuance or critical thinking here, please, this is the internet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JRB

10-12-2018, 10:00 AM

Yeah but that’s not because weed makes people in shitbirds, it’s because shitbirds like weed. I know plenty of normal folks that like to smoke weed who aren’t shitbirds.

Besides, criminals also like booze, meth, coke, hillbilly heroin, etc.

Agreed. Though the number of normal, non-shitbirds I know that smoke weed is pretty small. But that's because I don't care to be around that kind of stuff in any way shape or form.

In the Army, the biggest issue facing us is that an alarming number of Soldiers are coming back from passes/leave and pissing hot for weed, particularly where it's 'state legal'.
So much so, that big Army changed the regulations involved so that popping hot for weed isn't an automatic kick-out process anymore.

Now, more often than not the Soldiers popping hot for weed are shitbird Soldiers, but some surprisingly good troops have popped hot recently and it's really disturbing. Especially because it makes my job more difficult and I hate doing derogatory paperwork on good Soldiers that screwed up. Once upon a time we could just put them on extra duty or otherwise square them the fuck away. Now it's a permanent paper trail that will haunt them for their whole career.

fixer

10-12-2018, 10:13 AM

OP's hypothesis is provocative and think there is likely a good number of folks who are poster-children for it.

However, I'm thinking that the hysteria since 2016 election is driven by many other variables arguably more scary than a drug interaction.

Large group of people who've grown up with an ultra left president
Increasing concentration of people with college degrees
Increasing general 'softness' of citizenry...coping skills and ability to manage conflict are decreasing, not increasing.
Side effect of social media--people can't fathom how their vote doesn't create the same effect as an all-caps rampage on twitter.
OCD level obsession with identity.

I actually used to enjoy reading well reasoned left-wing arguments. Now all you get is nothing but hyper-emotional, identity-driven, indignation...screaming and verbal vomit.

There is no thought. Its just all-out mania.

Throw in some extra potency narcotics and the bonfire is gonna go.

HCM

10-12-2018, 10:17 AM

It's been long established that many who enjoy marijuana experience paranoia while under its influence. Is the point of this post to argue that such paranoia is lasting, even after the 'dosing' has worn off? I have a hard time believing that, and I also don't believe that only leftists smoke pot.

For most people, no, the effect does not last after the dose wears off. However some people who smoke pot regularly and have a predisposition to paranoia will experience lasting effects including paranoia and hallucinations.

It’s not just leftist that smoke pot but that doesn’t make smoking pot ok - it’s not just leftists that are shitbags either.

OlongJohnson

10-12-2018, 10:49 AM

...many other variables arguably more scary than a drug interaction.

Large group of people who've grown up with an ultra left president
Increasing concentration of people with college degrees
Increasing general 'softness' of citizenry...coping skills and ability to manage conflict are decreasing, not increasing.
Side effect of social media--people can't fathom how their vote doesn't create the same effect as an all-caps rampage on twitter.
OCD level obsession with identity.

Jonathan Haidt offers some of what seems to me to be the clearest thinking around these ideas.

I wasn't thinking of marijuana's effects as sole cause, but more as an exacerbating factor amplifying the effects of everything else.

I actually used to enjoy reading well reasoned left-wing arguments. Now all you get is nothing but hyper-emotional, identity-driven, indignation...screaming and verbal vomit.

There is no thought. Its just all-out mania.

It's frustrating to me that even the most calm, thoughtful, rational and well-intentioned people on the left seem generally incapable of putting together an accurate picture of what's happening. It's like they're playing with a 2, another 2, and a plus sign, but completely ignore the equal sign that's sitting right there, and the concept of four never seems to occur to them.

Hambo

10-12-2018, 11:03 AM

I think the real question is: are we allowing Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids, without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

Now why don't you just take it easy, Group Captain, and please make me a drink of grain alcohol and rainwater, and help yourself to whatever you'd like.

fixer

10-12-2018, 11:04 AM

It's frustrating to me that even the most calm, thoughtful, rational and well-intentioned people on the left seem generally incapable of putting together an accurate picture of what's happening. It's like they're playing with a 2, another 2, and a plus sign, but completely ignore the equal sign that's sitting right there, and the concept of four never seems to occur to them.

Great analogy.

I'm gonna check out Jonathan Haidt's stuff...thanks.

Poconnor

10-12-2018, 11:34 AM

The 2 plus 2 analogy reminded me of a conversation I had with an assistant district attorney that specialized in procecuting DUI’s. Frequently with drug related DUI’s the driver is under the influence of several different drugs. The blood result will show low or therapeutic levels of say three or four drugs which results in a high level of impairment. The ADA explained it as 2 plus 2 plus 2 does not equal 6 but 12 in this case. This is why PA prohibits driving with any THC level. I would not be surprised that marijuana smokers were also using or prescribed other drugs.

RevolverRob

10-12-2018, 11:38 AM

I doubt weed is plays as big a role as we think. Unless, we think that pot smoking tends to lead to folks being lazy and not actually putting in the effort to learn about things beyond sound bites that tug at the soul.

I think the paranoia comes out, when folks sit in their fucking echo chambers too long and then are shocked to learn the fucking world doesn't work that way.

I.E. imagine you grew up with a single worldview. Like, I dunno, a white supremacist viewpoint, that black people and Jews are the root of all evil. All of your friends your family, everyone you see is a white supremacists. And later when you interact with people who hold differing viewpoints, you are instantly paranoid and suspicious of them, because how can they not see the 'truth'? Which of course, isn't the truth, but is instead a white-washed version of (non-)reality that holds no general bearing on actual reality, outside of your small (or even medium sized) community.

Replace "white supremacists" with "socialist" "communist" "anarchist" whatever and you have the answer. Live in an echo chamber and you're bound to be paranoid and suspicious of outside opinions and views. It's tribalism and though Glenn E. Meyer is roadtripping and isn't here to talk to us about this one, it's precisely what he's been talking about for awhile. Tribalism, and those who promote it, are responsible for what we perceive to be increasingly radical viewpoints. Don't buy into that shit, don't live in an echo chamber, be independent, think for yourself.

Reject their realities, substitute your own.

OnionsAndDragons

10-13-2018, 03:33 AM

Jonathan Haidt offers some of what seems to me to be the clearest thinking around these ideas.

I wasn't thinking of marijuana's effects as sole cause, but more as an exacerbating factor amplifying the effects of everything else.

It's frustrating to me that even the most calm, thoughtful, rational and well-intentioned people on the left seem generally incapable of putting together an accurate picture of what's happening. It's like they're playing with a 2, another 2, and a plus sign, but completely ignore the equal sign that's sitting right there, and the concept of four never seems to occur to them.

Haidt’s newest book definitely helped flesh out my suspicions about some of these alarming social phenomena.

I will argue there are still some few on the left with the integrity and grit to call this shit as it is. There are just far more that are afraid of the social cannibals on their own side of the spectrum right now.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

GardoneVT

10-13-2018, 10:18 AM

. Don't buy into that shit, don't live in an echo chamber, be independent, think for yourself.

Reject their realities, substitute your own.

Found the forum pothead :cool:

blues

10-13-2018, 10:30 AM

This thread makes me want to lock all the doors, shutter the windows and bong it up!

(Better check the snacks first and then hide the truck keys.)

Dave's not here.

LSP552

10-13-2018, 11:42 AM

Agreed. Though the number of normal, non-shitbirds I know that smoke weed is pretty small. But that's because I don't care to be around that kind of stuff in any way shape or form.

In the Army, the biggest issue facing us is that an alarming number of Soldiers are coming back from passes/leave and pissing hot for weed, particularly where it's 'state legal'.
So much so, that big Army changed the regulations involved so that popping hot for weed isn't an automatic kick-out process anymore.

Now, more often than not the Soldiers popping hot for weed are shitbird Soldiers, but some surprisingly good troops have popped hot recently and it's really disturbing. Especially because it makes my job more difficult and I hate doing derogatory paperwork on good Soldiers that screwed up. Once upon a time we could just put them on extra duty or otherwise square them the fuck away. Now it's a permanent paper trail that will haunt them for their whole career.

I’m a civilian Contract Specialist for the Army Contracting Command and we have recently been getting policy alerts about testing positive for weed. Short version is it doesn’t matter if you are in a “legal” state, if you work for the DoD, you are going to get torched. The latest basically said it will likely result in the loss of your security clearance.

RevolverRob

10-13-2018, 07:57 PM

Found the forum pothead :cool:

Ya know, despite the prevalance of marijuana use amongst friends and colleagues, I’ve not smoked any since high school. I just never was much for wacky tobacky*. Alcohol has always been my intoxicant of choice. Partly because of the legality of it. When I was in college, weed wasn’t “legal” in most places and certainly not in Texas (where it still isn’t). And being a gun nerd, things that could compromise gunownership and my concealed carry license were no go for me and remain so. Then there was the period where I intended to pursue law enforcement (Federal mainly) and I wanted to make sure everything was clean and good for the polygraph.

*Yes, I called it “wacky tobacky” and yes I am an old man. I bought a cable knit shawl neck button up cardigan at LL Bean today (seriously), I call it my “old man sweater” and I look good in it. And that shit is comfy as hell.

OlongJohnson

10-13-2018, 08:15 PM

I’m a civilian Contract Specialist for the Army Contracting Command and we have recently been getting policy alerts about testing positive for weed. Short version is it doesn’t matter if you are in a “legal” state, if you work for the DoD, you are going to get torched. The latest basically said it will likely result in the loss of your security clearance.

Federal law is still federal law. The way I see it, people who choose to get involved in the marijuana trade are basically surrendering a whole raft of rights to the Feds. Which, if you are even a little bit untrusting of the government, seems to provide an excellent reason for the Feds to not bother enforcing those laws until it becomes convenient to do so.

*Yes, I called it “wacky tobacky” and yes I am an old man. I bought a cable knit shawl neck button up cardigan at LL Bean today (seriously), I call it my “old man sweater” and I look good in it. And that shit is comfy as hell.

I can't hear LL Bean mentioned without thinking of this.

https://www.theonion.com/african-american-boycott-of-l-l-bean-enters-80th-year-1819594649

RevolverRob

10-13-2018, 08:23 PM

I can't hear LL Bean mentioned without thinking of this.

https://www.theonion.com/african-american-boycott-of-l-l-bean-enters-80th-year-1819594649

This one seems relevant too - https://politics.theonion.com/gop-maintains-solid-hold-on-youth-that-already-look-lik-1819595704

Erick Gelhaus

10-13-2018, 10:20 PM

Any SMEs around who can address the actual paranoia effects of marijuana use, and any other evidence to support or refute the hypothesis?

DEA tracks potency off of lab testing on seized weed. The info should be available.

What was 3-5% THC way, way back was low/mid 20s up to low 30s for some genetically modified indoor grown stuff around the turn of the century.

From casually scanning lab tests on suspects involved in OIS, it is my hypothesis that THC levels are at the very least heavily contributing to the behavior, decision making that is resulting in them being shot.

Listened to a recent L/E podcast on marijuana use and DUI-Drug issues. The participants noted that the two states with id'd levels were using 5ng per ml as the indicator, akin to 0.08%BAC. The numbers that stand out in my head from a couple shootings were on the far of 20 nl/mg and around 40nl/mg in one.

Seattle PD has a study looking at aggressive driving and THC intoxication. The abstract indicated the higher the THC levels, the more aggressive the driving was. However, they were looking at only a few subjects. Thaat is consistent with the other material in my mind.

orionz06

10-13-2018, 10:56 PM

Yeah but that’s not because weed makes people in shitbirds, it’s because shitbirds like weed. I know plenty of normal folks that like to smoke weed who aren’t shitbirds.

Besides, criminals also like booze, meth, coke, hillbilly heroin, etc.

I wish everyone here really knew how widespread marijuana use was among all classes of people, even in this industry.

Sensei

10-13-2018, 11:16 PM

I wish everyone here really knew how widespread marijuana use was among all classes of people, even in this industry.

There are a few of high-functioning people that I know in the biomedical field who smoke pot - occasionally. By high functioning I mean completed doctoral education and post-doctoral training (surgeons, cardiologists, tenured professors, etc.); by occasionally I mean 5 or 6 times per year. I don’t know anyone who is a habitual smoker, meaning at least weekly who I’d call high-functioning. My wife describes a similar situation in corporate banking - a few occasionally light up at bachelor parties, New Years, etc., but no heavy hitters. Every habitual user that I’ve come across strikes me as leaving a lot of untapped potential on the table of life.

LSP552

10-14-2018, 09:12 AM

DEA tracks potency off of lab testing on seized weed. The info should be available.

What was 3-5% THC way, way back was low/mid 20s up to low 30s for some genetically modified indoor grown stuff around the turn of the century.

From casually scanning lab tests on suspects involved in OIS, it is my hypothesis that THC levels are at the very least heavily contributing to the behavior, decision making that is resulting in them being shot.

Listened to a recent L/E podcast on marijuana use and DUI-Drug issues. The participants noted that the two states with id'd levels were using 5ng per ml as the indicator, akin to 0.08%BAC. The numbers that stand out in my head from a couple shootings were on the far of 20 nl/mg and around 40nl/mg in one.

Seattle PD has a study looking at aggressive driving and THC intoxication. The abstract indicated the higher the THC levels, the more aggressive the driving was. However, they were looking at only a few subjects. Thaat is consistent with the other material in my mind.

I have no doubt you are correct. Impairment of any flavor effects decision making, and generally not for the better.

DC_P

10-14-2018, 09:33 AM

Besides, criminals also like booze, meth, coke, hillbilly heroin, etc.

And guns...

orionz06

10-14-2018, 09:42 AM

There are a few of high-functioning people that I know in the biomedical field who smoke pot - occasionally. By high functioning I mean completed doctoral education and post-doctoral training (surgeons, cardiologists, tenured professors, etc.); by occasionally I mean 5 or 6 times per year. I don’t know anyone who is a habitual smoker, meaning at least weekly who I’d call high-functioning. My wife describes a similar situation in corporate banking - a few occasionally light up at bachelor parties, New Years, etc., but no heavy hitters. Every habitual user that I’ve come across strikes me as leaving a lot of untapped potential on the table of life.

There's a broad middle ground between the levels of people you described and what you're calling habitual use vs casual.

The people that make the world go round, the ones that most don't expect, are no different than anyone else. Weed is just like alcohol to some. Lots of good people just hide that shit very well.

Casual Friday

10-14-2018, 09:51 AM

There are a few of high-functioning people that I know in the biomedical field who smoke pot - occasionally. By high functioning I mean completed doctoral education and post-doctoral training (surgeons, cardiologists, tenured professors, etc.); by occasionally I mean 5 or 6 times per year. I don’t know anyone who is a habitual smoker, meaning at least weekly who I’d call high-functioning. My wife describes a similar situation in corporate banking - a few occasionally light up at bachelor parties, New Years, etc., but no heavy hitters. Every habitual user that I’ve come across strikes me as leaving a lot of untapped potential on the table of life.

Is that your definition of habitual or an actual one? Are they getting lay on the couch and stare at the ceiling for 6 hours stoned or just enough to take the edge off? Look at it similarly to alcohol. The guy who has a glass of whiskey on a friday night and a guy that get's piss his pants shit faced every friday are not on the same level.

orionz06

10-14-2018, 10:02 AM

DocGKR

10-14-2018, 10:25 AM

"THC levels are at the very least heavily contributing to the behavior, decision making that is resulting in them being shot."

Looking at patients in the ED--both at their behavior that led them to get injured and then their behavior towards the medical staff trying to help them leads me to conclude this is true.

"Every habitual user that I’ve come across strikes me as leaving a lot of untapped potential on the table of life."

Yup.

AMC

10-14-2018, 10:33 AM

Anecdotal evidence is.... anecdotal, but over the last several years we had a few cases of folks having essentially psychotic breaks after smoking unlaced marijuana. THC levels were scary high. Weed was THE drug of choice across the board in my district, so we saw a lot of this. It wasn't my parents weed.

Sensei

10-14-2018, 11:26 AM

Is that your definition of habitual or an actual one? Are they getting lay on the couch and stare at the ceiling for 6 hours stoned or just enough to take the edge off? Look at it similarly to alcohol. The guy who has a glass of whiskey on a friday night and a guy that get's piss his pants shit faced every friday are not on the same level.

There is no “actual” definition of habitual. Most studies looking at looking at habitual, heavy, chronic, etc. users recruit from a range of daily to weekly use. Other studies look at cumulative lifetime use, or focus on use within a time frame such as the last 60 days. I used weekly because of personal experience with pot use in high school, military, and college; there were a ton of weekly users in high school and college. They typically made up the lower half of my class or were 30-year old E-3s. Interestingly, all of those weekly users disappeared from my environment in grad and med school where “taking the edge off” was the exact opposite of what everyone was trying to do. If you want to confine habitual use to the guy laying on the couch for 6 hours - that’s cool. I encounter that guy too; he often comes to the emergency department because he has lost the instinct and ability to provide food and shelter.

As for looking for at similarities to alcohol use, I’m not sure why anyone would do that since they are rather dissimilar. They are different drugs, different routes of administration, different kinetics, different toxicicities, affecting different neurotransmitter systems, with different side-effects. In other words, if I drink a single beer a day it will not impact oxygen utilization by my neurons for 72 hours after once I stop; a joint a day will. Does that mean that alcohol is safer? No. It means that it is silly to compare the two just like it is silly to look at penicillin use to get a better understanding of how insulin affects diabetics.

If your point is that there are a ton of lawyers, cops, teachers, and doctors smoking weed on weekends all the while paying their taxes and staying off transfer payments, so be it. I’ll take your word for it.

JRB

10-14-2018, 11:30 AM

Savage Hands

10-14-2018, 11:59 AM

As mentioned above, isn’t the marijuana typically on the street now more potent than the typical stuff say 30-40 years ago?

LSP552

10-14-2018, 12:12 PM

What sucks is the lack of options for recourse/recovery for unusual cases when an otherwise good Soldier just made that one stupid E4 mistake.

I’m grateful that my stupid E4 mistakes were addressed at the Platoon Sgt level...

blues

10-14-2018, 12:26 PM

As mentioned above, isn’t the marijuana typically on the street now more potent than the typical stuff say 30-40 years ago?

Way more.

Sensei

10-14-2018, 01:44 PM

I know plenty of normal folks that like to smoke weed who arenÂ’t shitbird.

In my teens and early 20s - sure. At age 43, regular use of pot generally portends a high fecal content.

Sensei

10-14-2018, 02:06 PM

Either way, both of those people you described are well accepted if they're successful enough. Joe who holds a decent job, two kids, nice Corvette he's working on, and grills a mean steak may get obliterated every Friday and that's OK. The same guy, if he has a joint with the guys on Friday, might as well be a junkie getting trashed on a school playground to people.

A sentiment never expressed in this thread and maybe held by 10% of the population.

I doubt that many on my side of this legalization debate reallly cares the guy you describe. Perhaps we just don’t believe that he is as pervasive as you propose?

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/Yahoo%20News/20170417_Summary%20Yahoo%20News-Marist%20Poll_Weed%20and%20The%20American%20Family .pdf

According to this poll, just 22% of Americans over age 18 use pot and about 2/3 of those (or only 13% of Americans) use it regularly. Moreover, a deeper dive into the numbers show that the majority of regular users demonstrate shitbird tendencies such as holding liberal political views and voting for Hillary in 2016. They demonstrate other behaviors that do not make them more likely to be shitbirds, but certainly plays into my previous comments about who is smoking pot in America (less education, lower wages, etc.)

Savage Hands

10-14-2018, 02:38 PM

Way more.

That’s what I figured and in turn makes that occasional joint a potential problem to themselves or others.

Casual Friday

10-14-2018, 03:30 PM

As for looking for at similarities to alcohol use, I’m not sure why anyone would do that since they are rather dissimilar. They are different drugs, different routes of administration, different kinetics, different toxicicities, affecting different neurotransmitter systems, with different side-effects. In other words, if I drink a single beer a day it will not impact oxygen utilization by my neurons for 72 hours after once I stop; a joint a day will. Does that mean that alcohol is safer? No. It means that it is silly to compare the two just like it is silly to look at penicillin use to get a better understanding of how insulin affects diabetics.

Penicillin is used to treat infections. Insulin is used to treat a blood sugar disease. People use alcohol and weed for many of the same purposes. Some to excess, some in moderation. Some a little of both. You're no doubt smarter than I am but you're definitely too smart to think they're as different as penicillin and insulin.

If your point is that there are a ton of lawyers, cops, teachers, and doctors smoking weed on weekends all the while paying their taxes and staying off transfer payments, so be it. I’ll take your word for it.

That wasn't really my point but I can tell you this. I live in WA where it is legal on the state level. I'm not in the weed business, but my company does work for a large, very successful dispensary in the area and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are people in every single one of those professions who use it in some way, shape or form.

I don't smoke weed, I barely drink alcohol. I just find it hilarious that in 2018 we're still applying Reefer Madness logic as the gospel.

Sensei

10-14-2018, 05:19 PM

Penicillin is used to treat infections. Insulin is used to treat a blood sugar disease. People use alcohol and weed for many of the same purposes. Some to excess, some in moderation. Some a little of both. You're no doubt smarter than I am but you're definitely too smart to think they're as different as penicillin and insulin.

Indeed.

Boursi B, Mamtani R, Haynes K, Yang YX. The effect of past antibiotic exposure on diabetes risk. European Journal of Endocrinology. 2015.

https://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/blog/certain-antibiotics-linked-to-blood-glucose-swings/

https://consumer.healthday.com/diabetes-information-10/misc-diabetes-news-181/certain-antibiotics-tied-to-blood-sugar-swings-in-diabetics-679220.html

My point being there are a lot of smart people drawing false equivalence out there. I’ll continue to throw the bullshit flag when they do it with alcohol and pot, or antibiotics and diabetes.

blues

10-14-2018, 05:54 PM

I just wanna ask who died and left you sensei?

(It's a rhetorical question, so don't get your hemostats in an uproar. I don't have the time or inclination for an actual argument.)

Sensei

10-14-2018, 07:44 PM

I just wanna ask who died and left you sensei?

Everybody...and nobody - rhetorically answering, of course.

I’m just another hombre on GD with dos pesos for anyone who will listen. I hear the ignore button is marvelous. ;)

HopetonBrown

10-14-2018, 08:07 PM

Wonder how many of the guys complaining about impending weedpocalypse come home every day needing a few beers to "knock the edge off"?

Sensei

10-14-2018, 09:15 PM

Wonder how many of the guys complaining about impending weedpocalypse come home every day needing a few beers to "knock the edge off"?

Better yet, how about guys like me who come home every day needing a pot of coffee in order to get the kid to BJJ practice followed by the hour-long bedtime story/idiot book/coronation ceremony that must take place before I’m able to hit the gym for an hour - at 9PM. Before you know it, it’s 2AM and I’ve got to get the little fucker up at 6:00 for school and at be at work rounding at 7AM. The coffee consumption restarts as soon as my head comes off that pellow. We are the real addicts and I dare you to try and take my mug from my hand. ;)

Shellback

10-15-2018, 05:13 AM

Marijuana use is taking the place of alcohol for many people. Many intelligent, successful, hard working people I might add.

Personally, I know doctors, teachers, and lawyers who actively partake. I think the whole thing is overblown.

willie

10-15-2018, 05:58 AM

The effect on kids is not overblown. Adult use at home might be one thing. Frequency of many opting to be stoned in the workplace is another. But remember. In most places it's against the law, and don't overlook the "are you an unlawful user of marijuana" question on the form that we must complete to buy guns. Some doctors, lawyers, cpa's, teachers, cops, and others might also use cocaine at home, but their example doesn't justify their choice.

Casual Friday

10-15-2018, 08:39 AM

DocGKR

10-15-2018, 09:20 AM

Flamingo

10-15-2018, 09:30 AM

https://youtu.be/hzb80J40g74

Just saw this video and it made me think of this thread.

I am torn on the drug use issue. The libertarian in me thinks that people should use what ever they want, but the tax paying citizen part of me sees the long term cost that excessive recreational drug use (and excessive ETOH use) winds up costing the the tax payer.

willie

10-15-2018, 09:55 AM

It's here to stay, and associated problems will increase in severity and frequency of occurence. In America demand for drugs is extremely high, and cartels and others will continue to supply. My school district would overlook an employee's testing dirty on marijuana and cocaine but drew the line at heroin.

blues

10-15-2018, 09:57 AM

Worst possible age group to be using marijuana is 15-25 year olds, for numerous well documented reasons, particularly related to brain development. Being stoned at work, school, driving, is another significant issue which does not bode well for society.

I'd have to agree with Doc, if for nothing else than these years are of primary importance for establishing motivation for future accomplishment. (Or lack thereof.)

Slack off when you can afford to do so, if that is your wish. (Or keep your shit very tight.)

Darth_Uno

10-15-2018, 11:01 AM

Can’t speak for other fields, but in construction I know several successful people from carpenters to business owners who enjoy a toke after work or on the weekend. I also know a lot of stoner losers who can’t keep a job. My official policy is zero tolerance but I’ve never fired anyone for it, even if I know they use. Generally they’ll can themselves for one reason or another.

But this trade also has plenty of guys who like a drink, including successful business owners. And plenty of drunks who, again, can’t keep a job.

All things in moderation. I don’t partake of the devil’s lettuce but I like a beer. Some days I think I might cut back, other days I have to wonder if I’m not drinking enough.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jetfire

10-15-2018, 11:03 AM

demonstrate shitbird tendencies such as holding liberal political views

My voter registration card says “Democrat” on it and I tend to hold a lot of “liberal” political views, whatever that means to you.

Good to know where you stand on other people’s opinions.

RevolverRob

10-15-2018, 11:04 AM

Given the increasing amount of data that suggests that the human brain, in particular the frontal lobes responsible for intelligent decision making, are not fully developed until 25-28 years old, I have a hard time suggesting the regular use of intoxicants or mood altering substances for anyone under the age of 25. But I drank a lot of alcohol between 21 and 28....a lot...and I've turned out okay...ish.

This does remind me to remind you guys, of RevolverRob et al.'s Experimental Physical Therapy That Stimulates Frontal Lobe Development, which I remind you is still waiting for NIH Clinical Trial Approval* (write your congressmen!). Because the frontal lobe of the brain is not properly developed until approximately the age of 25, but we as a society have decided that everyone is an adult at 18, we must speed up the process of frontal lobe development. RevolverRob and colleagues have developed a revolutionary physical therapy to do precisely this. When an individual, under the age of 25 does something stupid or makes a bad decision, we hypothesize that the it is because of a lack of frontal lobe development in that area of the brain. Our physical therapy appears radically effective (based on small sample sizes, we admit) in promoting lobe development, because it results in the immediate cessation of stupid or bad decision making.

The physical therapy itself is quite simple. An authority figure, by virtue of age, experience, or a priori establishment applies the therapy, by cupping their hand and with a swinging motion strikes the lower back of the skull of the therapy recipient in an upward and forwards motion. This results in a rapid transference of brain matter into the frontal lobe area. The force applied by this strike is relative to the desired amount of brain matter needed in the frontal lobes based on the poor decision as determined a priori by the therapy provider.

___

*Because this therapy is experimental, no one should partake in it and RevolverRob and colleagues are released from any and all liability that comes from application of said therapy.

Darth_Uno

10-15-2018, 11:29 AM

Wow, my dad was way ahead of his time.

OlongJohnson

10-15-2018, 12:05 PM

I imagine the necessary force could also effectively be applied by a boot to the ass. Perhaps clinical trials could assess comparative outcomes of the two methods.

RevolverRob

10-15-2018, 12:27 PM

Wow, my dad was way ahead of his time.

Many mothers and fathers have reported anecdotal success with this therapy. Unfortunately, because it wasn't peer-reviewed with a negative control, we have minimal data to support this and thus have been seeking funding and clinical trials for this to become an FDA-approved therapy.

I imagine the necessary force could also effectively be applied by a boot to the ass. Perhaps clinical trials could assess comparative outcomes of the two methods.

In early lab studies, we found applications of force to the buttocks to be moderately effective, as was tugging of the ear. But overall, the greatest results (determined by both speed of correction of behavior and permanent cessation of behavior) were via the cupped hand to the back of skull method. We hypothesize that this is because of the immediate transference of brain matter into the frontal area, responsible for decision making and risk assessment. But it could also be, because of increased sensitivity in the application area, which triggers a "pain training" response. We're experimenting with the implantation of sensors at the base of the skull to determine the degrees of force necessary. When we're done and through clinical trials, we hope to have a generalized therapy-plan which can be applied safely and widely throughout the land. With force calculations we can provide the approximate force values necessary for maximum therapeutic effect based on the size and weight of the therapy recipient and therapy provider.

Sensei

10-15-2018, 12:42 PM

My voter registration card says “Democrat” on it and I tend to hold a lot of “liberal” political views, whatever that means to you.

Good to know where you stand on other people’s opinions.

Oh, come on now. You know that I love you even though you omitted the other half of the joke - voting for Hillary. I also specifically used the term “tendencies” to free up some wiggle room for the 0.1% of liberals like you who pay your taxes and own guns.

Anyway, call me if that voter registration card keeps a choke hold on your sense of humor - I’ll hook you up. I’ve got some ketamine and nitrous that’ll have you giggling even at my jokes. It’s much better than that Mexican crap you’re smoke’n. ;)

OlongJohnson

10-15-2018, 01:52 PM

Many mothers and fathers have reported anecdotal success with this therapy. Unfortunately, because it wasn't peer-reviewed with a negative control, we have minimal data to support this and thus have been seeking funding and clinical trials for this to become an FDA-approved therapy.

In early lab studies, we found applications of force to the buttocks to be moderately effective, as was tugging of the ear. But overall, the greatest results (determined by both speed of correction of behavior and permanent cessation of behavior) were via the cupped hand to the back of skull method. We hypothesize that this is because of the immediate transference of brain matter into the frontal area, responsible for decision making and risk assessment. But it could also be, because of increased sensitivity in the application area, which triggers a "pain training" response. We're experimenting with the implantation of sensors at the base of the skull to determine the degrees of force necessary. When we're done and through clinical trials, we hope to have a generalized therapy-plan which can be applied safely and widely throughout the land. With force calculations we can provide the approximate force values necessary for maximum therapeutic effect based on the size and weight of the therapy recipient and therapy provider.

31333

RevolverRob

10-15-2018, 01:58 PM

31333

It's important to recognize, that Red Foreman was an early leader in this line of research - however the bulk of his ideas and success were driven by a foot inserted into the buttocks. Not a quick kick, but rather a full foot in. Because pes-anus penetration can result to unfortunate injury to the therapy provider, we were inspired to develop the manus-base-of-skull therapy approach.

OlongJohnson

10-15-2018, 02:06 PM

Proven technology.

31334

Baldanders

10-15-2018, 04:52 PM

Sensei may find it a false equivalence, but I see cannibis as mostly replacing alcohol, particularly among people who want to put an enormous buzz on on a regular basis. But I think it will be taking the place of alcohol for very irregular drinkers as well, as legalization marches on.

I dealt with stoned employees on a regular basis in food service, and while occasionally annoying, it beat the hell out of people showing up under the influence of alcohol, coke or opioids. The "scarest" thing about weed may be the ease with which users can play off the effects with experience, which encourages 24-7 use more than perhaps any other drug. Ability to perform more sophisticated thinking under the influence of cannabinoids seems to vary widely, but folks with tendencies to paranoia and the like seem to drift more into heavy drinking than pot use IME. Most of this is self-medication to achieve an untroubled state of mind and most people stop if it doesn't reliably make them mellow.

Stoned students are a PITA, and current brain research certaintly seems to show worrying effects on young brains. This is nothing new, however, and I`m mot sure legalization is going to change high schoolers use patterns much.

As far as politics go--in the lower classes at least, I haven't noticed any left/right split on weed use.

We do seem to be on the verge of having CBD-infused everything as a sort of universal panacea, which is a really bizarre turnaround from the government line of "THC is the only compound of any research interest in marijuana" from as recently as the 90s. This situation also shows the bizarre dividing line between our often draconian and hyper-regulated "drug" laws and our lazziez-faire wild west insanity "supplement" laws. It seems like CBD may have some valid uses, but it's becoming modern day patient medicine.

willie

10-15-2018, 07:29 PM

It's too late to do anything about this issue. Over and over again I have seen children who are the collateral damage. Adults who enjoy marijuana, regardless of social class or educational level, may ignore cannabis use dangers. Similarly, those who drink may be less likely to acknowledge cons associated with alcohol use. So as both groups smoke and nip and maybe snort and shoot up too, some will succumb to addiction. Those managing to function have a high probability of underforming. Society will bear costs. You can find them over represented in jails, prisons, mental institutions, and funeral homes. I've worked in all these places. Some drug addicts are even a pain in the ass to embalm. Not even med schools want their bodies. It seems that those in the inner city pay the highest price. Already these folks are at risk of being undereducated and underemployed. Also they are over represented among the incarcerated. Does it follow then that drugs and alcohol contribute to their status quo? If liberal perspective really cares about this segment, then why does it not address the fact that illegal drugs is a restraining force effecting its members so terribly?

Totem Polar

10-15-2018, 07:50 PM

Yeah, the toothpaste is out of the tube on this legalization deal.

I’ve been reluctant to chime in, because I’m in the arts, and therefore know a ton of dope users. In the final analysis, it’s the mechanic, not the tool: I’ve seen a lot of people fritter away large portions of their life and talent with excess MJ usage. I also know CEOs and multiple grammy-winners who partake inside their 7-figure homes at the end of a long work week.

Angus McFee, on occasion, I will pick a single news story, and really sonk my teeth into it, just to see how the "free press" is doing on a spot-check basis. One of those was the Michael Brown/Darren Wilson incident in Ferguson. I note that the tox report showed Brown to have something like 7 times either CO or WA’s threshold for impairment still in his blood at autopsy; experts say that it was enough to cause him to hallucinate pretty substantially. Your earlier post made me think of that tox report.

At any rate, carry on.

FNFAN

10-15-2018, 07:50 PM

RevolverRob et al.'s Experimental Physical Therapy That Stimulates Frontal Lobe Development, which I remind you is still waiting for NIH Clinical Trial Approval* (write your congressmen!).
___

*Because this therapy is experimental, no one should partake in it and RevolverRob and colleagues are released from any and all liability that comes from application of said therapy.

I left your post up on one monitor and the guy from IT that monitors our web usage came by and demanded a new hat!

31345

Sensei

10-15-2018, 09:18 PM

Sensei may find it a false equivalence, but I see cannibis as mostly replacing alcohol, particularly among people who want to put an enormous buzz on on a regular basis.

Actually, I agree with you on the bolded part. However, an enormous buzz corresponds to THC plasma concentrations of 11ng/dL which is roughly the what at average adult will get smoking one 10mg cannabis joint back in the 1990s. That plasma concentration from 1 joint resulted in a performance deterioration roughly equivalent to being at the legal limit of 0.08% alcohol (Figure 1).

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/T95/paper/s16p3.html

If we are talking today’s genetically engineered pot that is 2-3X as potent (3.3 vs. 8.8%) as the 90s era stuff, then we are talking about BAC equivalents much HIGHER than 2-3X the legal limit since the performance degradation curve was steeper for THC at higher doses.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/24/patrick-kennedy/has-potency-pot-changed-president-obama-was-high-s/

So yes, people who smoke pot want an enormous buzz which is the functional equivalent of being between too tipsy to drive and shitfaced drunk in terms of BAC equivalents. That means we need to compare regular pot users, not to guys like me that have 1-2 drinks per day (BAC 0.02-0.05%), but instead to people who routinely get their BAC between 1-3X the legal limit (0.08-0.24%) - we call them alcoholics. From a prevelance perspective, those numbers roughly equate since about 8% of adults have an alcohol use disorder and 14% routinely use pot and there is some comorbid overlap.

Where we really part ways is in this narrative that pot has become some alternative to alcohol for people who want to take the edge off a little. First, a joint does a lot more than take an edge off as previously described. Second, this fallacy that pot is an alcohol alternative for “a lot of people” is pure crap. Only 14% of Americans smoke pot on a regular basis which is even smaller than the number of Americans who think that Bernie Sanders would make a great POTUS. In addition, the evidence is not that these 14% of Americans are using pot as an alcohol alternative. Where are you getting that notion? Quite the contrary, regular users of pot are MORE likely to abuse alcohol (and possibly other drugs) than people who only drink in moderation.

Weinberger AH, Platt J, Goodwin RD. Is cannabis use associated with an increased risk of onset and persistence of alcohol use disorders? A three-year prospective study among adults in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend. February 2016. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.01.014

Sigfan26

10-15-2018, 09:40 PM

Remember when beer was 3.2% alcohol? These days, you can go to any liquor store and buy beer that is 9%-12%! Outrageous! To be honest, I really don’t care what folks do in their spare time. The only downside to weed is an inability to test for the concentration in someone’s system like alcohol (as in breathalyzer).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sensei

10-15-2018, 09:57 PM

The only downside to weed is an inability to test for the concentration in someone’s system like alcohol (as in breathalyzer).

The average habitual pot user makes less than $50K/year making this graph the downside for me...

31355

I hate paying for other people’s bullshit; so should you.

Sigfan26

10-15-2018, 10:22 PM

The average habitual pot user makes less than $50K/year making this graph the downside for me...

31355

I hate paying for other people’s bullshit; so should you.

... I currently make less than $50k. Guess I’m a part of the problem[emoji848]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sigfan26

10-15-2018, 10:25 PM

The average habitual pot user makes less than $50K/year making this graph the downside for me...

31355

I hate paying for other people’s bullshit; so should you.

I also pay out every year on taxes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sensei

10-15-2018, 10:36 PM

... I currently make less than $50k. Guess I’m a part of the problem[emoji848]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you habitually getting high or drunk? If not, then you both missed my point and are NOT part of the problem. ;)

willie

10-15-2018, 10:39 PM

The average habitual pot user makes less than $50K/year making this graph the downside for me...

31355

I hate paying for other people’s bullshit; so should you.

Less than $50 a year?? They must all be school teachers. When I'm 90, I may start smoking weed but must check with my doctor first. ;)

Sigfan26

10-15-2018, 11:04 PM

Are you habitually getting high or drunk? If not, then you both missed my point and are NOT part of the problem. ;)

It seems you missed the point that rampant generalizations are generally inaccurate. What next? They all breathe oxygen, produce CO2, drink H2O, and consume protein?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sensei

10-15-2018, 11:06 PM

Less than $50 a year?? They must all be school teachers. When I'm 90, I may start smoking weed but must check with my doctor first. ;)

Posted this earlier, but probably worth reposting since it’s a pretty good recent estimate of who is using pot in America.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/Yahoo%20News/20170417_Summary%20Yahoo%20News-Marist%20Poll_Weed%20and%20The%20American%20Family .pdf

About half of Americans over 18 have tried pot at least once. 22% continue to use pot and about 14% use it regularly defined as at least twice per month). Of the 22% who continue to use, half make less than $50K but they do not describe their profession. Income for the regular users was even lower...

BTW, smoke whatever you want if you make 90 - doctor’s orders.

Sigfan26

10-15-2018, 11:12 PM

Posted this earlier, but probably worth reposting since it’s a pretty good recent estimate of who is using pot in America.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/Yahoo%20News/20170417_Summary%20Yahoo%20News-Marist%20Poll_Weed%20and%20The%20American%20Family .pdf

About half of Americans over 18 have tried pot at least once. 22% continue to use pot and about 14% use it regularly defined as at least twice per month). Of the 22% who continue to use, half make less than $50K but they do not describe their profession. Income for the regular users was even lower...

BTW, smoke whatever you want if you make 90 - doctor’s orders.

Self reporting is not accurate when asking about illegal acts...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sigfan26

10-15-2018, 11:14 PM

Posted this earlier, but probably worth reposting since it’s a pretty good recent estimate of who is using pot in America.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/Yahoo%20News/20170417_Summary%20Yahoo%20News-Marist%20Poll_Weed%20and%20The%20American%20Family .pdf

About half of Americans over 18 have tried pot at least once. 22% continue to use pot and about 14% use it regularly defined as at least twice per month). Of the 22% who continue to use, half make less than $50K but they do not describe their profession. Income for the regular users was even lower...

BTW, smoke whatever you want if you make 90 - doctor’s orders.

Also, online polls are inaccurate due to “trolls”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sensei

10-15-2018, 11:15 PM

It seems you missed the point that rampant generalizations are generally inaccurate. What next? They all breathe oxygen, produce CO2, drink H2O, and consume protein?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s not a rampant generalization. It’s actually very detailed data. Here it is again: http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/Yahoo%20News/20170417_Summary%20Yahoo%20News-Marist%20Poll_Weed%20and%20The%20American%20Family .pdf

Let me know if you have some numbers to support an alternative hypotheses.

Sigfan26

10-15-2018, 11:17 PM

Posted this earlier, but probably worth reposting since it’s a pretty good recent estimate of who is using pot in America.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/Yahoo%20News/20170417_Summary%20Yahoo%20News-Marist%20Poll_Weed%20and%20The%20American%20Family .pdf

About half of Americans over 18 have tried pot at least once. 22% continue to use pot and about 14% use it regularly defined as at least twice per month). Of the 22% who continue to use, half make less than $50K but they do not describe their profession. Income for the regular users was even lower...

BTW, smoke whatever you want if you make 90 - doctor’s orders.

You do you, but I would not base much on a Yahoo News poll involving 1122 people.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sigfan26

10-15-2018, 11:19 PM

It’s not a rampant generalization. It’s actually very detailed data. Here it is again: http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/Yahoo%20News/20170417_Summary%20Yahoo%20News-Marist%20Poll_Weed%20and%20The%20American%20Family .pdf

Let me know if you have some numbers to support an alternative hypotheses.

Again, I was unaware the be all end all of information reporting was Yahoo News. Believe what you want.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sensei

10-15-2018, 11:27 PM

Also, online polls are inaccurate due to “trolls”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do you, but I would not base much on a Yahoo News poll involving 1122 people.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s not an online poll. Yahoo provided the funding; Marist conducted the survey. Please read the methods before further mischaracterizing the study. Moreover, the prevelance numbers are remarkably similar to the CDC’s BRFSS published a year earlier. The big difference being the CDC data lacked a lot of the socioeconomic aspects and societal opinions. Neither are saying anything that is all that shocking if you are paying attention to what is going on in America.

Sigfan26

10-15-2018, 11:36 PM

It’s not an online poll. Yahoo provided the funding; Marist conducted the survey. Please read the methods before further mischaracterizing the study. Moreover, the prevelance numbers are remarkably similar to the CDC’s BRFSS published a year earlier. The big difference being the CDC data lacked a lot of the socioeconomic aspects and societal opinions. Neither are saying anything that is all that shocking if you are paying attention to what is going on in America.

I did
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181016/92874bb9ffb62378b04d3e385593538c.png
Sorry, I was wrong. It wasn’t on-line. It was based on the number of people who had time to take an interview over the phone.
It’s still a small sample size to make any generalizations.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

scjbash

10-15-2018, 11:40 PM

So yes, people who smoke pot want an enormous buzz which is the functional equivalent of being between too tipsy to drive and shitfaced drunk in terms of BAC equivalents. That means we need to compare regular pot users, not to guys like me that have 1-2 drinks per day (BAC 0.02-0.05%), but instead to people who routinely get their BAC between 1-3X the legal limit (0.08-0.24%) - we call them alcoholics. From a prevelance perspective, those numbers roughly equate since about 8% of adults have an alcohol use disorder and 14% routinely use pot and there is some comorbid overlap.

Where we really part ways is in this narrative that pot has become some alternative to alcohol for people who want to take the edge off a little. First, a joint does a lot more than take an edge off as previously described.

There are some problems with those notions. First is the generalization that people who smoke weed want an enormous buzz. That's like saying people who drink alcohol want an enormous buzz. The reality is that some people who drink want to hammer down a case of natty light, many more want to drink a glass or two of good whiskey or wine. It's the same with people who smoke. They're aren't all out to get baked.

The second issue is using the potency of a joint to support the idea that people aren't smoking to take the edge off like light drinkers do. That's irrelevant because no one has to smoke an entire joint. They don't have to roll it at all. It's perfectly possible to "take the edge off" with weed.

FWIW I don't smoke because I tried it when I was younger and didn't care for it. But I know successful people whose weed habit is no different than my occasional glass of bourbon habit.

As for the stat that half of smokers make less than $50K a year, isn't the median individual income like $32K a year? Wouldn't that mean the study is suggesting that smokers have a higher median income than nonsmokers, and by a healthy margin?

Sensei

10-16-2018, 12:25 AM

There are some problems with those notions. First is the generalization that people who smoke weed want an enormous buzz. That's like saying people who drink alcohol want an enormous buzz. The reality is that some people who drink want to hammer down a case of natty light, many more want to drink a glass or two of good whiskey or wine. It's the same with people who smoke. They're aren't all out to get baked.

The second issue is using the potency of a joint to support the idea that people aren't smoking to take the edge off like light drinkers do. That's irrelevant because no one has to smoke an entire joint. They don't have to roll it at all. It's perfectly possible to "take the edge off" with weed.

FWIW I don't smoke because I tried it when I was younger and didn't care for it. But I know successful people whose weed habit is no different than my occasional glass of bourbon habit.

As for the stat that half of smokers make less than $50K a year, isn't the median individual income like $32K a year? Wouldn't that mean the study is suggesting that smokers have a higher median income than nonsmokers, and by a healthy margin?

Nobody said that it’s not possible to “take the edge off.” What the studies are saying is that, on average, people who choose to partake consume roughly 10 mg of pot in a sitting, and this corresponds to 11 ng/dL plasma concentration or a BAC impairment of almost 0.08% in terms of 1990’s era potency. If you consider that “taking the edge off” then so be it, but I prefer to use plasma concentrations and objective measures of function so that your taking the edge off is not my “getting shitfaced.”

Now, it’s possible that people have scaled back their consumption of pot as the THC has become more concentrated over the past 25 years (ie. smoking 1/3 a joint so as not to become overly intoxicated). If that is the case, then show me where marijuana consumption has been cut by 2/3 since the 90s because I can’t find it. Moreover, that would violate just about everything we know about other legal and illegal drug consumption as potency increases; do you think the cartels would increase the potency if it meant selling less product?

So, your anecdote of knowing people tells you one thing, but the data and anecdotes from people on the front lines of the drug war are telling me something vastly different. Let’s vote accordingly.

BTW, the median household income in 2017 was $59k.

scjbash

10-16-2018, 12:40 AM

Nobody said that it’s not possible to “take the edge off.” What the studies are saying is that, on average, people who choose to partake consume roughly 10 mg of pot in a sitting, and this corresponds to 11 my/dL plasma concentration or a BAC impairment of almost 0.08% in terms of 1990’s era potency. If you consider that “taking the edge off” then so be it, but I prefer to use plasma concentrations and objective measures of function so that your taking the edge off is not my “getting shitfaced.”

Now, it’s possible that people have scaled back their consumption of pot as the THC has become more concentrated over the past 25 years (ie. smoking 1/3 a joint so as not to become overly intoxicated). If that is the case, then show me where marijuana consumption has been cut by 2/3 since the 90s because I can’t find it. Moreover, that would violate just about everything we know about other legal and illegal drug consumption as potency increases; do you think the cartels would increase the potency if it meant selling less product?

So, your anecdote of knowing people tells you one thing, but the data and anecdotes from people on the front lines of the drug war are telling me something vastly different. Let’s vote accordingly.

BTW, the median household income in 2017 was $59k.

I do tend to take what I (and many others) see over studies when they conflict. We've all seen studies that aren't really representative of the big picture, or even reality at all.

The household income is $59K. The individual income is $32K. If we're talking about the income of mj users then it's the individual median income it needs to be compared to. Personally I don't put anymore stock in small phone survey about mj use than I do small phone surveys about gun ownership so I think that income stat is meaningless.

Sensei

10-16-2018, 12:55 AM

I did
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181016/92874bb9ffb62378b04d3e385593538c.png
Sorry, I was wrong. It wasn’t on-line. It was based on the number of people who had time to take an interview over the phone.
It’s still a small sample size to make any generalizations.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmm, no it’s not. Here is a great article explaining why you need about 1,000 people to conduct these types of polls.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/

Again, if you don’t like it feel free to go to the CDC website a look at all the published data on pot usage in the US. You’ll see essentially identical numbers.

Sensei

10-16-2018, 12:58 AM

I do tend to take what I (and many others) see over studies when they conflict. We've all seen studies that aren't really representative of the big picture, or even reality at all.

Sounds good. Carry on.

jetfire

10-16-2018, 07:53 AM

Oh, come on now. You know that I love you even though you omitted the other half of the joke - voting for Hillary. I also specifically used the term “tendencies” to free up some wiggle room for the 0.1% of liberals like you who pay your taxes and own guns.

Anyway, call me if that voter registration card keeps a choke hold on your sense of humor - I’ll hook you up. I’ve got some ketamine and nitrous that’ll have you giggling even at my jokes. It’s much better than that Mexican crap you’re smoke’n. ;)

Sorry, as you might imagine I get tired of people using the word “liberal” like it’s a slur, which is something that happens pretty much every day in all my lines of work.

blues

10-16-2018, 08:02 AM

Sorry, as you might imagine I get tired of people using the word “liberal” like it’s a slur, which is something that happens pretty much every day in all my lines of work.

I give credit to Fox News for that. (Not credit in a good way.) Rendering words meaningless and worse seems to be one of their specialties. (CNN has its own issues.)

I liked the way things were back in the "old days" when words still had meaning. Or some semblance thereof.

There was a time when the word "liberal" was not an epithet and it was generally perceived as connoting open-mindedness.

Newspeak.

Wondering Beard

10-16-2018, 09:32 AM

I give credit to Fox News for that. (Not credit in a good way.) Rendering words meaningless and worse seems to be one of their specialties. (CNN has its own issues.)

I liked the way things were back in the "old days" when words still had meaning. Or some semblance thereof.

There was a time when the word "liberal" was not an epithet and it was generally perceived as connoting open-mindedness.

Newspeak.

I was hearing that word used negatively long before Fox News even existed.

I understand and use the word in its classical sense (pro freedom, open minded, laissez faire etc..) but, as far as I can see there isn't anyone whom it would fit in today's political class on any side.

blues

10-16-2018, 10:22 AM

Totem Polar

10-16-2018, 10:39 AM

I don't go in much for name calling and bullying tactics.

Well, just listen to old poppy poopy pants. How about you send me one of your Howard Vieles...

;)

blues

10-16-2018, 11:54 AM

Well, just listen to old poppy poopy pants. How about you send me one of your Howard Vieles...

;)

Never owned a one. Go figure.

Sensei

10-16-2018, 02:14 PM

I was hearing that word used negatively long before Fox News even existed.

I understand and use the word in its classical sense (pro freedom, open minded, laissez faire etc..) but, as far as I can see there isn't anyone whom it would fit in today's political class on any side.

Classic liberalism is closely aligned with modern libertarianism. Modern liberalism is essentially synonymous with progressivism and socialism.

The term liberalism got mixed up in this thread because the survey that I referenced used it in describing political affiliations. I’m fairly certain that it was being used in a modern, progressive sense as most pot users described themselves as liberal or very liberal AND voted for Hillary in 2016. My joking reference to liberals being shitbirds was a play on previous posts using that metaphor, but I can see how someone not paying close attention to all the posts might think that I was demeaning all liberals.

When it comes to pot, I’m fundamentally a classic liberal. I believe that the federal government should only regulate the import/export of marijuana as well as interstate transfer. Otherwise, it should be up to each state to determine its own tolerance for weed and other drugs. Where I part ways with everyone else is that I would never vote to legalize it as long as we are living in an entitlement state where people can stay stoned and live comfortably off my tax dollars. My experience with all types of drug users appears to be vastly different than many of the forum members, and that experience leads me to believe that heavy pot use is associated with dependence. So, remove the safety nets for drug users and then I’ll vote for legalization.

orionz06

10-16-2018, 02:22 PM

Jakus

10-16-2018, 02:48 PM

When it comes to pot, I’m fundamentally a classic liberal. I believe that the federal government should only regulate the import/export of marijuana as well as interstate transfer. Otherwise, it should be up to each state to determine its own tolerance for weed and other drugs. Where I part ways with everyone else is that I would never vote to legalize it as long as we are living in an entitlement state where people can stay stoned and live comfortably off my tax dollars. My experience with all types of drug users appears to be vastly different than many of the forum members, and that experience leads me to believe that heavy pot use is associated with dependence. So, remove the safety nets for drug users and then I’ll vote for legalization.

While I don't disagree with your federalist argument here, I not 100% sold on your cost benefit argument. While it may be true that there are societal costs associated with drug legalization, there are most certainly real costs associated with enforcing any items illegal status. How much are you willing to spend to keep people from growing their own both in real law enforcement costs and potential loss of freedoms needed to make such efforts effective?

Also, I am not saying that alcohol = weed in it's potency or lasting effects, but from a functional standpoint what is the difference if a welfare state recipient stays stoned all day vs drunk all day? Neither is something I want to subsidize, but that is an entirely separate argument from weed legalization. Do you think we can make it hard enough for people to get altered that shitbirds will magically stop being shitbirds? Or will they simply find other means?

It seems to me that we've reached the point of pissing into the wind on prohibition of marijuana, and coming up with ways to remind ourselves that intoxicating drugs are generally bad (m'kay) amounts to trying to convince ourselves that maybe it's only raining.

Darth_Uno

10-16-2018, 03:01 PM

Sounds like you only deal with the shitheads and consequently think that everyone who uses is a shithead.

I do deal with a lot of shitheads, but my point was the opposite. I know several very successful people who smoke. I know several very successful people who drink. These guys don’t let a “vice” interfere with business. Heck, I drink beer nearly every single day.

What I’ve yet to see is someone who gets baked *or* smashed every single day, what most people would call a “pothead” or a “drunk”, with the ambition to run a successful business or even be a dependable employee.

On that topic, the drunks at least are not drinking at work, but the potheads will try to sneak off for a pinch hit. That’s a safety hazard I can’t tolerate.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

blues

10-16-2018, 03:01 PM

It seems to me that we've reached the point of pissing into the wind on prohibition of marijuana, and coming up with ways to remind ourselves that intoxicating drugs are generally bad (m'kay) amounts to trying to convince ourselves that maybe it's only raining.

Call me a paranoid lefty, but imho it's easier to drink outdoors than smoke a doob when it's raining and windy...more so if you add pissing into the equation. Just my two cents.

I've got to go wash my hands now. (And the keyboard too, I guess.)

(Oh, and I better add ;) just in case big brother is watching and thinks I'd ever do such a thing and put my carry status at risk. As if...:rolleyes:)

orionz06

10-16-2018, 03:08 PM

I do deal with a lot of shitheads, but my point was the opposite. I know several very successful people who smoke. I know several very successful people who drink. These guys don’t let a “vice” interfere with business. Heck, I drink beer nearly every single day.

What I’ve yet to see is someone who gets baked *or* smashed every single day, what most people would call a “pothead” or a “drunk”, with the ambition to run a successful business or even be a dependable employee.

On that topic, the drunks at least are not drinking at work, but the potheads will try to sneak off for a pinch hit. That’s a safety hazard I can’t tolerate.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, I misquoted or didn’t reply clearly enough.

Sounds like shitheads are shitheads, their vices don’t define them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jakus

10-16-2018, 03:18 PM

Call me a paranoid lefty, but imho it's easier to drink outdoors than smoke a doob when it's raining and windy...more so if you add pissing into the equation. Just my two cents.

I've got to go wash my hands now. (And the keyboard too, I guess.)

(Oh, and I better add ;) just in case big brother is watching and thinks I'd ever do such a thing and put my carry status at risk. As if...:rolleyes:)

Not being the forum pothead, I may be completely misinformed here, but I was under the impression that a fairly sizable amount of consumption has shifted to means other than smoking (ie, vapors, edibles, etc), particularly in the states that have attracted weed tourism since hotels don't want them smoking in their rooms. Are their any educated guesses out there for how the methods of consumption break down percentage wise?

blues

10-16-2018, 03:25 PM

LSP552

10-16-2018, 03:40 PM

Your guess is as good as mine. I'm an old school guy and know absolutely nothing about vaping other than it uses batteries.
(So if there aren't rolling papers, bongs or hookahs involved, it's over my head. Oh, I do remember something about brownies. That was around back in the dark ages as well.)

Funny how we couldn't take a marijuana case federal for under 5000 lbs back in the day, yet many agents volunteered to go on the burn runs. Go figure. :p

I helped burn 80 tons in a S Louisiana sugar mill. At the time it was the largest inland weed seizure in the US. Tugboat “Trooper” with a barge full. Not kidding about the name.....

Another memorable burn was about 3 tons off a sailboat that missed the pass and ran aground off Marsh Island. If memory serves, that was in Nov and we had to wade out and unload. We burnt it in place after sampling and pics. Would have had to chopper it out so we got a destruct order and fired it up. I’m sure the EPA and the State’s Department Of Environment Quality would put you in jail for that now. Miss the old days every now and then.

For the record, burning bales of weed will keep you warm.

richiecotite

10-16-2018, 03:52 PM

I do deal with a lot of shitheads, but my point was the opposite. I know several very successful people who smoke. I know several very successful people who drink. These guys don’t let a “vice” interfere with business. Heck, I drink beer nearly every single day.

What I’ve yet to see is someone who gets baked *or* smashed every single day, what most people would call a “pothead” or a “drunk”, with the ambition to run a successful business or even be a dependable employee.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My guess is there are plenty of people you've interacted with, that are everyday smokers. Some are probably even potheads. The fact that 1) it's illegal and 2) there's still a real social stigma, causes reasonable people to hide their vice.

Once upon a time not that long ago, wasn't it pretty par for the course for businessman to keep a bottle of hooch in their desk? Or in a flask on their person?

I joke with my friends that theres going to be a new generation of potheads that have never actually had to cop or roll weed. Just order through the app, plug and play.

Lester Polfus

10-16-2018, 04:23 PM

scjbash

10-16-2018, 05:10 PM

I take surveys about marijuana usage with a pretty big grain of salt.

A few years back, the phone rang, and the voice on the other end said: "Hi, I'm calling you from <spoketofastformetocatchthenameoftheorganziation> and we're conducting a survey about firearms safety."

I nearly broke the phone hanging up so fast. I've got zero interest in talking to a random stranger about whether I own guns, how many, or how I store them.

Note that owning guns (for the moment) is unambiguously legal. If I smoked weed, and some random stranger wanted to take as "survey" about my habits, my response would be pretty much the same.

It's also been proven that calling at certain times of the week can change the outcome of phone surveys. If this survey was done Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm, a larger portion of the productive users may be at work. That's going to skew the results because of who is available to take the survey. Throw in the fact that people lie and you end up with what's a pretty useless survey IMO.

ssb

10-16-2018, 05:14 PM

Not being the forum pothead, I may be completely misinformed here, but I was under the impression that a fairly sizable amount of consumption has shifted to means other than smoking (ie, vapors, edibles, etc), particularly in the states that have attracted weed tourism since hotels don't want them smoking in their rooms. Are their any educated guesses out there for how the methods of consumption break down percentage wise?

I don't know anything about hard numbers.

We brought some of our counterparts in from Colorado to speak about their experiences with marijuana-impaired drivers, and the picture they painted wasn't pretty. The dosing control -- or rather, the lack thereof -- with some of the alternative delivery setups causes a lot of issues, particularly with marijuana tourists and those who otherwise don't use it frequently ("hey, this isn't working... let's eat more"). You're also seeing problems with the THC race, more specifically chasing higher THC content in some of these products while leaving out the CBD or otherwise having it at lower levels (https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/23/colorado-marijuana-study-finds-legal-weed-contains-potent-thc-levels.html) (CBD is an antipsychotic and THC can act as a psychotic).

The impression that I got is that the edibles, infused drinks, and vapes are advertised towards non-smokers. I also saw it advertised in a pseudo-medical fashion to persons who would otherwise probably wouldn't be using it and by persons who almost certainly aren't qualified to give that advice. My recollection is that the video we saw of a weed shop had the majority of its sales floor devoted to non-"flower" products, but that's a sample of one and -- of course -- gub'mit propaganda.

The recreational states continue to be a test-bed for this stuff. My hope is that we get some sort of best practices out of their experiment before it ends up happening here (I think it's just a matter of time), because the impression I got from Colorado prosecutors is that it's a bit of a clusterfuck at present -- lots of unanswered questions as to how we address certain issues.

Totem Polar

10-16-2018, 07:49 PM

Never owned a one. Go figure.

I just pulled that particular maker out of my hat... that said--and despite my tongue-in-cheek ribbing--it's never too late. You're still plenty young enough to grab a few on the used market. ;)

Hmmm, no it’s not. Here is a great article explaining why you need about 1,000 people to conduct these types of polls.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/

Again, if you don’t like it feel free to go to the CDC website a look at all the published data on pot usage in the US. You’ll see essentially identical numbers.

Mildly tangential, but one only has to look back as far as the last presidential election to realize that the premise of that article is sometime wishful thinking, disguised as statistics. *All* those polls of 1k people were wrong; the young turk's online viewer poll of 34k respondents was much more predictive of the current POTUS, and they largely stood alone in the face of all the "respected polling organizations."

The difference between opinion poll theory and opinion reality is that in theory...

JMO.

Baldanders

10-16-2018, 08:30 PM

Actually, I agree with you on the bolded part. However, an enormous buzz corresponds to THC plasma concentrations of 11ng/dL which is roughly the what at average adult will get smoking one 10mg cannabis joint back in the 1990s. That plasma concentration from 1 joint resulted in a performance deterioration roughly equivalent to being at the legal limit of 0.08% alcohol (Figure 1).

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/T95/paper/s16p3.html

If we are talking today’s genetically engineered pot that is 2-3X as potent (3.3 vs. 8.8%) as the 90s era stuff, then we are talking about BAC equivalents much HIGHER than 2-3X the legal limit since the performance degradation curve was steeper for THC at higher doses.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/24/patrick-kennedy/has-potency-pot-changed-president-obama-was-high-s/

So yes, people who smoke pot want an enormous buzz which is the functional equivalent of being between too tipsy to drive and shitfaced drunk in terms of BAC equivalents. That means we need to compare regular pot users, not to guys like me that have 1-2 drinks per day (BAC 0.02-0.05%), but instead to people who routinely get their BAC between 1-3X the legal limit (0.08-0.24%) - we call them alcoholics. From a prevelance perspective, those numbers roughly equate since about 8% of adults have an alcohol use disorder and 14% routinely use pot and there is some comorbid overlap.

Where we really part ways is in this narrative that pot has become some alternative to alcohol for people who want to take the edge off a little. First, a joint does a lot more than take an edge off as previously described. Second, this fallacy that pot is an alcohol alternative for “a lot of people” is pure crap. Only 14% of Americans smoke pot on a regular basis which is even smaller than the number of Americans who think that Bernie Sanders would make a great POTUS. In addition, the evidence is not that these 14% of Americans are using pot as an alcohol alternative. Where are you getting that notion? Quite the contrary, regular users of pot are MORE likely to abuse alcohol (and possibly other drugs) than people who only drink in moderation.

Weinberger AH, Platt J, Goodwin RD. Is cannabis use associated with an increased risk of onset and persistence of alcohol use disorders? A three-year prospective study among adults in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend. February 2016. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.01.014

You think most alcohol is consumed to "take the edge off?" When I have been in jobs where I sold booze, it certainly gave me the impression that most alcohol is consumed to get quite fucked up by people who do so every night. (Not the same thing as saying everyone who drinks does it to massive excess)

A big difference between THC and alcohol is that regular THC use causes massive downregulation of cannibinoid receptor sites, creating an enormous tolerance to its effects quite quickly for chronic users. Tolerance to alcohol is much more limited, especially to its effects on motor co-ordination. A dose of THC that would leave most P-F members with their dick in the dirt may be a dose a daily smoker can barely feel.

Again, my perception of pot use is that it looks really different depending on the socio-economic class you look at. If you come off as hardcore anti-pot kind of guy, you can be sure any sucessful pothead is doing his or her best to stay the hell off your radar screen.

I don't promote cannibis use, but my experiences have made it hard to see it as very different from alcohol, with the major difference between the two for me is that chronic drunks seem way quicker to resort to violence or loud, abusive behavior when they are pissed off than potheads. Sure, plenty of people do both. I didn't mean to imply that pot is reducing alcohol abuse in a big way.

Baldanders

10-16-2018, 08:48 PM

On a related note, walked into the boy's bathroom at school last week to the pungent smell of herb with a burning doobie visable and two white dipshits staring blankly at me, mouths agape...

Yippee, I got my first "bust."

Morons. Most students have figured out the faculty bathroom is often occupied and my kidney-stone prone self drinks 2-3 liters of water a day, meaning I'm in the student john a lot during class changes.

Sensei

10-16-2018, 09:04 PM

Mildly tangential, but one only has to look back as far as the last presidential election to realize that the premise of that article is sometime wishful thinking, disguised as statistics. *All* those polls of 1k people were wrong; the young turk's online viewer poll of 34k respondents was much more predictive of the current POTUS, and they largely stood alone in the face of all the "respected polling organizations."

The difference between opinion poll theory and opinion reality is that in theory...

JMO.

I’m always curious as to why people think the polling was wrong in the last presidential election. The aggregate polling data predicted a 3.3% margin for Hillary in the final week of the election; her real margin was 2.1% - well within the margin of error.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html

Even the individual polls were within the margin of error with the exception of Monmouth. In other words, 90% of those polls that you didn’t like accurately predicted what they were designed to measure - national opinion. The problem was that the Electoral College, not national opinion, determines the POTUS. Those polls were never designed to pick-up small, regional variances in places like PA and WI that are statistically insignificant in the poll but massively significant to an outcome determined by an Electoral College instead of national opinion.

This surprise could have been avoided had people focused more on the polls coming out of the swing states instead of national opinion polling. Bill Clinton apparently saw some disturbing trends coming out of PA and WI in the final 3 weeks and begged Hillary to divert resources to the areas. Instead, she closed her campaign offices thinking that those small, 1,000 person polls were inaccurate...

Don’t blame the tool for the outcome when you chose a hammer to do a wrench’s job.

Sensei

10-16-2018, 09:11 PM

You think most alcohol is consumed to "take the edge off?" When I have been in jobs where I sold booze, it certainly gave me the impression that most alcohol is consumed to get quite fucked up by people who do so every night. (Not the same thing as saying everyone who drinks does it to massive excess)

A big difference between THC and alcohol is that regular THC use causes massive downregulation of cannibinoid receptor sites, creating an enormous tolerance to its effects quite quickly for chronic users. Tolerance to alcohol is much more limited, especially to its effects on motor co-ordination. A dose of THC that would leave most P-F members with their dick in the dirt may be a dose a daily smoker can barely feel.

Again, my perception of pot use is that it looks really different depending on the socio-economic class you look at. If you come off as hardcore anti-pot kind of guy, you can be sure any sucessful pothead is doing his or her best to stay the hell off your radar screen.

I don't promote cannibis use, but my experiences have made it hard to see it as very different from alcohol, with the major difference between the two for me is that chronic drunks seem way quicker to resort to violence or loud, abusive behavior when they are pissed off than potheads. Sure, plenty of people do both. I didn't mean to imply that pot is reducing alcohol abuse in a big way.

Great, thanks for sharing that. I’ll keep that pearl in my back pocket. Cheers.

Baldanders

10-16-2018, 09:13 PM

I’m always curious as to why people think the polling was wrong in the last presidential election. The aggregate polling data predicted a 3.3% margin for Hillary in the final week of the election; her real margin was 2.1% - well within the margin of error.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html

Even the individual polls were within the margin of error with the exception of Monmouth. In other words, 90% of those polls that you didn’t like accurately predicted what they were designed to measure - national opinion. The problem was that the Electoral College, not national opinion, determines the POTUS. Those polls were never designed to pick-up small, regional variances in places like PA and WI that are statistically insignificant in the poll but massively significant to an outcome determined by an Electoral College instead of national opinion.

This surprise could have been avoided had people focused more on the polls coming out of the swing states instead of national opinion polling. Bill Clinton apparently saw some disturbing trends coming out of PA and WI in the final 3 weeks and begged Hillary to divert resources to the areas. Instead, she closed her campaign offices thinking that those small, 1,000 person polls were inaccurate...

Don’t blame the tool for the outcome when you chose a hammer to do a wrench’s job.

The last election showed most Americans don't understand statistics worth a damn. Trump was showing about a 30-33% chance of winning in most polls, IIRC. Giving him the same chance of winning as a Russian Roulette player has of loosing with two full chambers in a six shooter. Would anyone but a suicidal fool take those odds?

Not a veiled commentary on the Orange Overlord, I promise.

jetfire

10-17-2018, 08:51 AM

Re: legal weed and alcohol. The major spirits brands have all seen off-premise sales decreases in every state that has legalized weed.

Sensei

10-17-2018, 04:16 PM

Re: legal weed and alcohol. The major spirits brands have all seen off-premise sales decreases in every state that has legalized weed.

It’s hard to tell. There have been 39 studies - 16 support substitution, 10 support complementarity, 12 support neither, and 1 supports both.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27249324/

We will probably know a lot more when more states come on line with legalized marijuana and behavior reaches a steady state. Very interesting though, thanks.

jetfire

10-18-2018, 11:29 AM

It’s hard to tell. There have been 39 studies - 16 support substitution, 10 support complementarity, 12 support neither, and 1 supports both.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27249324/

There’s nothing “hard to tell” about what I posted - booze distributors have seen sales decline in every state that legalizes weed.

You’ll notice I didn’t say anything else, just pointing out the fact. I’m sure people will use that reach whatever conclusion they’ve already decided on in their head.

oakdalecurtis

10-18-2018, 12:33 PM

The last election showed most Americans don't understand statistics worth a damn. Trump was showing about a 30-33% chance of winning in most polls, IIRC. Giving him the same chance of winning as a Russian Roulette player has of loosing with two full chambers in a six shooter. Would anyone but a suicidal fool take those odds?

Not a veiled commentary on the Orange Overlord, I promise.

I still remember my college stats prof starting the class with this... "Statistically speaking, the average American has one breast and one testicle..."

blues

10-18-2018, 12:52 PM

I still remember my college stats prof starting the class with this... "Statistically speaking, the average American has one breast and one testicle..."

How many breasticles does it take to create just one honest congress critter...?

I guess this is what we'll all be wearing in the brave new world. Except for Pocahontas. She can wear a breechcloth in keeping with her traditions and culture..

https://midlifehacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/jogbra-1.jpg

willie

10-18-2018, 01:22 PM

Sensei

10-18-2018, 01:28 PM

There’s nothing “hard to tell” about what I posted - booze distributors have seen sales decline in every state that legalizes weed.

You’ll notice I didn’t say anything else, just pointing out the fact. I’m sure people will use that reach whatever conclusion they’ve already decided on in their head.

It’s hard to tell because the best (only?) study looking at this examined alcohol sales at grocery and convenience stores and reportedly found a 15% reduction in monthly alcohol sales between 2006-2015. This was a surprisingly large effect for medical cannabis programs that typically involve less than 1% of the state’s population. Moreover, this paper’s findings were somewhat contradicted by relatively stable alcohol tax revenues in CO and WA since retail cannabis stores opened in 2014. As for people reaching conclusions, tell that to the authors of that study as most of there discussion was dedicated to the notion of substitution (and picked up by every liberal rag on the market that treated the findings as gospel).

HCM

10-19-2018, 01:18 AM

31442

blues

10-19-2018, 08:05 AM

^^^Just not nearly as well as promised.

Sensei

10-19-2018, 09:58 AM

I saw mention of one complementing the other. Having supervised a few dope fiends, I learned that some enjoy drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana at the same time, but to my amazement, a few took the muscle relaxer Soma in conjunction with the other two. I thought that these guys must have a really big tolerance level. But then I remembered that they also were heroin addicts. Their age was 14, and each had been using heroin since age 12. Somewhere under the umbrella of illicit drug use, there is a point that the issue becomes a big deal. I think that maijuana is a gateway drug leading to use of hard drugs. If so, then its use is a big deal.

There is a lot of cross tolerance between alcohol, benzos, and barbiturates since they all have direct effects on GABA receptors. I understand the is a small amount of cross tolerance between alcohol and opiates as alcohol modulates the mu opioid receptors (those are the one that give you liquid muscles and make you think that all women adore you when you’re naked). I’m not aware of large cross tolerance between pot and opiates or alcohol.

I’m also unconvinced that pot is a gateway drug. It is very plausible at higher doses and frequent use, but there are a bunch of non-pharm confounders.

My opposition to widespread drug decriminalization centers around the fact that we are now a nanny state with relatively few people on the top supporting the lifestyle of a growing bottom (among a vanishing middle class). That growing bottom half is increasing addicted and intoxicated by a variety of substances. If my pointing out that basic truth pisses someone off because they think I’m demeaning all low income earners - grow up. Having an addicted, compliant lower class is exactly what progressives want. The same people who covered for the pharmaceutical and physician industries as they pumped unfathomable amounts of opiates and benzos (Xanax, Valium, Klonopin) into our society are the exact same people promising drug treatment programs if elected. They would also love nothing more than to turn marijuana into a cash cow tax industry that disproportionately harms the lower class just like gambling and lotteries.

10% of America has a substance use disorder. Another 10% is vulnerable due to physical dependence on prescribed opiates, benzos, or muscle relaxers (Soma, flexeril, etc.). Think about that - 15-20% of America couldn’t pass a piss or breath test most days of the week.

willie

10-19-2018, 07:14 PM

Since minorities are over represented in the addicted lower class that you describe, your premise is one that can't be discussed unless you work in a morgue and are talking to the dead. Otherwise, this topic is career suicide. Why? Race politics soon control any discussion. Been there, seen that. When issues can't be discussed, then they will not be resolved. My school district's achievement scores rank within the bottom 25% in Texas. Reason given: teachers who don't know how to work with minority students. 32 years ago when I first joined the faculty, vast numbers forgot their teachers' names and class schedules over the two week Christmas holiday. Reason given: teachers who don't know how to work with minority students. Now, both the students and teachers are dumber. Reason given: ................