Hillary and Trump

[Karl]

Now you appear to be quoting me for some unfathomable reason Joeblast ?

[joeblast]

that's usually what one does when addressing certain text, yes

[Karl]

that's usually what one does when addressing certain text, yes

You edited it you cheat face :-)

 

I don't know why anyone calls themselves libertarian. That was one of the reasons Rothbard began referring to himself as an anarcho capitalist.

 

Yes, she did become schitzophrenic after smoking weed. What's more, my cousin is a clinical psychiatrists who claims that this is a common occurrence which he ends up treating.

 

I know it's easy to dismiss it, I was very much a sceptic myself until recently. There is enough reason to look at the effects more carefully. After all, if it was proven that some people can have a form of permanent brain damage after trying it once, then that at least should make us all reconsider if it is as harmless as we thought.

[joeblast]

heh....forgot I hit multiquote

 

common, in a post-hoc ergo propter hoc sort of way.  the studies are not rigorous and merely reflect that people predisposed to mental illness are highly correlated to people that have used drugs - the only statistically significant part basically says "if you're borderline schiophrenic, mj might push you over that border."

 

so thorough, its worse than climate science, this statistical assumption.  that's part of the problem when you take some selected data and make assumptions about other data with it.  see sciencblog rip apart the lancet http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/07/30/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-sc/

and

http://www.truthonpot.com/2013/04/06/does-marijuana-cause-schizophrenia/

 

senior psychiatrist and Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School. According to Dr. Grinspoon, there has yet to be “even a blip in the incidence of schizophrenia in the US after millions of people started smoking marijuana in the 1960s.”

 

if it was a statistically significant correlation, it would have been proven by now, outside of new age reefer madness studies that begin much the same way the IPCC begins its questioning man's climate contribution.             

 

if I didnt have a good reason in spiritual practices, I wouldnt have stopped at all

[Karl]

heh....forgot I hit multiquote

 

common, in a post-hoc ergo propter hoc sort of way.  the studies are not rigorous and merely reflect that people predisposed to mental illness are highly correlated to people that have used drugs - the only statistically significant part basically says "if you're borderline schiophrenic, mj might push you over that border."

 

so thorough, its worse than climate science, this statistical assumption.  that's part of the problem when you take some selected data and make assumptions about other data with it.  see sciencblog rip apart the lancet http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/07/30/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-sc/

and

http://www.truthonpot.com/2013/04/06/does-marijuana-cause-schizophrenia/

 

senior psychiatrist and Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School. According to Dr. Grinspoon, there has yet to be “even a blip in the incidence of schizophrenia in the US after millions of people started smoking marijuana in the 1960s.”

 

if it was a statistically significant correlation, it would have been proven by now, outside of new age reefer madness studies that begin much the same way the IPCC begins its questioning man's climate contribution.             

 

if I didnt have a good reason in spiritual practices, I wouldnt have stopped at all

I don't deny much of that, but the problem here isn't simply one of personal abuse. Many of the recent 'terrorist' incidents which have been attributed to everything to the EU referendum, to Jihadhism, have been perpetrated by people who were taking drugs which included cannabis. It's not like smoking which results in potential self harm, or climate science-although I see why you would use that as an example-it looks like it might be the cause of spurts of violence that result in multiple deaths. Would we wish to consider this again at a later date after the state has effectively accepted the drug as more or less harmless, then have a major incident in which the cause is traced, in full, or part to cannabis use ? Should we really just accept a recreational drug that can cause permanent brain damage ?

 

I'm not convinced that big business isn't pushing an agenda which has a greater potential effect than to the health of the user. If there was a potential for a bus driver, airline pilot (and we have had two such incidents of deliberate mass murder by drug taking pilots) to kill multiples of people because he was one of the few that was effected by cannabis, then, should we be quite so cavalier ?

[joeblast]

we're getting way off topic with this

 

I knew a dude that used to race race cars, and he'd toke up when the cautions came out *shrugs*  damned good driver , but good luck trying to race with no sponsors, its just a bit easier than running for president with no sponsors or big money.  (weed and lack of sponsors were two entirely separate things, not quite so much that he couldnt get them for much of a reason other than a lot of sponsorship was drying up anyway...that stuff happens when the root of fiat is usury...)

Edited August 8, 2016 by joeblast

[Jim D.]

I have treating Schizophrenics since 1990. Your Dr. Ginspoon appears to have experimenter bias. He must be selling something, or trying to get some sort of protocol going so that it will lead him to money. Check your state mental hospitals Joeblast and count the cases. Some psychotic breaks are caused from Substance Abuse. Some are caused from Mood Disorders like from Manic Depression. Schizophrenia is usually diagnosed around the age of 15. But I did not know that Cannabis could cause Schizophrenia.

 

I remember being assessed by a psychiatrist in the 70's that told me that I was pretty close to Schizophrenia, "and you don't want to go there" he said. I smoked Cannabis more than one time, but who knows what they put in Pot now in order to "cut it." There are many carcinogenic substances in Pot. I could see it causing cancer of the lungs, and brain.

 

Well back to Trump. Just glanced at his purposal to reduce taxes...it was a headliner. I didn't go into it because I wanted to check my content. I have a client at 3 PM and won't get done until 8 PM.

 

Oh, I have one client that had a psychotic break due to his primary disease, Alcohol Dependent...his appears to be episodic and alcohol induced called Hallucinosis.

[Jim D.]

Addendum: I am not for legalization of  Marijuana. If McCain stood for that, he would not get my vote, or respect. The reason that the Harrison Narcotic Act 1914 failed is because phyisicians who prescribed Cannabis were also taxed. So, the AMA lobbied against the Act and won.

[Aetherous]

 

There are plenty of other clips of him inciting violence, if you do some simple searching.  And this stuff was in the news for a while.

 

I agree that he is saying "knock the crap out of them, would you, seriously" here...in this case it is him inciting violence in regard to people throwing tomatoes. Other times it's been about self defense, after the person had become violent themselves, and other times it hasn't been a direct call to violence like this one.

 

I do take it completely in jest, though. I don't think he actually expects his supporters to start sending people out in stretchers. That would make for some pretty bad press, and he'd definitely lose. Not everything people say is meant to be taken literally.

[Jim D.]

How do I turn on the sound to these posted youtubes? I can see them but not hear them.

[zerostao]

How do I turn on the sound to these posted youtubes? I can see them but not hear them.

if your device has the sound enabled make sure the video itself you are watching is not set on mute.

 

i am skeptical about herb being a trigger for schizophrenia, there are threads on this site saying that schizophrenia is a trait of shamans, if weed would trigger schizophrenia i would think for that individual another trigger would soon occur. just becoz i sit and type words on this site to invisible friends doesnt mean i am schizophrenic, does it? 

 

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/12/10/harvard-marijuana-doesnt-cause-schizophrenia/63148.html

 

 

 

[Jim D.]

I don't know zerostao, is my response a figment of your immagination. Hello, is there anybody in there? I conduct group therapy with myself as I ride along the rode going from A to B. Check out the end of the movie Multiplicity and you will have a very good idea about my internal life.

[ralis]

if your device has the sound enabled make sure the video itself you are watching is not set on mute.

 

i am skeptical about herb being a trigger for schizophrenia, there are threads on this site saying that schizophrenia is a trait of shamans, if weed would trigger schizophrenia i would think for that individual another trigger would soon occur. just becoz i sit and type words on this site to invisible friends doesnt mean i am schizophrenic, does it? 

 

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/12/10/harvard-marijuana-doesnt-cause-schizophrenia/63148.html

 

 

 

 

I want to add that the so called dangers of Cannabis are lies created by the drug warriors. Cannabis sativa and Cannabis Indica have been cultivated for thousands of years and used for medicine, fiber, food, oil, rituals  etc. E.g. below is a quote from one of Nixon's top aides John Ehrlichman which has been well documented in any number of sites.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/

 

You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

 

 

However, Nixon's political focus on white voters, the "Silent Majority," is well-known. And Nixon's derision for minorities in private is well-known from his White House recordings.

 

The wholesale destruction of millions of lives over an herbaceous plant that grows almost everywhere is preposterous. Further, the so called war on drugs is a war on people, complete with a bloated private prison complex, civil asset forfeiture with no probable cause in many cases and so forth.

Edited August 10, 2016 by ralis

[ralis]

Dan Baum is the journalist who wrote the piece on Nixon's war on drugs.

 

http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

Edited August 10, 2016 by ralis

[Karl]

Ive been on both sides of this argument. There are statistics used on both sides to support their arguments. All I will say is, that it isn't a harmless drug. It caries a risk with its use regardless of the level of that risk.

 

It's also a lovely product for the tobacco companies to get hold of now their 'harmless tobacco' has lost popularity. It is also a great product to apply taxation to fill shortfalls in Government treasuries. There are as many people wanting it legalised as don't. It isn't a clear case of Governments creating laws against the people-in the UK it's virtually legal anyway. Governments are just going with the popularity of criminalisation of certain behaviours. It's just as bad when the state legalised something such as tobacco and then we have massive lobbies and paid politicians arranging all manner of 'proof' to support the agenda. No one is in any doubt these days as to the dangers of smoking, but there was a time when there was more than a little doubt as to the states intentions-particularly after prohibition.

 

I'm trying to be objective, it would be easier if drugs only featured in sad stories of personal/family bust ups, but they feature in many more high profile crimes. That doesn't mean that they specifically are correlated, but neither does it say that there isn't some effect, even if that is a small reduction in IQ for a long term user, that sees his life prospects reduced to the point of experiencing depression.

 

I don't have an answer, nor have I yet found convincing research that shows conclusively one way or another, but let's not kid ourselves that it's just a natural plant that we can take without any long term affects what so ever. Let's treat it like any other drug be it alcohol, coffee or Asprins and neither glorify, or demonise it until we really do know the implications of setting it loose on supermarket shelves as if it was nothing more than a a sprig of parsley, or some tofu.

[ralis]

Ive been on both sides of this argument. There are statistics used on both sides to support their arguments. All I will say is, that it isn't a harmless drug. It caries a risk with its use regardless of the level of that risk.

 

It's also a lovely product for the tobacco companies to get hold of now their 'harmless tobacco' has lost popularity. It is also a great product to apply taxation to fill shortfalls in Government treasuries. There are as many people wanting it legalised as don't. It isn't a clear case of Governments creating laws against the people-in the UK it's virtually legal anyway. Governments are just going with the popularity of criminalisation of certain behaviours. It's just as bad when the state legalised something such as tobacco and then we have massive lobbies and paid politicians arranging all manner of 'proof' to support the agenda. No one is in any doubt these days as to the dangers of smoking, but there was a time when there was more than a little doubt as to the states intentions-particularly after prohibition.

 

I'm trying to be objective, it would be easier if drugs only featured in sad stories of personal/family bust ups, but they feature in many more high profile crimes. That doesn't mean that they specifically are correlated, but neither does it say that there isn't some effect, even if that is a small reduction in IQ for a long term user, that sees his life prospects reduced to the point of experiencing depression.

 

I don't have an answer, nor have I yet found convincing research that shows conclusively one way or another, but let's not kid ourselves that it's just a natural plant that we can take without any long term affects what so ever. Let's treat it like any other drug be it alcohol, coffee or Asprins and neither glorify, or demonise it until we really do know the implications of setting it loose on supermarket shelves as if it was nothing more than a a sprig of parsley, or some tofu.

 

 

There is scant research given the Schedule 1 status here in the USA. However, much anecdotal evidence is piling up everyday that cannot be ignored as to the benefits such as pain relief, PTSD, seizures and so forth. The bizarre part of this insanity is the massive amount of opiates prescribed daily that has lead to an epidemic of addiction. Opiates are perfectly legal when prescribed by a physician and few are putting that problem directly on the pharmaceutical companies.

[Jim D.]

There is scant research given the Schedule 1 status here in the USA. However, much anecdotal evidence is piling up everyday that cannot be ignored as to the benefits such as pain relief, PTSD, seizures and so forth. The bizarre part of this insanity is the massive amount of opiates prescribed daily that has lead to an epidemic of addiction. Opiates are perfectly legal when prescribed by a physician and few are putting that problem directly on the pharmaceutical companies.

 

 

I agree with Karl. Ralis, I disagree with you because you make statements I believe for attention...but fail to provide evidence that supports your statements. You do not seem to be trustworthy as is evidenced by personal comments you have made about me. You seem to be a loose canon. You can continue commenting on my Post if, you support you comments with verifiable data. Moreover, Karl is an accomplished professional who deserves your debating with him as a professional.

[ralis]

I agree with Karl. Ralis, I disagree with you because you make statements I believe for attention...but fail to provide evidence that supports your statements. You do not seem to be trustworthy as is evidenced by personal comments you have made about me. You seem to be a loose canon. You can continue commenting on my Post if, you support you comments with verifiable data. Moreover, Karl is an accomplished professional who deserves your debating with him as a professional.

 

You nor Karl have offered no citations whatsoever to back up your remarks. Moreover, I am not interested in attention and have every right to comment on your posts given that this is a public forum. Karl is a professional in what way?

 

My most recent post had links. Exactly what are the personal comments that I have made in regards to your posts or about you?

Edited August 11, 2016 by ralis

[Karl]

@ralis.

 

I agree that it has qualities which can benefit those with certain illnesses. I'm not anti-drug, only anti a lax attitude that it's harmless when it isn't. It's one of the grey areas for me in a moral sense-as is the law on guns. It's one of those things which requires a law/laws/rules because the population has been turned into mindless sheep who are told that morals are whatever the state says they are, so, if you put cannabis and flame throwers on the supermarket shelf, people will buy them and some will use them indiscriminately . Yet, it's also true, that no matter what the law is, people will get hold of things anyway.

 

I don't find this to be an easy thing to answer. In a world where the state wasn't involved in every aspect of a persons life, where adults became adults instead of being 'forever children' then I'd say open the flood gates, engage the law for those who harm others and that would be that. However, just look at today's young adults and their parents. How many are on drugs like Ritalin and fed it on a routine basis because the state pronounces it safe. Young adults seem incredibly informed in respect of my own experience of youth, but completely devoid of sense in other ways.

[Karl]

You nor Karl have offered no citations whatsoever to back up your remarks. Moreover, I am not interested in attention and have every right to comment on your posts given that this is a public forum. Karl is a professional in what way?

 

My most recent post had links. Exactly what are the personal comments that I have made in regards to your posts or about you?

I don't profess to be. I'm just a concerned bystander in this. I wasn't a professional when I held the opinion that it should be legalised either. I used to use it myself, but not any more, I prefer to dispense with those kind of mood altering/consciousness altering substances unless they have some benefit, but I see none.

[joeblast]

Doesnt sound like these guys know what opiates are doing to those prescribed, ralis

 

Karl and Jim, its just a sad fact for fascists that they cant make anywhere near the profit margin off mj as they do pushing all the other drugs they push, that are a million times more addictive and detrimental to the body.

 

When's the last time you saw someone lose their house over weed, when's the last time someone had to get on their knees for weed?    That's kinda like putting rubbing alcohol on par with liquid hydrogen where fuel's concerned.  If it were that good then it'd rival the # of coffee drinkers, if it were that bad or if it was the gateway that the fascists argue it is, then this country would be way further down the hellhole than it already is.

 

But the federal government has no authority to say anything about cocaine or heroin, either, that's the point where the USA is concerned - the federal government put out a war on its people and has done a vast number of things expressly beyond its limits, to the severe detriment of society.

 

 

 

          Bigger question, methinks, is how do we fix the economic system, change our currency to something non debt based....but unfortunately I think that means the big banks must collapse first... and since the banks have designed themselves so as to be wrapped around the carotid artery of the country, its not going to be pretty removing that parasite from that location.

[Karl]

So your argument for legalising cannabis is that 'some drugs are worse' ?

 

My niece lost her mind after taking cannabis. Now it may be true that cannabis on,y contributed to what was inevitable anyway, but now we won't know because she did take it and the results were both catastrophic and immediate.

 

Many of the 'so called' terrorists have been long time cannabis users. Not all terrorists use cannabis, but some do, it can't be ruled out.

 

It is addictive despite the myth it isn't. Weed users can be very lethargic and have poor short term memory. There is evidence that it can reduce IQ by a few points. It certainly could make it difficult for someone to find employment, or to perform adequately enough to hold down a job. Indeed on of our sales reps who had several car accidents and who's performance fell apart was dismissed and later admitted that this has been a result of taking weed. So, losing ones house, as losing ones job isn't out of the question, then let's look at the four accidents he had ! Another friend of mine, back in the 70s smoked a ton of weed, then got on his bike and was killed in an accident with a truck. The Police were very confused at the scene of the accident. A witness said that he had appeared to have slumped down across the bike seconds before impact, the Police discover his gauntlet on the road several hundred yards before he had crashed. They concluded that in his inebriated state, he had dropped the glove, reached down to pick it up and veered across the road. It isn't harmless guys.

[joeblast]

cmon Karl, I've asserted this one enough times - that is not my rationale at all.  my position is that the federal government has no delegated authority, and where that authority is not delegated, it is reserved to the states - ergo, the states themselves could, if their state constitution allowed, legislate something regarding it - but the feds, please understand what delegated constitutional authority means and what lack thereof means.

 

terriss' strawman

 

+other drugs e.g. alcohol, strawman

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

lol look at this, they apparently wont even tell congress what agencies have her info

 

 

and

 

Julian Assange: "Seth Rich was our source within the DNC, he was murdered because of this."

Wikileaks has stated they will never reveal their sources, unless they are dead I guess and Julian Assange was just on Dutch television telling them that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC leaks and that is why he is now dead.

Edited August 11, 2016 by joeblast

[Karl]

That's just a constitutional cop out, it's not about authority but morality. Would you give it to your kids, would you be happy for your airline pilot to be 'just a little chilled ou' or the Doctor performing surgery on your wife to 'have a little weed to calm his nerves' ?

[joeblast]

strawman - it is about authority, or are you in the business of supporting legislation of morality?  slippery slope, bro.  personally, I draw the line at the point where others are harmed, and there's no data that can be procured that can support the government assuming illegal powers, creating a black market by proxy...the same that created al capone, created the zetas.  that is exponentially more harmful than "letting folks harm themselves to no effect of others."

 

my boy's big enough to decide that for himself, I've already taught him well, and of course very sharp items and heavy machinery should not be operated under the influence.

Edited August 11, 2016 by joeblast