Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Does ANYONE believe the gateway drug theory anymore?

Hell, I had a very awkward conversation with my suddenly curious parents about the various cannabinoids and their benefits and the various ways to take them. "Do you HAVE to smoke it?" My mom is now a CBD devotee, and Graham volunteered to help should they decide to go further into THC territory. Amazing how aches and pains will open minds.

My 17 year old aspiring medical researcher told me that there are certain drugs like opioids that can lead you to crave stronger opioids and you could call those gateway drugs but that if Biden's concern is that he thinks someone who has tried pot might try other things the only way that would work is if trying pot made them more likely to think drug laws made so sense and ignore all of them, so the best way to deal with it is to legalize them.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I hear your point. He should ignore both sides.



So does everyone. But ignoring can go both ways here, and would provide an elegant solution. The right and left can whine at FB, and then it can ignore them instead of whining about them whining about FB. Everybody is ignored and people can be left to sort out what is and isn't true on FB, as informed adult users of the site should be compelled to do.



I do. He should not be regulating anything. He has terms of service that ban certain things (the ludicrous ban on display of female nipples comes to mind). But if he wishes to call himself a platform, he cannot start sifting content for truth and banning what he deems untruthful. That's a journalist's job.



I hear this from the left and right. The right says he is somehow burying conservative content. How, I have no idea. The left says he's allowing Russian bots to flood FB with untrue content about Democratic candidates.

First, if you'll let FB posts inform your voting decisions, I have no time for you. You're an idiot who should be removed from the gene pool. But putting that aside, FB is simply a connective device. You don't punish the bullhorn manufacturer for the ramblings of maniac using it to scream awful things on the street corner.



He does. But you're asking him to play "god of content." What criteria shall he use to determine what's true and what's not? Real, actual media can barely do that effectively. FB is supposed to sift through billions of posts and eliminate that which it deems lies? There's a Flat Earth Society on FB. Should that be banned because it's clearly untrue? How about creationists? What about gold bugs predicting economic collapse?

What about politicians who lie? Shall we ban Warren's FB ads promising student loan forgiveness because we know she can't seriously think she can actually deliver it -- that it's clearly just an empty promise?

The suggestion there are 37 genders which exists on FB is untrue. It's scientifically unserious. Should that be banned? Some doctors think fibromyalgia is a made up disease. Ban that? Aspergers has been removed from the DSM-IV. Remove all references to it?

What about Pluto? Should Zuck decide if it's really a planet?

And more broadly, how should he deal with opinion pieces? Should he establish spheres of deviance that he likes and ban opinions that he deems to be based on sketchy facts or misunderstanding of facts?

Next time there's a murder trial involving clear guilt of an alleged perpetrator, should FB remove all stories offered by defenders of the accused? During the next OJ-like fiasco, should FB side with the overwhelming facts and declare anyone accusing the police of a frame-up to be trafficking in lies? Because if you're going to ban lies, you're going to ban a whole lot of what we call 'advocacy."



TV runs ads filled with lies all the time. If I had to list all of the snake oil pitches one sees on TV, I'd need a room full of servers to hold them all.



It taught me that there are arrogant people in the country with the temerity to say the following:

I think it's unfair that a lousy candidate lost an election because dumb people were manipulated. I think we should put safeguards in place to make sure dumb people cannot be manipulated, and I think my view of what is and isn't worthy of voters' eyes should be used as the measuring stick.

Channeling Hitchens in reply to a ludicrously arrogant critic (and I've seen him do this in the flesh): "To that, sir... Uh, fuck you. Fuck you."

I don't know how many genders there are but I've been told you're a cuck.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My 17 year old aspiring medical researcher told me that there are certain drugs like opioids that can lead you to crave stronger opioids and you could call those gateway drugs but that if Biden's concern is that he thinks someone who has tried pot might try other things the only way that would work is if trying pot made them more likely to think drug laws made so sense and ignore all of them, so the best way to deal with it is to legalize them.

The uproar about this shit is silly. He's clearly running to the right of most Democratic candidates. No matter how shitty a candidate everyone thinks (knows?) he is, it is still working. Seems to me his answer was fairly strategic and in line with his base, which is significant. But no one can tell me that he won't sign a bill that a Dem House and Senate pass as it relates to legalization if he becomes President.

This silly shit is why people convince themselves not to vote.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My 17 year old aspiring medical researcher told me that there are certain drugs like opioids that can lead you to crave stronger opioids and you could call those gateway drugs but that if Biden's concern is that he thinks someone who has tried pot might try other things the only way that would work is if trying pot made them more likely to think drug laws made so sense and ignore all of them, so the best way to deal with it is to legalize them.

Especially in states that have legalized it there is a stark uptick in cannabis induced psychosis. People eat massive doses and get as insane as anything that happens organically. It is pretty horrible to see it.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Because if you're going to ban lies, you're going to ban a whole lot of what we call 'advocacy."

This should be your signature line. (Except you should be consistent with the quotation marks.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

The uproar about this shit is silly. He's clearly running to the right of most Democratic candidates. No matter how shitty a candidate everyone thinks (knows?) he is, it is still working. Seems to me his answer was fairly strategic and in line with his base, which is significant. But no one can tell me that he won't sign a bill that a Dem House and Senate pass as it relates to legalization if he becomes President.

This silly shit is why people convince themselves not to vote.

TM

I'm not excited about it, but, dammit, if he provides fodder for a joke I'm going to make a joke. And "gateway drug" is fodder.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Especially in states that have legalized it there is a stark uptick in cannabis induced psychosis. People eat massive doses and get as insane as anything that happens organically. It is pretty horrible to see it.

If I were King, I'd just be treating the stuff the same as any other drug - I'd look for FDA approval before marketing and I'd have the stuff subject to FDA inspection and oversight. I'd do the same with tobacco.

In this world where we seem to be given only two options, legalization or full criminalization classifying it in the same manner as heroin, we're going to get pretty bad shit both ways. Unfortunately, I have a nephew who ended up with some very bad what the docs believe are cannabis induced seizures. He may have had them whether or not the stuff got legalized, but I'm still happier we got him treated and off the stuff rather than having him drying out in the big house.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

It would be bad form to end a letter "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog, too", wouldn't it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If I were King, I'd just be treating the stuff the same as any other drug - I'd look for FDA approval before marketing and I'd have the stuff subject to FDA inspection and oversight. I'd do the same with tobacco.

In this world where we seem to be given only two options, legalization or full criminalization classifying it in the same manner as heroin, we're going to get pretty bad shit both ways. Unfortunately, I have a nephew who ended up with some very bad what the docs believe are cannabis induced seizures. He may have had them whether or not the stuff got legalized, but I'm still happier we got him treated and off the stuff rather than having him drying out in the big house.

It is legal here so I'm not advocating anything re. that.

But the full on "this shit cures all" drives me nuts. My CIP loved one spent years telling me he was "healing" himself by eating the massive doses. By the (hopefully) end of it he was telling me Donald Trump was calling him and appointing him the next official rapper for the United States. Fun times!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

It is legal here so I'm not advocating anything re. that.

But the full on "this shit cures all" drives me nuts. My CIP loved one spent years telling me he was "healing" himself by eating the massive doses. By the (hopefully) end of it he was telling me Donald Trump was calling him and appointing him the next official rapper for the United States. Fun times!

I think it's an open question as to whether there is any legitimate medical usage for it. And an open question as to what the potential harms may be. And I wish to hell we'd turn it over to real medical folks and provide them the funding to figure it out.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I don't know how many genders there are but I've been told you're a cuck.

“Cuck”? Now I’m not saying you’ve got a man crush on some alt-right hottie with one of those Peaky Blinders haircuts, or that tiki torches create a rise in your pleated Dockers, but you sure do seem to know your alt-right slang...

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Weed is a gateway to hard drugs in the same manner Simon & Garfunkel is a gateway band to Slayer.

Weed smokers and coke nuts are totally different personalities, only mixing when the latter need to come down the next morning. Coke people and weed people are fundamentally different people. Often, booze and weed people are fundamentally different.

Weed can lead one to psychedelics because they’re similar introspective highs. But psychedelics are generally harmless (maybe you get a bad trip, but no one dies of mushrooms or acid).

Psychedelics can lead to MDMA use, which can lead to coke use, but this is a really tenuous link.

As for weed leading to heroin, if you’re contemplating heroin you’ve got issues. You’re filling a hole that recreational users don’t understand. Same with meth. If you want a lousy speed buzz that keeps you up forever without the euphoria of coke, you’re fucked on some basic level.

The only true gateway drugs are booze (you might try anything on enough of it) and opioids, which will physically hook you quickly.

Biden needs to drop the phrase “gateway” altogether. He should confer with Hunter. Hunter knows it’s bullshit.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Especially in states that have legalized it there is a stark uptick in cannabis induced psychosis. People eat massive doses and get as insane as anything that happens organically. It is pretty horrible to see it.

Edibles are a problem. But in vapor form it’s actually weaker than smoke. Smoke gets in some people’s heads way more intensely in part due to other organic compounds released from the burning.

Smoke a joint of certain sativa strains and you can get really jittery. Hit the same stuff from a pen or a volcano balloon and you’ll get a mildly peppy body buzz.

Edibles are impossible to predict. You can get pulverized, and it Just Keeps Going. The high is too long and unless you smoke a ton, way too strong. Edibles makers are fucking it up for everyone else.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Then you learned the wrong thing. The real problem is not that some people in this country are arrogant. The problem is the people who were manipulated in various ways to vote for Trump. That is, unless you are more bothered by the arrogant people who voted for Clinton than the fact that Trump won, something you creep around but don't quite say.

Ah, you’re channeling William Henry’s defense of elitism here. I am sympathetic. Loved the book.

The problem is the arrogant people to whom I’m referring are not elites. They’re a different form of quasi-deplorable sold on the idea they are elites.

I don’t wish to read lies that manipulate fools. But what do I gain by having a different breed of fool police that?

Some us don’t want Trump but we also don’t want you playing ref. We resent having to pick from competing brands of dumb.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Edibles are a problem. But in vapor form it’s actually weaker than smoke. Smoke gets in some people’s heads way more intensely in part due to other organic compounds released from the burning.

Smoke a joint of certain sativa strains and you can get really jittery. Hit the same stuff from a pen or a volcano balloon and you’ll get a mildly peppy body buzz.

Edibles are impossible to predict. You can get pulverized, and it Just Keeps Going. The high is too long and unless you smoke a ton, way too strong. Edibles makers are fucking it up for everyone else.

Sure, when you are talking cookies, etc., where dosage is tough to predict. Nicely regulated individual 5 mg candies, on the other hand, can be very enjoyable!