MORE Act. Legal Weed?

[varwoche]

That must explain why I think so many people are morons. You think?

It's possible that if I didn't smoke weed like a fiend that my highly successful career as a software developer would have been even more successful. On the other hand, my software invention that launched me to quasi fame was conceived when I was stoned beyond belief.

 

[acbytesla]

It's possible that if I didn't smoke weed like a fiend that my highly successful career as a software developer would have been even more successful. On the other hand, my software invention that launched me to quasi fame was conceived when I was stoned beyond belief.

That's a good question. Without a good answer.

 

[3point14]

IMV, one is an attempt to experience life to its fullest, the other is an artificial chemical.

Both are an attempt to experience life to it's fullest.

Why is it important to you that it's an 'artificial'* chemical that's causing the high rather than a 'natural' one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurobiological_effects_of_physical_exercise#Effects_on_neurochemistry

I'm well aware that drugs affect people differently.

Perhaps I'm under a misapprehension. But given my experience, persuading me that canabis doesn't have a negative effect on cognitive functioning would be difficult.

Why? Why are you placing more value on your own, unchecked observations of a small, self selected sample over and above actual case studies and the like that have actual protocol and are well controlled?

I simply don't understand how you can cling to your anecdote when everything we know about critical thinking tells you that you shouldn't?




*Marijuana is not artificial, but I get what you mean.

 

[3point14]

Not everyone, but the world certainly seems full of them. I give you Jimmy Kimmel and his man on the street or CNN's recent interviews with Trump supporters on Pennsylvania Avenue.

I think you need a stats course.

Actually, I think the whole damn world needs a statistics course.

 

[3point14]

You think the Canabis plant that people grow today is natural? Today's marijuana is the result of decades of horticultural experimentation and refinement.

Do you know how many of the foods you eat today have been massively changed by artificial selection?

All of them.

Unless you eat foraged (ETA: or hunted) food, every plant or animal you eat is so very far away from it's original, undomesticated ancestor it's all but unrecognisable.

 

[BStrong]

But it means the end of asset forfeiture related to whatever the legal MJ industry displaces. It still seems up in the air to me as to whether Feds will see this the way you expect.

There are a range of activities that are legal when licensed by the federal and state government that are criminal when performed without benefit of those licenses. These activities require that the manufacturer/maker/end user pay for an appropriate "tax Stamp" that documents that the activity or possession of the item in question is properly taxed.

There are in California individuals that are growing and dealing marijuana that have not complied with state law and are subject to prosecution and possible asset forfeiture if arrested.

Believe it our not, there is even today a brisk business in providing untaxed alcohol and tobacco to the consumer market and the Treasury department through A. F. T. & E. are actively involved in investigating and arresting individuals involved in that illegal trade and AF is always a part of their game plan.

Marijuana legalization including a federal excise tax is a win-win for the powers that be.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

...[snipped a lot of stuff that isn't at issue]...
Marijuana legalization including a federal excise tax is a win-win for the powers that be.

I'd be interested in seeing numbers to support this claim. You've only documented one side of the issue.

 

[acbytesla]

Do you know how many of the foods you eat today have been massively changed by artificial selection?

All of them.

Unless you eat foraged (ETA: or hunted) food, every plant or animal you eat is so very far away from it's original, undomesticated ancestor it's all but unrecognisable.

I know that. So?

The feeling of pleasure or euphoria as a result of chemical compounds created naturally by our own bodies is "natural". A similar feeling produced by ingesting chemical compounds whether they were produced by plants or in a laboratory is not.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I know that. So?

The feeling of pleasure or euphoria as a result of chemical compounds created naturally by our own bodies is "natural". A similar feeling produced by ingesting chemical compounds whether they were produced by plants or in a laboratory is not.

What's the moral valuation of pleasure from chemicals naturally created by the body, but triggered by interaction with something artificial?

 

[acbytesla]

Both are an attempt to experience life to it's fullest.

You think? Or is one an escape? Maybe both. It's hard for me to respect the individual who goes for the cheap chemical high. But hey, this is a matter of perspective. You're entitled to your opinion

Why? Why are you placing more value on your own, unchecked observations of a small, self selected sample over and above actual case studies and the like that have actual protocol and are well controlled?

I simply don't understand how you can cling to your anecdote when everything we know about critical thinking tells you that you shouldn't?

I'm not. I said "difficult" not impossible.

 

[plague311]

You think? Or is one an escape? Maybe both. It's hard for me to respect the individual who goes for the cheap chemical high. But hey, this is a matter of perspective. You're entitled to your opinion

Seriously? How many times have you smoked pot?

 

[acbytesla]

What's the moral valuation of pleasure from chemicals naturally created by the body, but triggered by interaction with something artificial?

Ahhh, there it is. That's personal, but I'll tell you.

I have a lot of experience with my loved one's embrace of those artificial highs. I've also worked as a volunteer helping individuals with chemical dependencies. I've been in a lot of homes where everyone is passing the bong around, I've also been around exercise nuts, rock climbers, skydivers etc. One seems vibrant and alive, the other like zombies usually saying nonsensical things.

 

[acbytesla]

Seriously? How many times have you smoked pot?

I didn't count. But a lot in my teens. But not since then.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ahhh, there it is. That's personal, but I'll tell you.

I have a lot of experience with my love one's embrace of those artificial highs. I've also worked as a volunteer helping individuals with chemical dependencies. I've been in a lot of homes where everyone is passing the bong around, I've also been around exercise nuts, rock climbers, skydivers etc. One seems vibrant and alive, the other like zombies usually saying nonsensical things.

Uh, very poetic but I didn't glean a clear answer from it. Natural pleasure from brain chemicals, triggered by interaction with something artificial: good, bad, or neutral?

 

[ahhell]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/

90% of Americans think medicinal pot should be legal, 60% think it should be legal with out restrictions. That includes 55% of Republicans. The only things keeping this from happening are inertia and my dad's generation, the silents, who still mostly oppose legalization of pot.

Sure, pot makes some folks completely useless, still better than booze which makes some folks completely useless except for occasional bouts of violence. Most folks are fine using either in moderation.

 

[3point14]

I know that. So?

The feeling of pleasure or euphoria as a result of chemical compounds created naturally by our own bodies is "natural".

Like the rush you get when skydiving and travelling at 120mph? Or on a roller-coaster, pulling 4.5G?

A similar feeling produced by ingesting chemical compounds whether they were produced by plants or in a laboratory is not.

There's nothing special about 'natural'. If you hold in in such high regard, as you seem to do, I imagine you don't use any transport that travels at more tan about 30mph, you cook on an open fire, don't fly and don't use modern medicine.

I don't imagine you do any of the above and that your insistence on 'natural' only comes into play when - and I'm speculating here - you see pleasure that you believe is 'unearned'.


I'd be less like a dog with a bone on this topic, but you have decided to announce that you are ignoring all the tenets of critical thinking to hold an untenable view on a website devoted to absolutely not doing those things.

 

[acbytesla]

Uh, very poetic but I didn't glean a clear answer from it. Natural pleasure from brain chemicals, triggered by interaction with something artificial: good, bad, or neutral?

I'm not a poet. Nor do I try to be. I thought it was pretty clear. A "valuation" is necessarily personal. This was my valuation. Others are going to apply their own.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm not a poet. Nor do I try to be. I thought it was pretty clear. A "valuation" is necessarily personal. This was my valuation. Others are going to apply their own.

I'm saying I don't know what your valuation is. The way you replied doesn't make it clear, at least to my reading comprehension. I'm not arguing with you here, I'm just asking your opinion.

 

[acbytesla]

Like the rush you get when skydiving and travelling at 120mph? Or on a roller-coaster, pulling 4.5G?

There's nothing special about 'natural'. If you hold in in such high regard, as you seem to do, I imagine you don't use any transport that travels at more tan about 30mph, you cook on an open fire, don't fly and don't use modern medicine.

I don't imagine you do any of the above and that your insistence on 'natural' only comes into play when - and I'm speculating here - you see pleasure that you believe is 'unearned'.

I occasionally cook over an open fire. But I think it's disingenuous to compare these things to popping pills, smoking dope, snorting coke or shooting up.

I'd be less like a dog with a bone on this topic, but you have decided to announce that you are ignoring all the tenets of critical thinking to hold an untenable view on a website devoted to absolutely not doing those things.

You've said this twice now. I'm more than willing to reevaluate my positions on credible evidence. But all studies are not credible and each should be reviewed critically. My study and personal experiences have informed my view. It's not perfect, but it is open to revision.

 

[3point14]

I occasionally cook over an open fire. But I think it's disingenuous to compare these things to popping pills, smoking dope, snorting coke or shooting up.

That's just a blank statement. I'd like to see the thinking that's caused you to arrive at this opinion.

You've said this twice now. I'm more than willing to reevaluate my positions on credible evidence. But all studies are not credible and each should be reviewed critically. My study and personal experiences have informed my view. It's not perfect, but it is open to revision.

You've got more front that a Saturday morning greengrocer.

"Hello critical thinkers, your methods are bollocks and my, self selecting, limited and uncontrolled sample size, at which I arrived by deliberately seeking out those for whom drugs have caused an issue, has more weight than actual, controlled studies done by people who understand the scientific method"


You're an ideologue, not a critical thinker, I'm afraid.