MORE Act. Legal Weed?

[TragicMonkey]

This may be geographic thing, not (just) a stoner thing.

We don't put on airs here in the Western states. We are expansive thinkers, unbound by quaint, old timey concepts. We surf in the morning and snow ski in the afternoon. We don't eat weird hot dogs encrusted in pretzel. We dress for comfort.

JK! Back when I was a big shot consultant, of course I had to dress properly for work. Pompous, restrictive garb such as jeans and tennies.

Bolo ties are harbingers of the inevitable hangmans noose, and rightly so.

 

[ahhell]

I was born and raised in CA, I think pot should be legal but that the DEA should become the SEA, Sandal Enforcement Agency. Any one who is more than 250ft from a pool,lake, river or ocean while wearing sandals should have their feet replaced.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I was born and raised in CA, I think pot should be legal but that the DEA should become the SEA, Sandal Enforcement Agency. Any one who is more than 250ft from a pool,lake, river or ocean while wearing sandals should have their feet replaced.

Finally, a practical proposal.

If you lower that to 100 ft.

 

[plague311]

"No shoes, No shirt, Never sandals"

 

[plague311]

spare me that. It is fact that weed is worse for you than smoking, and the fact the whole weed culture hides behind some creative unorthodox way of life farce is complete nonsense. They should accept conformity, give up on on hemp fantasy and drink beer like the rest of us. Filthy skateboarding scum.... scooterers to!

Ok, Boomer.

 

[rockysmith76]

Ok, Boomer.

Not a boomer you dirt munching stoner (instead of hippy; and for note, they started the name calling so.....)

 

[Belz...]

It is fact that weed is worse for you than smoking

It is? Evidence, please?

 

[3point14]

Close minded or persuaded by the evidence before me?

It's amazingly dishonest to suggest that those stereotypes are totally false and without any merit. Stereotypes are general, not universal and that they may not be representative of an entire population. Not every canabis user is fairly represented by Jeff Spiccoli. But that doesn't mean there aren't individuals just like him.

You're getting your data from Fast Times At Ridgemont High?

This explains a lot.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It is? Evidence, please?

Pot makes people dress badly. Smoking doesn't affect which clothes are worn, but it does make those clothes smell bad. So let's be Solomon and wisely split the difference: both smokers of pot and smokers of tobacco should be cut in half. Yes, this made perfect sense. If you think it doesn't it's because your ratiocinatory powers have degraded over time from prolonged use of filthy, filthy drugs.

 

[acbytesla]

You're getting your data from Fast Times At Ridgemont High?

This explains a lot.

No, I'm not. I'm getting it from brothers and sisters and friends of brothers and sisters and other people I attended school with. Jeff Spiccoli was a caricature of the real thing. My younger brother for almost a decade only cared about his next joint. I never visited his domicile without seeing the ever present bong on the coffee table. The same goes for two of my sisters and one of my older brothers. My younger brother cut down on the weed a while back. But I definitely see lasting effects. He slurs his words. He never did when he was younger before he smoked. Now of course something else could be the cause of that.

 

[3point14]

No, I'm not. I'm getting it from brothers and sisters and friends of brothers and sisters and other people I attended school with.

(Snipped here because, well, look at it)


Have I mentioned I think you need a stats course?

 

[acbytesla]

(Snipped here because, well, look at it)


Have I mentioned I think you need a stats course?

I don't give a crap that you think there aren't individuals out there that are stoners consumed by the drug. I know better and so do you.

 

[3point14]

I don't give a crap that you think there aren't individuals out there that are stoners consumed by the drug. I know better and so do you.

No, you think you know better.

You've ignorantly decided that your world represents the whole of the world and everything, everywhere else is the same as you experience it.

This is why you foolishly obtain your erroneous assumptions:

... from brothers and sisters and friends of brothers and sisters and other people I attended school with.

Which is the very definition of s self selecting sample. If you did a stats course, you'd know that.

What this self selecting sample gives you is a result you can have no confidence in. If you did a stats course, you'd know that.

Making decisions, of any nature, based on observations in which you have no confidence is a foolish thing to do. If you did a stats course, you'd know this.

Basing your judgement only on the massively limited scope of your own life experience is something only someone who knew nothing about statistics would do.

In short, you simply do not have enough information to make the pronouncements you do. But you do it anyway.


I think what would help, maybe, is a stats course.

 

[Belz...]

(Snipped here because, well, look at it)


Have I mentioned I think you need a stats course?

Why, though? He has a tentative conclusion based on limited observation. He hasn't made a statistical claim, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[acbytesla]

Evidence? As others keep pointing out to you, you're relying entirely on anecdotes; as the sayings go "anecdotes aren't evidence" and "the plural of anecdote is not data. There's a reason anecdotal evidence is considered a logical fallacy.

No, I am not. I've cited at least ten articles. The anecdotes are first hand experiences that I find highly valuable. What I find absurd is the argument that no one else hasn't encountered such individuals. That somehow, I have lived in a bubble of outliers.

 

[3point14]

Why, though? He has a tentative conclusion based on limited observation. He hasn't made a statistical claim, to the best of my knowledge.

He makes absolute claims based on extremely limited, uncontrolled observation.

He's indulging in godawful thinking. If we were on a board about knitting or horses or football I'd let it go, but we're not. He's literally countenancing a method of discovery that is the absolute antitheses of what we're supposed to be about here. It's ******* insulting, quite frankly, to bring that weakest of sauce around here and expect to get away with it.

If he wants to indulge in thinking that wooly and not get called on it, he's in the wrong place.

 

[Belz...]

He makes absolute claims based on extremely limited, uncontrolled observation.

He's made it clear that it's his opinion based on his own experience. What more do you want? Do you want him to give you his margin of error?

He's indulging in godawful thinking.

Looks pretty standard to me.

Here's the real question: is he wrong, or right?

 

[acbytesla]

I wasn't referring to YOU being close-minded. To most non-skeptics and especially woo believers, the stereotypical skeptic is close-minded. And according to your own logic, that means it must be rooted in truth. Also, apparently Asians are bad drivers, women suck at math, jocks are dumb, and nerds all wear thick black glasses and pocket protectors.

Point taken. That said, from the time I was 13 to around 30, I lived two lives. One of which was a drug culture where about the only thing that mattered was the buzz. The other was a safe haven away from it.

 

[acbytesla]

I was born and raised in CA, I think pot should be legal but that the DEA should become the SEA, Sandal Enforcement Agency. Any one who is more than 250ft from a pool,lake, river or ocean while wearing sandals should have their feet replaced.

I love my sandals and I live in the Northwest.

 

[3point14]

He's made it clear that it's his opinion based on his own experience. What more do you want? Do you want him to give you his margin of error?



Looks pretty standard to me.

Here's the real question: is he wrong, or right?

He's pretty much entirely wrong about distribution. Which is what knackered sample sizes will do, yes. He's entirely wrong in his outlook. And that's because he's employed godawful thinking to get there.