|
change my name posted:Uhhh you don't appear to actually be pointing out any reasons for keeping it illegal, just posting definitions of words and saying that the studies are wrong. My favorite is the bullet on Tobacco and Alcohol which basically just says "ignore this point, no hypocrisy here." It's a whole lot of words with absolutely nothing of substance in it smack in the middle of the political cartooning thread.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Wait. There's some kind of dispute as to whether caffeine is addictive?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
My chronic, whole-mind disease prevented me from reading the whole post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
euphronius posted:My chronic, whole-mind disease prevented me from reading the whole post. You could literally replace the word marijuana with porn and it'd be the same argument if you scrapped the "illegality of pot causes minorities to be unfairly targeted and discriminated against" part (which was glossed over anyways).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
euphronius posted:My chronic, whole-mind disease prevented me from reading the whole post. My caffeine addiction allowed me to read it at twice the speed as others, and I read it twice for the same reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Wait. There's some kind of dispute as to whether caffeine is addictive? Yeah, this strikes me as odd. I drink a lot of coffee and any day that I don't drink enough I feel miserable. Caffeine is way more addicting than pot, the only reason I ever want to smoke again is because I had fun the last time and not because my body wants me to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:It's a whole lot of words with absolutely nothing of substance in it smack in the middle of the political cartooning thread. So fully appropriate to post here, is what you're saying. Rebel Blob posted:A little late, but I gotcha. Every so often, Pett hits one out of the park. Quoting for the daytime. This is beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:20
|
|
Hey guys, you wanted the modern argument, don't blame me if you don't read it. I could write pages on this stuff, but I doubt it would help-based on most of the comments so far, it is, as I suspected, not a useful thing for me to post about on SA.eviltastic posted:Wait. There's some kind of dispute as to whether caffeine is addictive? Yes, if you're going by the technical definition. I was at a NIDA conference in, I want to say 2003, that was dedicated to trying to find a research consensus. Things got really heated. The majority view at that time, iirc, was that a small percentage of individuals reported behavior that was strong enough to look like addiction, and there was a suspicion that it could be genetic. Everyone agreed that botanical and herbal forms of caffeine needed a lot of further study, because interaction effects weren't well-documented and dietary supplements containing guarana and other botanicals were flooding the market. Several people expressed fear of a public backlash against the government if there was a scheduling recommendation, and everyone agreed toward the end that it would probably take several more generations of studies to decide the issue.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Hey guys, you wanted the modern argument, don't blame me if you don't read it. I could write pages on this stuff, but I doubt it would help-based on most of the comments so far, it is, as I suspected, not a useful thing for me to post about on SA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Hey guys, you wanted the modern argument, don't blame me if you don't read it. I could write pages on this stuff, but I doubt it would help-based on most of the comments so far, it is, as I suspected, not a useful thing for me to post about on SA. "Hey it's addictive, maybe and ya know the research isn't fully correct maybe and the whole racism aspect is bad too so let's change that in some way and it's different from alcohol and cigarettes because it's different" it'd be useful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Quick question regarding cannabis and the constitution. If there is no justification for having laws banning the sale/possession/etc. of cannabis, wouldn't that allow for the nullification of current anti-cannabis laws? Because I was always under the impression that in the United States (and basically any Western Democracy) any law that prohibits or sanctions certan behaviour has to have some reason for limiting the abstract freedom of its targets. (I think the term was "rational basis" or something?) Am I misremembering something about how your country's lawmaking works or is this one of the cases, where people on both sides treat arguments they disagree with as non-existant?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Hey guys, you wanted the modern argument, don't blame me if you don't read it. I could write pages on this stuff, but I doubt it would help-based on most of the comments so far, it is, as I suspected, not a useful thing for me to post about on SA. It's just the modern argument is identical to the argument from the 1910's, in that addiction is bad, and addiction to things I think are bad things is worse. So rather than allowing these things to be regulated they should be banned completely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:32
|
|
Randler posted:Quick question regarding cannabis and the constitution. If there is no justification for having laws banning the sale/possession/etc. of cannabis, wouldn't that allow for the nullification of current anti-cannabis laws? Because I was always under the impression that in the United States (and basically any Western Democracy) any law that prohibits or sanctions certan behaviour has to have some reason for limiting the abstract freedom of its targets. (I think the term was "rational basis" or something?) The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce clause are interpreted to give the Federal government scope for most of its actions. The arguments against this position tend to fixate on the Tenth Amendment, which reserves nonfederal powers for the states or people. This Tenth amendment argument, though, is usually raised in crackpot small government circles.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Hey guys, you wanted the modern argument, don't blame me if you don't read it. I could write pages on this stuff, but I doubt it would help-based on most of the comments so far, it is, as I suspected, not a useful thing for me to post about on SA. I think you'll find it's not really a useful thing for you to post anywhere outside of conservative message boards. Weed is fine, it's much less harmful than alcohol and/or cigarettes, which are both fully legalized. That's basically the entire argument right there. You viewpoint is outdated, you should probably research the issue a bit more because you have some stunningly ignorant conclusions about what you think weed is. Discendo Vox posted:[*]Tobacco? Alcohol? Remember that part of the first bullet where I said other policy factors are an issue? A ton of public health dollars are being spent on reducing cigarette use, but nobody thinks banning tobacco would go over well- at least not until we've spent several decades reducing smoking rates. It does not follow from this that marijuana should be legalized. Alcohol will probably never be banned again, for the same reasons of realpolitik. There's not really hypocrisy here, just an understanding of what would or wouldn't work. Marijuana use rates may be high, but with effective policy and education, the rate of use could be reduced.  Yup, zero hypocrisy. You are not going to reduce the rate of marijuana use no matter how much policy and education you use, remember DARE? E: If you want to talk to an actual pot user who can clear up some things for you feel free to PM me. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You are not going to reduce the rate of marijuana use no matter how much policy and education you use, remember DARE?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
His argument is literally 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:E: If you want to talk to an actual pot user who can clear up some things for you feel free to PM me. Pretty much like our understanding on tobacco effects is based on essays written by smokers and alcoholism is studied by letting alcoholics talk about how great alcohol is without clinical experts' contribution. This wave of defensive behaviour that occurs every time this sort of thing is mentioned (and has zero grounding except for initial bias of participants) is just ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Homestly the only way you're going to see marijuana use drop is if you legalize it. It sounds rear end-backwards, but then it becomes less of a forbidden fruit. I highly doubt this if the giant lines in CO are any indication. The "forbidden fruit" appeal doesn't really exist, it's not "Weed is amazing cause I'm getting away with something illegal!" it's just that weed is amazing. In fact, it's even better if you're smoking in it a state where it's legal, you get much less paranoid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:53
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Pretty much like our understanding on tobacco effects is based on essays written by smokers and alcoholism is studied by letting alcoholics talk about how great alcohol is without clinical experts' contribution. I gotta admit I agree with that Asay cartoon, though. Maybe I should see a doctor.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I highly doubt this if the giant lines in CO are any indication. The "forbidden fruit" appeal doesn't really exist, it's not "Weed is amazing cause I'm getting away with something illegal!" it's just that weed is amazing. In fact, it's even better if you're smoking in it a state where it's legal, you get much less paranoid. It's also been in effect for a whole week so far, wait for a few months until the novelty wears off before deciding whether or not legalization increases usage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I gotta admit I agree with that Asay cartoon, though. Maybe I should see a doctor. Especially when it dares cast even a vague shadow on our own behaviour. Then we must mobilize our strength to drown the other side in a wave of fake nonchalance and sick-nasty burns like a band of insecure children.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
I don't really see the problem with that Asay cartoon. If you presume that alcohol and cannabis have essentially the same risks and should therefore be treated the same, that does not mean you have to legalize it. You could also treat both the same by outlawing both. Neither does indulding in alcohol, especially while explicitly calling it a wrong, mean you have to support cannabis.Discendo Vox posted:The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce clause are interpreted to give the Federal government scope for most of its actions. The arguments against this position tend to fixate on the Tenth Amendment, which reserves nonfederal powers for the states or people. This Tenth amendment argument, though, is usually raised in crackpot small government circles. So what you're saying is that the US legislative is in fact able to limit the behaviour of its citizens in a constitutional way without even needing the slightest bit of factual justification for doing so? (Deliberately absurd example: A new bill that bans all redheads from owning property due to them not having souls.) 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
quiggy stardust posted:It's also been in effect for a whole week so far, wait for a few months until the novelty wears off before deciding whether or not legalization increases usage. I predict that more and more people will have their scary perception of marijuana erased by either A) trying it or B) having a friend who does it regularly. Once they realize that Reefer Madness isn't actually a thing, we'll see usage go up or at least maintain. Keep in mind we got fed a lot of propaganda about drugs growing up, and a lot of our generation really internalized it. The term "gateway drug" is hysterical in retrospect, smoking weed does not make me want to start doing heroin or meth or anything else.' steinrokkan posted:Well, I agreed with Tolstoy when I read his philosophy some time ago, including his views on moderation. Which apparently makes me a relic of pre-industrial Russia because the idea that moderation is a virtue has never existed anywhere else, and definitely has no place today. The War on Drugs has a new group of soldiers, I guess. You're really going to make anti-pot arguments in 2014? What the gently caress does "moderation is a virtue" have to do with legalizing weed? You're extrapolating a personal morality to an entire society that has millions of cigarette smokers and alcoholics already, because we give people the freedom to choose what they want to consume. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Hey guys, you can keep discussing weed if you want to, but I'm going to post some pretty poo poo comics so maybe look at those as well?    
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Randler posted:So what you're saying is that the US legislative is in fact able to limit the behaviour of its citizens in a constitutional way without even needing the slightest bit of factual justification for doing so? (Deliberately absurd example: A new bill that bans all redheads from owning property due to them not having souls.) When has any government every been required to have factual justification for its laws?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Is there even a point to this? Because film companies have filmed in places other than Hollywood for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Randler posted:
No, that would violate the Equal Protection provision of the 14th amendment (which was basically created because of laws exactly as ridiculous as that, but with "negro" in place of "redhead"). The Commerce Clause basically says that if it's an activity that involves economic interactions between two or more states, the federal government has a duty to regulate it for the well-being of the citizens. Something like sales of marijuana would be a legitimate sphere of federal power because it's often grown in one area and shipped across state lines to be sold. You could make an argument that the federal government has no right to prohibit people from growing and using marijuana in their own back yards, but I'm not sure how that would shake out. However, it would definitely be unconstitutional to restrict it based on inherent characteristics of the user (sex, race, hair color, etc.).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
JaggerMcDagger posted:Hey guys, you can keep discussing weed if you want to, but I'm going to post some pretty poo poo comics so maybe look at those as well? EDIT: The robot has a buttcrack. THE ROBOT HAS A BUTTCRACK. Zemyla fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:No, that would violate the Equal Protection provision of the 14th amendment (which was basically created because of laws exactly as ridiculous as that, but with "negro" in place of "redhead"). The Commerce Clause basically says that if it's an activity that involves economic interactions between two or more states, the federal government has a duty to regulate it for the well-being of the citizens. Something like sales of marijuana would be a legitimate sphere of federal power because it's often grown in one area and shipped across state lines to be sold. You could make an argument that the federal government has no right to prohibit people from growing and using marijuana in their own back yards, but I'm not sure how that would shake out. However, it would definitely be unconstitutional to restrict it based on inherent characteristics of the user (sex, race, hair color, etc.). It would be banned anyway because gently caress you hippies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
 A REAL cartoonist would have penned labels like "Jobless benefits," "food stamps," "crack money," etc. into the presents' ribbons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Horsey really is a grumpy old man, sometimes. Who in his right mind complains about the globalisation of the film industry, for such a petty reason?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Romney and McCain voters: The Nation's Ideabasket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
It is very dark. Your political climate is likely to be eaten by a Grue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Typically when I give a presentation on my research, I just leave one slide up while I talk, and it says "I am stupid and I pee in my pants and I didn't do any research of my own."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Air is lava! posted:Horsey really is a grumpy old man, sometimes. Who in his right mind complains about the globalisation of the film industry, for such a petty reason? I don't think we're supposed to sympathize with California here. The stereotype Horsey drew isn't a super positive one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Is there even a point to this? Because film companies have filmed in places other than Hollywood for decades. Basically, California treats the film industry like a never ending well of free money by taxing the hell out of movies and TV filmed in the state. Something like 25% of their budgets disappear through taxes and licenses and assorted nickel-and-dime fees. Vancouver, New Orleans, Chicago, and lots of other cities have nowhere near California's level of taxation, because they see a huge boom in the local economy when Hollywood productions are in town. There's also a lot of stagnation in the work force, a lot of the unions supposedly lock out 'new blood' in order to keep the older members working, who refuse to travel. And I've heard that a lot of the apprentice and bottom level jobs are going to the children and grandchildren of studio heads and various other fat cats, who in turn refuse to actually work because their dad will have you fired. This is all according to family friends in LA, so take it with a grain of salt. Though an actual producer in LA told me I'd have better luck working in film by moving to New Orleans. E: so in the context of the cartoon, California is an obnoxious socialite that doesn't understand why everyone she alienates won't attend the lavish party she threw using money she stole from them. red19fire fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Is there even a point to this? Because film companies have filmed in places other than Hollywood for decades. Hell, the major Studio in NYC has been on the National Register of Historic Places for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:I don't think we're supposed to sympathize with California here. The stereotype Horsey drew isn't a super positive one. Yea, he's saying "Look at California, all rich from taxing the film industry! Well what about when the film industry goes Galt?" Tons of poo poo is still filmed here, because the studios are here. It's something a lot of conservatives from California complain about. red19fire posted:This is all according to family friends in LA, so take it with a grain of salt. Though an actual producer in LA told me I'd have better luck working in film by moving to New Orleans. All producers are lying to you so that you will gently caress them. Rule 1 of Hollywood. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
red19fire posted:Basically, California treats the film industry like a never ending well of free money by taxing the hell out of movies and TV filmed in the state. Something like 25% of their budgets disappear through taxes and licenses and assorted nickel-and-dime fees. Vancouver, New Orleans, Chicago, and lots of other cities have nowhere near California's level of taxation, because they see a huge boom in the local economy when Hollywood productions are in town.  "Uh, there is a $1,000 leaving town tax"
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:40
|
|