Whatever happened to the culture warriors? Everyone is either a gay soldier or a black president nowadays. Or perhaps even a pot decriminalizing televangelist? This is old Pat Robertson, now. Pat Robertson is sick of the War on Marijuana.

Robertson's pot comments aired on the December 16 edition of 700 Club, in case you had to miss that one.

"It got to be a big deal in campaigns: 'He's tough on crime,' and 'lock 'em up!'" the Christian Coalition founder said. "That's the way these guys ran and, uh, they got elected. But, that wasn't the answer."
His co-host added that the success of religious-run dormitories for drug and alcohol cessation therapy present an "opportunity" for faith-based communities to lead the way on drug law reforms.
"We're locking up people that have taken a couple puffs of marijuana and next thing you know they've got 10 years with mandatory sentences," Robertson continued. "These judges just say, they throw up their hands and say nothing we can do with these mandatory sentences. We've got to take a look at what we're considering crimes and that's one of 'em.
"I'm ... I'm not exactly for the use of drugs, don't get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it's just, it's costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That's not a good thing."
He's still a vicious dick. I mean, in this same calendar year, he's blamed the Haitian people for bringing the earthquake upon themselves, centuries ago, when they liberated themselves from slavery. But that's a coherent, moderate marijuana policy argument! Even if you don't really care for religious focus of Robertson's take, it's an much-needed argument that can gain traction among social conservatives. This draconian crap will remain a third rail in national politics until more simple, constituent-tailored reasons like this bring political cover.

http://gawker.com/5716175/pat-robertson-wants-the-devils-weed-decriminalized?skyline=true&s=i

Now even pat Robertson is for decriminalizing pot

Good on him.

Driving things underground is never a valid solution and if its legalised it means big ass companies can manufacture it and make it toxic!

Holy fething christmas! That's awesome! Pat, your senility is finally paying off.

Good, smoke it up. Maybe then folks will chill out and stop being so damn uptight all the time.

I was watching a show the other day... These cops were in Hawaii, flying around in a helicopter, looking for weed. They had a guy hanging down on a line, they'd spot some weed, hover, he'd unhook, pull out the plant, hook back on, and they'd fly away.

Think about that...

How much does it cost to operate a helicopter per hour? $1000 or so? And honestly, how many people are going to die per year when you fly around with a dude hanging under a helicopter? More than are dying from weed...

So these guys are flying around, and over the course of the show, they pull up about 5 plants. Like, three foot tall plants.

What sort of use of time and resources is that?

Legalize it and tax it 1000% percent. You could tax it at 1000% percent, and it would STILL be cheaper for the smokers. This stuff is WEED. It's not even hard to grow and harvest like tobacco is.

You put the criminals out of business, and their proceeds go to taxes.

Honestly, I think it's a commentary on just how totally unprepared we are to solve our problems that we still ban weed.

And, P.S. if we're going to legalize weed, LEGALIZE IT. Don't just let shady doctors write bogus prescriptions to college kids. All that does is diminish the credibility of doctors, and teach college kids that lying is how government works.

We couldn't be any more wrong about this whole thing.

IT'S A TRAP!!!!

Sorry, thats all I can think as I read this.

I don't think I've ever agreed with Phryxis more.

It occurs to me to wonder whether old Pat or someone close to him has been diagnosed with cancer and he's learned that's an effective anti-nausea med. But maybe I'm just being cynical. IME a lot of these old judgmental moralists (Rush Limbaugh saying drug addicts should be locked up, anyone?) don't see reason until their ox is gored.

As a patient in the medical cannabis industry....its kind of a mixed bag. I mean out here they ARE weed stores. But also you have people with chronic pain and other serious conditions that use weed instead of opiate pain meds. Personally it helps me with my bones when it rains (broken my hands many times), as well as my chronic nausea. Since getting my card I have not had a drop of booze or taken any Rx pain/nausea meds.

Yes, I do like smokin the herb....but you never hear about folks getting stoned and having a bar fight.

I too dont see why we have a "war on drugs" with marijuana included in it. I get fighting heroine and other hardcore drugs, but pot? Really? There is just SO much tax payer money being burned for that crap, and why?

I agree, make it legal, and do like the big tobacco companies did with tobacco, make it a sell able product and profit the hell out of it. Seriously who WOULDNT want to smoke a J every now and then? I know I would. I get some awesomely terrible pains in my knee from something I picked up as a child and would love to have that dulled every once in awhile

Peter Wiggin wrote:As a patient in the medical cannabis industry....its kind of a mixed bag. I mean out here they ARE weed stores. But also you have people with chronic pain and other serious conditions that use weed instead of opiate pain meds. Personally it helps me with my bones when it rains (broken my hands many times), as well as my chronic nausea. Since getting my card I have not had a drop of booze or taken any Rx pain/nausea meds.

Yes, I do like smokin the herb....but you never hear about folks getting stoned and having a bar fight.

Eeeeeeepic Can I visit? Please?

I'd agree with Phryxis as well, been thinking that would be the best way to deal with it for a long while.

On top of which with a regulated, legal option on the cigarette counter, it would hopefully get rid of the dangerous 'Skunk' strength varient over here, or at least put a dent in its popularity.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I'd agree with Phryxis as well, been thinking that would be the best way to deal with it for a long while.

On top of which with a regulated, legal option on the cigarette counter, it would hopefully get rid of the dangerous 'Skunk' strength varient over here, or at least put a dent in its popularity.

Skunk is wonderful. Purple is wonderful. However, a good organic indoor sativa has the best odor and heady high. Your skunky indica's and purple indica's are going to have a more laid back vibe with lots of flavor on the exhale of the smoke. Similar to the effect you get from a fine wine tasting.

Hey, ever heard of a pothead beating his wife in a stoned rage?

PS Yes you weirdo Cannerus, you can visit. Oakland Cali baby, home of the Raiders and the best weed in Amerika. Humbolt country not included...they literally throw bud on the ground there.

Oh, yeah this is the only place in the US I've seen where they LITERALLY give away weed plants "because they aren't pretty enough to sell".


My preferred weed brand. Compostable packaging, consistent quality, all organic.

http://www.organicann.com/

Phryxis wrote: and teach college kids that lying is how government works.

You mean it's not?

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Skunk is wonderful. Purple is wonderful. However, a good organic indoor sativa has the best odor and heady high. Your skunky indica's and purple indica's are going to have a more laid back vibe with lots of flavor on the exhale of the smoke. Similar to the effect you get from a fine wine tasting.

Hey, ever heard of a pothead beating his wife in a stoned rage?

To be honest, its more of a issue with youth over here, I suppose at the end of the day its probably no worse than the young drinkers causing issues on a Saturday night. As in the media outrage is worse than the actual problem.

However there is a perception in the British media that Skunk is more harmful than normal Cannabis, and teens/Chavs on it are more unstable and/or dangerous. I've not looked into that much, but thats why I raised 'Skunk' in particular, of course as with much in the media the truth may not be as clear cut as they are making it seem.

You mean it's not?

Oh, it totally is, but until you stop teaching each generation that's how it works, there's no chance at all that it will change.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Skunk is wonderful. Purple is wonderful. However, a good organic indoor sativa has the best odor and heady high. Your skunky indica's and purple indica's are going to have a more laid back vibe with lots of flavor on the exhale of the smoke. Similar to the effect you get from a fine wine tasting.

Hey, ever heard of a pothead beating his wife in a stoned rage?

To be honest, its more of a issue with youth over here, I suppose at the end of the day its probably no worse than the young drinkers causing issues on a Saturday night. As in the media outrage is worse than the actual problem.

However there is a perception in the British media that Skunk is more harmful than normal Cannabis, and teens/Chavs on it are more unstable and/or dangerous. I've not looked into that much, but thats why I raised 'Skunk' in particular, of course as with much in the media the truth may not be as clear cut as they are making it seem.

Sounds like most of your country needs a bit of an education on the biochemical effects of alcohol vs cannabis. Trust me, drinking is FAR more damaging to both the adolescent and adult human.

Booze leads to DUI's, bar fights, liver damage, and eventual death by slow poisoning. Weed leads to munchies and sexing fat girls.


Skunk strains are generally sativa, or sativa dominant. This leads to "uplifted" emotions....IE giggles, enjoymet of tactile sensation, munchies, etc. The high THC content can also make you a bit paranoid....its not really "damaging" to anythign other than your motivation. Easier on the lungs than tobacco.

Trust me, drinking is FAR more damaging to both the adolescent and adult human.

Meh. I think EXCESSIVE drinking is deadly, whereas excessive pot smoking is not.

At lower levels of usage, alcohol is harmless, whereas pot can still impact your overal ability to regulate mood and can delay some aspects of the maturation process. I'm talking 1 drink a day as compared to a pinner a day.

I'm not totally sure that lines up in terms of actual usage level, tho. One drink won't get you drunk, but a pinner will get you stoned for a time.

Bottom line, the "range" of what alcohol can do to you is a lot greater than what pot will do. Alcohol ranges from "nothing" to "kill." Pot ranges from "stoned" to "very stoned."

Well I don't really drink, but I think the regulations they bring onto Alchohol is a bit draconian to target the whole based on the activities of a percentage of younger drinkers.

I'd think copying the U.S and bringing in a under 21 policy would do much more good to the general harmony of the streets in the UK on Friday and Saturday nights than raising taxes on booze across the board.

I would agree whole heartidly drinking is more dangerous though, I'm one of those who believes 'if drinking was invented today it'd be Class A restricted substance.'
Obviously it hasn't been though, so we need to deal with it in the best way possible.


As to Canabis, if you can see them, look up 'frank' Canabis adverts for UK telly. It will show you our Goverments view on the substance. I'd link it myself, but youtube is work blocked.

Phryxis wrote:

Trust me, drinking is FAR more damaging to both the adolescent and adult human.

Meh. I think EXCESSIVE drinking is deadly, whereas excessive pot smoking is not.

At lower levels of usage, alcohol is harmless, whereas pot can still impact your overal ability to regulate mood and can delay some aspects of the maturation process. I'm talking 1 drink a day as compared to a pinner a day.

I'm not totally sure that lines up in terms of actual usage level, tho. One drink won't get you drunk, but a pinner will get you stoned for a time.

Bottom line, the "range" of what alcohol can do to you is a lot greater than what pot will do. Alcohol ranges from "nothing" to "kill." Pot ranges from "stoned" to "very stoned."

Very good description. NO drugs are good for teens as it disrupts the development of the body, but weed isn't exactly something that you suck dick on the corner for.

Lol, all the world is slowly accepting the stuff, and here it's getting pushed back further every year.

Next year, foreigners won't even be able to get into any coffee shops anymore, you'll need a pass that is only obtainable if your Dutch.

Glory to dealers is their plan apparantly.

I mis-read the title as "robert pattinson"

Samus_aran115 wrote:I mis-read the title as "robert pattinson"

Same

weed isn't exactly something that you suck dick on the corner for.

Maybe YOU don't.

But, the fundamental point is roughly the same... Weed is a "gateway drug?" Ok... And how many people who have done crack didn't first drink alcohol? How many didn't first smoke a cigarette?

I'm going to take a wild guess: 0. Or, to be as acurate as possible, 0.0000.

Why aren't cigarettes "gateway drugs?" Or alcohol?

Hell, we scarf down caffeine like it's nothing, but if you get a little too much of that crap in your system, it's a whole lot more pronounced of a physical effect than a LOT of prescription drugs. It's also highly addictive.

I'll stop now, lest I sound like one of those annoying college activists who think that repeating facts has anything to do with politics. Which, I guess, is what I was suggesting earlier that they should think.

Things are only gateway drugs if they are seen to be drugs, you wont be persuaded to try crack by a government regulated business whereas your local dealer probably will.

Marijuana is a gateway drug? I thought acid was You can get 10 hits of acid for 5 bucks where I live. You can get a pinch of weed for like 5 too. I dunno. The city is different. Weed probably appeals to kids that think that they have something going for them.

I've noticed that. "No, I have to go to college one day. I can't do those heavy drugs. I'll just smoke pot!".... Can't you just not do ANY drugs?

Samus_aran115 wrote:Marijuana is a gateway drug? I thought acid was You can get 10 hits of acid for 5 bucks where I live. You can get a pinch of weed for like 5 too. I dunno. The city is different. Weed probably appeals to kids that think that they have something going for them.

I've noticed that. "No, I have to go to college one day. I can't do those heavy drugs. I'll just smoke pot!".... Can't you just not do ANY drugs?

10 hits of acid for $5 bucks..????...I've no idea what city you live in...but clearly the dealers that live there are idiots.

Or it's not acid.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Or it's not acid.

That would have been my second thought.
Acid was between $6 and $9dollars a hit when I was a teenager...and that was over 20 years ago.

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Or it's not acid.

That would have been my second thought.
Acid was between $6 and $9dollars a hit when I was a teenager...and that was over 20 years ago.

Oh you and your dashing, handsome, youthful self those 20 years ago.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Or it's not acid.

That would have been my second thought.
Acid was between $6 and $9dollars a hit when I was a teenager...and that was over 20 years ago.

Oh you and your dashing, handsome, youthful self those 20 years ago.

...As opposed to my current greying,wrinkling curmudgeonly self of today. ...*sigh*...Yesterday.

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Or it's not acid.

That would have been my second thought.
Acid was between $6 and $9dollars a hit when I was a teenager...and that was over 20 years ago.

Oh you and your dashing, handsome, youthful self those 20 years ago.

...As opposed to my current greying,wrinkling curmudgeonly self of today. ...*sigh*...Yesterday.

For what it's worth you look happy enough in your pic, and I can't see any greying hair under that hat of yours.

EDIT: In my crotchety age I appear to becoming senile and forgetting how to spell.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Or it's not acid.

That would have been my second thought.
Acid was between $6 and $9dollars a hit when I was a teenager...and that was over 20 years ago.

Oh you and your dashing, handsome, youthful self those 20 years ago.

...As opposed to my current greying,wrinkling curmudgeonly self of today. ...*sigh*...Yesterday.

For what it's worth you look happy enough in your pic, and I can't see any greying hair under that hat of yours.

EDIT: In my crotchety age I appear to becoming senile and forgetting how to spell.

... ...You do realize that that's not me in my avatar...or are you referring to another "happy" and another "hat"...lord ..now I'm confused...I should go watch the 700 club and smoke a blunt.

Phryxis wrote:

weed isn't exactly something that you suck dick on the corner for.

Maybe YOU don't.

But, the fundamental point is roughly the same... Weed is a "gateway drug?" Ok... And how many people who have done crack didn't first drink alcohol? How many didn't first smoke a cigarette?

I'm going to take a wild guess: 0. Or, to be as acurate as possible, 0.0000.

Why aren't cigarettes "gateway drugs?" Or alcohol?

Hell, we scarf down caffeine like it's nothing, but if you get a little too much of that crap in your system, it's a whole lot more pronounced of a physical effect than a LOT of prescription drugs. It's also highly addictive.

I'll stop now, lest I sound like one of those annoying college activists who think that repeating facts has anything to do with politics. Which, I guess, is what I was suggesting earlier that they should think.

Actually its because there are zero physical withdrawl side effects from cannabis. Less so than even tobbacco. The entire "gateway drug" angle is a sham that any class in addiction medicine will educate you on.


Saying that because you don't smoke ciggarettes you will not smoke crack is a very very ummm, not smart comment. Caffine is addictive, but its side effect profile for withdrawl is prety minimal...IE you don't suck dick on the corner for coffee. Drugs like heroin, meth, alcohol, and benzo's (xanax, librium, valium) all have side effects that can either kill you or make you wish you were dead. THAT is what drives people to sell their stuff, their bodies, their morals, etc in order to get the drug. Its not about the rush, its about not feeling sick at that point.

Decriminalization over legalization. If it were legalized, big companies would be all over it like a Fatkid on snickers. Who knows what kind of gak they'd add to it. Decriminalize it so you can grow 5 or 25 plants in your garden without being worried about going off to the klink.

Here, Weed is a type A narcotic and you go to jail for like 25 years for a gram. Before 1947, however, it was everywhere and people smoked it and it was no big deal. The occupation forces didn't want their dudes getting high, so they had the japanese turn over the weed they had for food and nylons and stuff. The slang term 'Chiba' comes from an area near Tokyo where weed grew, and grows, apparently. I found a male plant in a parking lot about 2 months ago. I would always go by and see if had turned hermaphroditic.lol

They drink like fish here. Where else can you buy a three litre bottle of Whiskey in a hardware store for $30? It'll be a long, long, long, long, long, long time before they ever legalize weed here. Japan Tobacco and the big beverage companies, like Asahi and Suntory, would be the only companies permitted to sell it.

Whatever. GO team Weed.

This really makes me want to go take a pic of my favorite weed store. Its literally on the corner next to the Oakland Police Department HQ. The cops walk past it on their way to Starbucks....its so great.

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Or it's not acid.

That would have been my second thought.
Acid was between $6 and $9dollars a hit when I was a teenager...and that was over 20 years ago.

Oh you and your dashing, handsome, youthful self those 20 years ago.

...As opposed to my current greying,wrinkling curmudgeonly self of today. ...*sigh*...Yesterday.

For what it's worth you look happy enough in your pic, and I can't see any greying hair under that hat of yours.

EDIT: In my crotchety age I appear to becoming senile and forgetting how to spell.

... ...You do realize that that's not me in my avatar...or are you referring to another "happy" and another "hat"...lord ..now I'm confused...I should go watch the 700 club and smoke a blunt.

Yes, I do realize that and er...well, that went south quickly.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I'd agree with Phryxis as well, been thinking that would be the best way to deal with it for a long while.

On top of which with a regulated, legal option on the cigarette counter, it would hopefully get rid of the dangerous 'Skunk' strength varient over here, or at least put a dent in its popularity.

Skunk is wonderful. Purple is wonderful. However, a good organic indoor sativa has the best odor and heady high. Your skunky indica's and purple indica's are going to have a more laid back vibe with lots of flavor on the exhale of the smoke. Similar to the effect you get from a fine wine tasting.

Hey, ever heard of a pothead beating his wife in a stoned rage?

PS Yes you weirdo Cannerus, you can visit. Oakland Cali baby, home of the Raiders and the best weed in Amerika. Humbolt country not included...they literally throw bud on the ground there.

Oh, yeah this is the only place in the US I've seen where they LITERALLY give away weed plants "because they aren't pretty enough to sell".


My preferred weed brand. Compostable packaging, consistent quality, all organic.

http://www.organicann.com/

This is the thing I really fething hate about this area. Smoke your gak but goddamn do I not want to smell it when you walk into my business.

VermGho5t wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I'd agree with Phryxis as well, been thinking that would be the best way to deal with it for a long while.

On top of which with a regulated, legal option on the cigarette counter, it would hopefully get rid of the dangerous 'Skunk' strength varient over here, or at least put a dent in its popularity.

Skunk is wonderful. Purple is wonderful. However, a good organic indoor sativa has the best odor and heady high. Your skunky indica's and purple indica's are going to have a more laid back vibe with lots of flavor on the exhale of the smoke. Similar to the effect you get from a fine wine tasting.

Hey, ever heard of a pothead beating his wife in a stoned rage?

PS Yes you weirdo Cannerus, you can visit. Oakland Cali baby, home of the Raiders and the best weed in Amerika. Humbolt country not included...they literally throw bud on the ground there.

Oh, yeah this is the only place in the US I've seen where they LITERALLY give away weed plants "because they aren't pretty enough to sell".


My preferred weed brand. Compostable packaging, consistent quality, all organic.

http://www.organicann.com/

This is the thing I really fething hate about this area. Smoke your gak but goddamn do I not want to smell it when you walk into my business.

Ah, I see where you live. Yes I can imagine its a bit....over the top. Plus the mexicans doing grows in the state park is a problem. AMERICAN WEED FOR AMERICAN GROWERS.

P.S. Of course you should be responsible and respectful of others...don't walk around smelling like a brewery or like a grow room.

Man, I haven't seen one single stoner since I moved here
Oh right i know why
IT'S PUNISHABLE BY DEATH HERE LMAO
(not just weed, any narcotic. i would NOT want to get busted!)
I used to smoke it sometimes before i moved, but i sure as hell wouldn't consider it here!

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Actually its because there are zero physical withdrawl side effects from cannabis. Less so than even tobbacco. The entire "gateway drug" angle is a sham that any class in addiction medicine will educate you on.

Now I am all for the legalization of pot but this statement is unequivocally wrong. Obviously there is nowhere near the withdrawal effects of something like an opiate but there is an established withdrawal effect among heavy cannabis users that includes symptoms such as irritability, insomnia, and loss of appetite. Talk to someone who always smokes before bed and then talk to them after they've stopped for a week. Don't take this as an attack I actually agree with your views but I also don't like false pro-legalization info just as much as false anti- legalization info.

On another note I can't wait to get back out to Cali to try that wonderful stuff again. Last time I was there was when I was 18 in the Tahoe area and it was insane. They were literally just giving it away for free at the ski lifts.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Actually its because there are zero physical withdrawl side effects from cannabis. Less so than even tobbacco. The entire "gateway drug" angle is a sham that any class in addiction medicine will educate you on.

Now I am all for the legalization of pot but this statement is unequivocally wrong. Obviously there is nowhere near the withdrawal effects of something like an opiate but there is an established withdrawal effect among heavy cannabis users that includes symptoms such as irritability, insomnia, and loss of appetite. Talk to someone who always smokes before bed and then talk to them after they've stopped for a week. Don't take this as an attack I actually agree with your views but I also don't like false pro-legalization info just as much as false anti- legalization info.

On another note I can't wait to get back out to Cali to try that wonderful stuff again. Last time I was there was when I was 18 in the Tahoe area and it was insane. They were literally just giving it away for free at the ski lifts.

\


No, U RONG. Trust me on this one, I hold a CADAAC for the state of California and have worked in the behavioral health care/addiction medicine feild for 3 years. The WORST possible physical side effect that cannabis withdrawl can cause is a headache. You may also be grouchy....its about on par with cigg withdrawl, only you don't get the shakes like you do from lack of nicotine.

Edit: Please note that I said zero physical side effects. This means shakes, radically lowered pain threshold, diarhea, seizures, hallucination, etc. THOSE are the things that keep folks hooked on things like xanax, pain killers, heroin, etc. Yayo doesn't really "hurt you" from withdrawl, but it really makes you wish you were dead. That and folks tend to sleep for like a week after a bender. Being irritable is NOT a sign of phsycial withdrawl. Its a sign you didn't get your morning coffee.

I speak from the standpoint of an educated professional, as well as a cannabis user.


Yeah, you can get free weed here. Usually its the crappy stuff that nobody would be able to sell. However I got 2 plants for free from my local club at Xmas. Oh, another thing is that this industry prides itself on "local grown" and "american weed". None of that pesky funding of organized crime....well unless you count the Oakland City Council's cut off the top.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mukkin'About wrote:Man, I haven't seen one single stoner since I moved here
Oh right i know why
IT'S PUNISHABLE BY DEATH HERE LMAO
(not just weed, any narcotic. i would NOT want to get busted!)
I used to smoke it sometimes before i moved, but i sure as hell wouldn't consider it here!

Effective deterant. I wouldn't smoke either, not worth getting killed.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Please note that I said zero physical side effects. This means shakes, radically lowered pain threshold, diarhea, seizures, hallucination, etc. THOSE are the things that keep folks hooked on things like xanax, pain killers, heroin, etc. Yayo doesn't really "hurt you" from withdrawl, but it really makes you wish you were dead. That and folks tend to sleep for like a week after a bender. Being irritable is NOT a sign of phsycial withdrawl. Its a sign you didn't get your morning coffee.

Clinical treatment tends to lag behind the state of the medical art for a variety of ethical reasons, but yes, what your quoted poster discussed are physical effects of withdrawal. All perceptible effects of anything, even irritability, are physical. To say otherwise is basically an appeal to Cartesian dualism.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Effective deterant. I wouldn't smoke either, not worth getting killed.

Well, you wouldn't be seen smoking, or stoned. The death penalty doesn't really deter the act, unless the act is "doing X in a cavalier fashion".

dogma wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Please note that I said zero physical side effects. This means shakes, radically lowered pain threshold, diarhea, seizures, hallucination, etc. THOSE are the things that keep folks hooked on things like xanax, pain killers, heroin, etc. Yayo doesn't really "hurt you" from withdrawl, but it really makes you wish you were dead. That and folks tend to sleep for like a week after a bender. Being irritable is NOT a sign of phsycial withdrawl. Its a sign you didn't get your morning coffee.

Clinical treatment tends to lag behind the state of the medical art for a variety of ethical reasons, but yes, what your quoted poster discussed are physical effects of withdrawal. All perceptible effects of anything, even irritability, are physical. To say otherwise is basically an appeal to Cartesian dualism.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Effective deterant. I wouldn't smoke either, not worth getting killed.

Well, you wouldn't be seen smoking, or stoned. The death penalty doesn't really deter the act, unless the act is "doing X in a cavalier fashion".

Bolded for clarity, Dogma...in this case your vaunted intelligence isn't really gonna win. I don't need to argue because I've taken dozens of classes on the biochemical effects of just about every drug in the world...from cannabis to khat, and even touching on salvia divinorum. This also included clinical treatment, research options, long term effects on brain activity, etc.

I know what I'm talking about. Irritability is NOT a physical side effect as it does not occur as a result of dopaminergic action in the mesolimbic pathway.

Emotional Withdrawal Symptoms

* Anxiety
* Restlessness
* Irritability
* Insomnia
* Headaches
* Poor concentration
* Depression
* Social isolation

Physical Withdrawal Symptoms

* Sweating
* Racing heart
* Palpitations
* Muscle tension
* Tightness in the chest
* Difficulty breathing
* Tremor
* Nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea

Dangerous Withdrawal Symptoms

Alcohol and tranquilizers produce the most dangerous physical withdrawal. Suddenly stopping alcohol or tranquilizers can lead to seizures, strokes, or heart attacks in high risk patients. A medically supervised detox can minimize your withdrawal symptoms and reduce the risk of dangerous complications. Some of the dangerous symptoms of alcohol and tranquillizer withdrawal are:

* Grand mal seizures
* Heart attacks
* Strokes
* Hallucinations
* Delirium tremens (DTs)

Withdrawal from opiates like heroin and oxycontin is extremely uncomfortable, but not dangerous unless they are mixed with other drugs. Heroin withdrawal on its own does not produce seizures, heart attacks, strokes, or delirium tremens. (Reference: www.AddictionsAndRecovery.org)

YOu will find cannabis withdrawl includes the emotional list, however NOTHING from the physical list. Emotion vs Physical is a key point in treatment concerns....IE your pot smoker will not be driven by pain or sickness to "fix" the way other drug abusers are.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Bolded for clarity, Dogma...in this case your vaunted intelligence isn't really gonna win.

How does placing my own words in bold help to clarify anything? I am well aware of what I wrote.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I don't need to argue because I've taken dozens of classes on the biochemical effects of just about every drug in the world...from cannabis to khat, and even touching on salvia divinorum. This also included clinical treatment, research options, long term effects on brain activity, etc.

That's nice.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I know what I'm talking about. Irritability is NOT a physical side effect as it does not occur as a result of dopaminergic action in the mesolimbic pathway.

So what causes it? Magical THC deprivation beams?

No, it has a physical cause, as does everything else that occurs in the brain. Its simply that, from a clinicians perspective, attributing things to emotion is what is done when one has no solid grasp of the process that is actually occurring. It helps to reassure the patient when "solid" answers are given with respect to questions about certain effects.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
YOu will find cannabis withdrawl includes the emotional list, however NOTHING from the physical list.

You are aware that emotions are the perceptual manifestation of neurochemical processes, right?

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Emotion vs Physical is a key point in treatment concerns....IE your pot smoker will not be driven by pain or sickness to "fix" the way other drug abusers are.

Pain and sickness are forms of discomfort, and pot smokers are certainly driven by discomfort in many instances. Its simply that their discomfort isn't as strong as, say, someone who is going through alcohol detox.

Wait a minute how is a headache not a physical ailment?

And please explain to me how if you start experiencing insomnia from withdrawing use of a substance that is an emotional response?

Im genuinely curious as my understanding of addiction medicine is that its widely varied and depends on what the researchers personal beliefs are. Im guessing your list is from a class you took yes? So there's no possibility that theres other views on the subject?

Also could you explain to me why its only a physical side effect if it effects a dopaminergic receptor? Wouldn't serotonin syndrome caused by excess MDMA use be a physical side effect?

dogma wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Bolded for clarity, Dogma...in this case your vaunted intelligence isn't really gonna win.

How does placing my own words in bold help to clarify anything? I am well aware of what I wrote.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I don't need to argue because I've taken dozens of classes on the biochemical effects of just about every drug in the world...from cannabis to khat, and even touching on salvia divinorum. This also included clinical treatment, research options, long term effects on brain activity, etc.

That's nice.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I know what I'm talking about. Irritability is NOT a physical side effect as it does not occur as a result of dopaminergic action in the mesolimbic pathway.

So what causes it? Magical THC deprivation beams?

No, it has a physical cause, as does everything else that occurs in the brain. Its simply that, from a clinicians perspective, attributing things to emotion is what is done when one has no solid grasp of the process that is actually occurring. It helps to reassure the patient when "solid" answers are given with respect to questions about certain effects.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
YOu will find cannabis withdrawl includes the emotional list, however NOTHING from the physical list.

You are aware that emotions are the perceptual manifestation of neurochemical processes, right?

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Emotion vs Physical is a key point in treatment concerns....IE your pot smoker will not be driven by pain or sickness to "fix" the way other drug abusers are.

Pain and sickness are forms of discomfort, and pot smokers are certainly driven by discomfort in many instances. Its simply that their discomfort isn't as strong as, say, someone who is going through alcohol detox.

I'm not going to argue, you are wrong. I get that you aren't willing to accept that though. Its fine.

If you're more interested in educating yourself than arguing on the interent, look up stuff such as "Behavioral Pharmacology" for a basic understanding of what it is you are actually trying to argue about.

PS the person driven to use cannabis by the pain or discomfort of cancer or some other illness =/= the pain of withdrawal that causes addicts to fix.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So what causes it? Magical THC deprivation beams?

A body becomes used to a chemical.....that can be the metabolite of sugar, the GABA release of alcohol, the elevated mood of caffine, etc etc. Just because you have an emotional effect from cessation of a substance does not automatically entail addiction or withdrawal.

Emotional dependence isn't the same as physical addiction. One is a result of action, the other is an action as a result of biological impetus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:Wait a minute how is a headache not a physical ailment?

And please explain to me how if you start experiencing insomnia from withdrawing use of a substance that is an emotional response?

Im genuinely curious as my understanding of addiction medicine is that its widely varied and depends on what the researchers personal beliefs are. Im guessing your list is from a class you took yes? So there's no possibility that theres other views on the subject?

Also could you explain to me why its only a physical side effect if it effects a dopaminergic receptor? Wouldn't serotonin syndrome caused by excess MDMA use be a physical side effect?

Nah, that list is from one of the elevnty billion recovery websites. I can dig up some of my old class stuff if you want me to get technical about this stuff.


There are very specific criteria for physical withdrawal as you absolutely need to know your side effect profile for acute care during initial withdrawal. The DSM-IV outlines stuff pretty well, but I don't feel like copying it here.

The physical dependence results from dopaminergic action inside the mesolimbic pathway. This is the built in "reward" circuit for the human brain...its what makes you feel good when you pet a dog or when you have an orgasm. Drugs act on this area to one degree or another. They also deplete the neurotransmitter that they have primary action...IE your example of MDMA would lead to acute concerns such as flat affect, blunted emotional response, and depression during the initial treatment phase. That is the emotional result of acute MDMA withdrawal based on depletion of seretonin. Intesity of action on the mesolimbic pathway is pretty much proportional to the depletion of neurotransmitters. The more you deplete them, the more "sensitized" the body becomes. Example: Opiate addicts in withdrawal have an AMAZINGLY low tolerance to pain, as well as a propensity for self defecation. This is because opiates have the effect of masking pain and causing constipation. Without the chemical, you no longer have the proper tolerances in your brain to control those aspects of biology.

Serotonin Syndrome is NOT physical withdrawal. You don't die from it, you don't vomit from it, and you don't crap yourself from it. You also aren't going to have the shakes unless you are also coming down hard off some other drug. Sertotonin Syndrome can be caused by all kinds of things including Tramadol OD mixed with an Effexor OD (yes, I've seen that). Problem is that MDMA and X are usually cut with heroin, crack, meth, ice, whatever.

If this helps, here is the defenition of addiction...its really not what most folks think when they hear the word.

Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations.

No where is there mentioned the aspect of physical withdrawal. They are separate treatment concerns. If you have any specific questions, please ask. Addiction medicine saves lives, period.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I'm not going to argue, you are wrong. I get that you aren't willing to accept that though. Its fine.

Yes, I took that refuge when I was 12 as well. Its convenient, and doesn't require that one questions what he has been told is fact.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
If you're more interested in educating yourself than arguing on the interent, look up stuff such as "Behavioral Pharmacology" for a basic understanding of what it is you are actually trying to argue about.

Yes, I'm aware of the discipline. I'm also aware that it lags well behind what is considered state of the art in terms of cognitive psychology, and neuroscience; which is essentially what I said in my first post.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
PS the person driven to use cannabis by the pain or discomfort of cancer or some other illness =/= the pain of withdrawal that causes addicts to fix.

That isn't what I said. Headaches, irritability, and insomnia are all manifestations of discomfort.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
A body becomes used to a chemical.....that can be the metabolite of sugar, the GABA release of alcohol, the elevated mood of caffine, etc etc. Just because you have an emotional effect from cessation of a substance does not automatically entail addiction or withdrawal.

No, but it does entail a physical effect. Re-read what you've written here, you can't even discuss the matter without referring to physical terms like body, sugar, mood, etc.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Emotional dependence isn't the same as physical addiction. One is a result of action, the other is an action as a result of biological impetus.

Why does one take an action if not for biological impetus?

Again, you're basically assuming some sort of ridiculous Cartesian Dualism. I guess that homunculus really loves to get high.

dogma wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I'm not going to argue, you are wrong. I get that you aren't willing to accept that though. Its fine.

Yes, I took that refuge when I was 12 as well. Its convenient, and doesn't require that one questions what he has been told is fact.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
If you're more interested in educating yourself than arguing on the interent, look up stuff such as "Behavioral Pharmacology" for a basic understanding of what it is you are actually trying to argue about.

Yes, I'm aware of the discipline. I'm also aware that it lags well behind what is considered state of the art in terms of cognitive psychology, and neuroscience; which is essentially what I said in my first post.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
PS the person driven to use cannabis by the pain or discomfort of cancer or some other illness =/= the pain of withdrawal that causes addicts to fix.

That isn't what I said. Headaches, irritability, and insomnia are all manifestations of discomfort.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
A body becomes used to a chemical.....that can be the metabolite of sugar, the GABA release of alcohol, the elevated mood of caffine, etc etc. Just because you have an emotional effect from cessation of a substance does not automatically entail addiction or withdrawal.

No, but it does entail a physical effect. Re-read what you've written here, you can't even discuss the matter without referring to physical terms like body, sugar, mood, etc.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Emotional dependence isn't the same as physical addiction. One is a result of action, the other is an action as a result of biological impetus.

Why does one take an action if not for biological impetus?

Again, you're basically assuming some sort of ridiculous Cartesian Dualism. I guess that homunculus really loves to get high.

\


Hi there, I'd much rather argue about something I don't know about than even attempt to educate myself too!


PS just because you don't like my stance doesn't mean I lack an education and professional background in the subject under discussion. This makes my opinion far more grounded in both fact and experience than yours. Just pointing that out....since you enjoy the cleansing power of reason and logic.

Peter Wiggin wrote: Addiction medicine saves lives, period.

Sure, but simply because something saves lives it does not follow that it is correct.

Burning corpses in order to drive out demons saved lives too, but that doesn't mean that demons were really the cause of death.

Utility is often used as an interchangeable quality with respect to accuracy, but it helps to recall that they are not the same.

Argument going nowhere, one of you bring up some proof for your side or both of you shush.

dogma wrote:
Sure, but simply because something saves lives it does not follow that it is correct.

Burning corpses in order to drive out demons saved lives too, but that doesn't mean that demons were really the cause of death.

Yeah, whatever mang. You just wanna fight. Don't need to....read my posts again.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Hi there, I'd much rather argue about something I don't know about than even attempt to educate myself too! PS, I don't care.

You're only presuming that I know nothing of the topic because I don't agree with you.

I'm well aware of how the treatment of addiction and chemical dependency works, and I'm well aware of why it works the way it does. I'm merely explaining to you that simply because something "works" (because it's debatable as to whether or not it actually does) it does not follow that it is an accurate description of the state of reality.

corpsesarefun wrote:Argument going nowhere, one of you bring up some proof for your side or both of you shush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction_medicine

http://www.asam.org/

http://www.caadac.org/

http://www.bpru.org/

<shrug>

that count? I could also pull out some of my old textbooks and class material if you want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Hi there, I'd much rather argue about something I don't know about than even attempt to educate myself too! PS, I don't care.

You're only presuming that I know nothing of the topic because I don't agree with you.

I'm well aware of how the treatment of addiction and chemical dependency works, and I'm well aware of why it works the way it does. I'm merely explaining to you that simply because something "works" (because it's debatable as to whether or not it actually does) it does not follow that it is an accurate description of the state of reality.

I don't care if you agree or disagree, I've worked in the feild. I've been through specialized schooling. I know enough to give my own opinion with a reasonable degree of certianty that it can be fact due to my experience.

Would you like to find some other yardstick to measure credibility with cause I think those two sticking points pretty much sum up the word itself.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:Argument going nowhere, one of you bring up some proof for your side or both of you shush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction_medicine

http://www.asam.org/

http://www.caadac.org/

http://www.bpru.org/

<shrug>

that count? I could also pull out some of my old textbooks and class material if you want.

Thank you 2 people spouting "facts" with no apparent sources or proof until they explode is a pet hate of mine. The sites look reputable too.

Oh, just to keep things on subject...here is a link to the most well covered (from a media perspective) clubs in the country.

http://www.harborsidehealthcenter.com/

Also, many of the clubs here do things like condom distribution, peer counseling, free STD tests, and acupuncture/massage therapy at little or no cost to the members, and zero cost to the city/community.

corpsesarefun wrote:Argument going nowhere, one of you bring up some proof for your side or both of you shush.

Neural physiology controls outward emotional responses.

Paper from 1944. May, or may not, be public domain.

Another one, this time from 2002. Cited roughly 877 times according to Jstore, 652 according to Google Scholar.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I don't care if you agree or disagree, I've worked in the feild. I've been through specialized schooling. I know enough to give my own opinion with a reasonable degree of certianty that it can be fact due to my experience.

Would you like to find some other yardstick to measure credibility with cause I think those two sticking points pretty much sum up the word itself.

I'm not really in the business of credibility. You can say whatever you want, with whatever credentials that you want, but if your argument is bad it's still bad. In this case you've just repeated "I'm correct" while ignoring the fact that I'm arguing that the treatment of a thing is distinct from the description of a thing.

You haven't actually addressed my point even once, which is one from the distinction between utility and accuracy; as I have already said.

dogma wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:Argument going nowhere, one of you bring up some proof for your side or both of you shush.

Neural physiology controls outward emotional responses.

Paper from 1944. May, or may not, be public domain.

Here is the title of that paper. Feline research from 70 years ago as a basis to support your arguments against modern addiction medicine is faulty logic and borders on fallacy. You should be ashamed.

Most research paper PDF's aren't public domain...you gotta pay to read PhD thesis crap. This one is no exception

THE HYPOTHALAMUS AND AFFECTIVE BEHAVIOR IN CATS

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
I'm not really in the business of credibility. You can say whatever you want, with whatever credentials that you want, but if your argument is bad it's still bad. In this case you've just repeated "I'm correct" while ignoring the fact that I'm arguing that the treatment of a thing is distinct from the description of a thing.

You haven't actually addressed my point even once, which is one from the distinction between utility and accuracy; as I have already said.

YOu haven't said anything bro. What exactly is your question? Besides...I've provided a plethora of facts, links to websites, and taken the time to explain what it is that I am actually speaking of. All you seem to do is pick apart people's posts point by point while providing zero supporting evidence of your own.

IE a troll by any other name still lives under a bridge.


Treatment is seperate from difinition...OK derp derp duh. What aspect of treatment would you care to discuss? Direct client care? Post acute withdrawal? Initial treatment? Co-occuring lifestyle concerns? Co-occuring medical concerns? Treatment options for cross cultural addiction? Gender and lifestyle concerns?

If you'd like to really break it down we can talk about family of origin issues, archetypes in wounded familial systems, or even narrative systems analysis. Please, ask away....

I actually see what your arguing now Peter and I guess it's just going to have to remain a disagreement. Some addiction medicine is in your camp and some is in mine. Some view addiction as solely the reward circuit you explain and others view it as any type of behavior that is compulsive and deleterious to your life.

I firmly believe that if you are feeling physical discomfort after stopping compulsive use of a substance, that is a sign of withdrawal. I guess my views are at odds with the DSM, but there's also a point where common sense gets involved.

I think we can both agree biopsychology as a whole and especially addiction medicine are constantly rewriting themselves as new information is found so its probably best to not stick to any type of ideas too closely as they're likely to change.

And you can absolutely get the shakes and vomit from serotonin syndrome. Ive done it myself.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I guess my views are at odds with the DSM, but there's also a point where common sense gets involved.

Ok, then you are saying that your "common sense" is more credible than the DSM-IV and the entire medical community that wrote the thing. Feeling that way is fine, but please take the time to consider the amount of research that went into the formulation of the diagnostic criteria.


yes, the aspect of addiction as a bio-psycho-social disease makes things pretty....flexible from a theoretical standpoint. Thats why I did time in direct care instead of just jumping straight back into a class room. One needs a basis in reality for one's opinions.


Serotonin Syndrome SUCKS, I've experienced it myself. No pooping though, that was reserved for my lovely experience with the doctor putting me on Xanax for several months.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Yes, I do like smokin the herb....but you never hear about folks getting stoned and having a bar fight.

And Im sorry but this is another absolutely slowed argument. http://www.buffalonews.com/city/police-courts/article246909.ece

I'd rather get in a fistfight then get shot. Face it any mind altering substance can lead to violence and/or poor decisions. You really think no one has ever been killed over pot?

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Here is the title of that paper. Feline research from 70 years ago as a basis to support your arguments against modern addiction medicine is faulty logic and borders on fallacy. You should be ashamed.

The point is that we knew, 70 years ago, that emotional responses were controlled by physical brain-states. So why are we pretending that is not the case now?

Additionally, you didn't use the words "logic" or "fallacy" correctly in that post.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Most research paper PDF's aren't public domain...you gotta pay to read PhD thesis crap. This one is no exception.

No, that's backwards. All PhD theses are public domain per agreement with the university in question. Journal articles are the property of the journal that publishes them, and those are almost never public domain.

Have you ever actually studied in the academy, or even used Google Scholar, for that matter?

Peter Wiggin wrote:
YOu haven't said anything bro. What exactly is your question? Besides...I've provided a plethora of facts, links to websites, and taken the time to explain what it is that I am actually speaking of. All you seem to do is pick apart people's posts point by point while providing zero supporting evidence of your own.

I don't really need supporting evidence when its simply a matter of poor logic on the part of the person I'm disagreeing with. I mean, I could formalize everything for you, but that is usually a bit arcane for this format.

I've said that you are incorrect because there is a disconnect between treatment of the way things are, and the way things are; explicitly, several times now. If you believe that to be nothing, then you aren't really paying attention.

You can cite all the clinical facts that you want, but it really doesn't matter because I'm not arguing with you about the state of clinical treatment. I'm arguing that the state of clinical treatment is not an accurate reflection of the way things actually are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Treatment is seperate from difinition...OK derp derp duh. What aspect of treatment would you care to discuss? Direct client care? Post acute withdrawal? Initial treatment? Co-occuring lifestyle concerns? Co-occuring medical concerns? Treatment options for cross cultural addiction? Gender and lifestyle concerns?

If you'd like to really break it down we can talk about family of origin issues, archetypes in wounded familial systems, or even narrative systems analysis. Please, ask away....

I already said, repeatedly, that I wasn't talking about treatment. No one has been talking about treatment, except you.

You've been carrying on in a tirade for no reason other than a desire to do so.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I guess my views are at odds with the DSM, but there's also a point where common sense gets involved.

Ok, then you are saying that your "common sense" is more credible than the DSM-IV and the entire medical community that wrote the thing. Feeling that way is fine, but please take the time to consider the amount of research that went into the formulation of the diagnostic criteria.


yes, the aspect of addiction as a bio-psycho-social disease makes things pretty....flexible from a theoretical standpoint. Thats why I did time in direct care instead of just jumping straight back into a class room. One needs a basis in reality for one's opinions.


Serotonin Syndrome SUCKS, I've experienced it myself. No pooping though, that was reserved for my lovely experience with the doctor putting me on Xanax for several months.

No im saying that the DSM is not the be all and end all to everything. Im still to understand how a physical side effect from discontinuing use of substance used compulsively isn't a sign of withdrawal. I understand its not in the DSM, but I don't get it I guess. More or less it comes down to personal belief.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Yes, I do like smokin the herb....but you never hear about folks getting stoned and having a bar fight.

And Im sorry but this is another absolutely slowed argument. http://www.buffalonews.com/city/police-courts/article246909.ece

I'd rather get in a fistfight then get shot. Face it any mind altering substance can lead to violence and/or poor decisions. You really think no one has ever been killed over pot?

No, but I think that I have never seen so much as a voice raised in anger in any legal cannabis club I've ever set foot in. I'm not "pro weed" I'm "pro legalization/taxation" if that makes sense?

yes I know the comment was a bit silly....it had a light hearted tone. Don't take things so out of context.

"Unfortunately, in this situation, there was a 13-year-old teenager in a house with young adults. The young adults were using marijuana and playing with a gun, and the teenager was the innocent victim of an accidental shooting," Brown said.

Do you really think that this situation was a result of the cannabis? Stuff like that happens all the time with or without drugs, thats not really a solid basis for arguing that cannabis causes violence.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:More or less it comes down to personal belief.

Not entirely.

It comes down to recognizing that words often have multiple meanings, and that often time archaic ones are held to for ease of description to the uninitiated.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Yes, I do like smokin the herb....but you never hear about folks getting stoned and having a bar fight.

And Im sorry but this is another absolutely slowed argument. http://www.buffalonews.com/city/police-courts/article246909.ece

I'd rather get in a fistfight then get shot. Face it any mind altering substance can lead to violence and/or poor decisions. You really think no one has ever been killed over pot?

No, but I think that I have never seen so much as a voice raised in anger in any legal cannabis club I've ever set foot in. I'm not "pro weed" I'm "pro legalization/taxation" if that makes sense?

yes I know the comment was a bit silly....it had a light hearted tone. Don't take things so out of context.

Please, find me a fight in a hash bar that didin't also involve booze.

If its in jest than I agree with you. But there are a lot of people that actually believe that no one has ever died over pot just because the LD50 is more or less unreachable by a human.

And I know ive read of armed burglaries in Cali of dispensaries so there you go. Violence in a marijuana establishment.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
No im saying that the DSM is not the be all and end all to everything. Im still to understand how a physical side effect from discontinuing use of substance used compulsively isn't a sign of withdrawal. I understand its not in the DSM, but I don't get it I guess. More or less it comes down to personal belief.

Here, does this help?

Substance dependence can be diagnosed with physiological dependence, evidence of tolerance or withdrawal, or without physiological dependence.

Honestly, the issues with ambiguity inherent in behavioral health are one of the driving reasons the DSM-V is coming out in 2014. It will focus on spectrum diagnosis as opposed to the current system which is really rigid. I agree....DSM isn't infallible, but its the medical community handbook and as such provides the basis for diagnosis in our health care system.

dogma wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:More or less it comes down to personal belief.

Not entirely.

It comes down to recognizing that words often have multiple meanings, and that often time archaic ones are held to for ease of description to the uninitiated.

Lol wut?

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Yes, I do like smokin the herb....but you never hear about folks getting stoned and having a bar fight.

And Im sorry but this is another absolutely slowed argument. http://www.buffalonews.com/city/police-courts/article246909.ece

I'd rather get in a fistfight then get shot. Face it any mind altering substance can lead to violence and/or poor decisions. You really think no one has ever been killed over pot?

No, but I think that I have never seen so much as a voice raised in anger in any legal cannabis club I've ever set foot in. I'm not "pro weed" I'm "pro legalization/taxation" if that makes sense?

yes I know the comment was a bit silly....it had a light hearted tone. Don't take things so out of context.

Please, find me a fight in a hash bar that didin't also involve booze.

If its in jest than I agree with you. But there are a lot of people that actually believe that no one has ever died over pot just because the LD50 is more or less unreachable by a human.

And I know ive read of armed burglaries in Cali of dispensaries so there you go. Violence in a marijuana establishment.

By that logic money should be made illegal as it causes violence... the burglars are probably after it to sell rather than to use.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

And I know ive read of armed burglaries in Cali of dispensaries so there you go. Violence in a marijuana establishment.

Entirely possible, but I've never seen it. The cops in Oakland do a great job of keeping the crooks away from our clubs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Yes, I do like smokin the herb....but you never hear about folks getting stoned and having a bar fight.

And Im sorry but this is another absolutely slowed argument. http://www.buffalonews.com/city/police-courts/article246909.ece

I'd rather get in a fistfight then get shot. Face it any mind altering substance can lead to violence and/or poor decisions. You really think no one has ever been killed over pot?

No, but I think that I have never seen so much as a voice raised in anger in any legal cannabis club I've ever set foot in. I'm not "pro weed" I'm "pro legalization/taxation" if that makes sense?

yes I know the comment was a bit silly....it had a light hearted tone. Don't take things so out of context.

Please, find me a fight in a hash bar that didin't also involve booze.

If its in jest than I agree with you. But there are a lot of people that actually believe that no one has ever died over pot just because the LD50 is more or less unreachable by a human.

And I know ive read of armed burglaries in Cali of dispensaries so there you go. Violence in a marijuana establishment.

By that logic money should be made illegal as it causes violence... the burglars are probably after it to sell rather than to use.

VERY doubtful....do you have any idea how difficult it is for street pot dealers to sell weed here? We grow it on our porches, we pick it up on grocery runs. Now if you want to talk about the mexican cartels coming up and growing weed in OUR Humboldt county....well thats a problem. A big one.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

dogma wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:More or less it comes down to personal belief.

Not entirely.

It comes down to recognizing that words often have multiple meanings, and that often time archaic ones are held to for ease of description to the uninitiated.

Lol wut?

Emotions are physical responses, but the common understanding of "emotion" and "physical" necessitate that they are not. As such, some disciplines maintain those understanding of the terms in order to communicate with people who are not educated in a manner that permits them to understand otherwise.

This is actually a pretty common topic in clinical fields: the naming of things such that they can be related to patients, and lower-level practitioners.

dogma wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:More or less it comes down to personal belief.

Not entirely.

It comes down to recognizing that words often have multiple meanings, and that often time archaic ones are held to for ease of description to the uninitiated.

Let me translate.

Dogma says: Words can mean more than one thing and I will include something polysyllabic to try and confuse you into thinking I'm actually making a point.

PS, the "you don't agree with me so you are dumb" thing is still a fallacy no matter how many fancy words you put in to obscure your own snide nature.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Let me translate.

Dogma says: Words can mean more than one thing and I will include something polysyllabic to try and confuse you into thinking I'm actually making a point.

So, am I to assume that the polysyllabic nature of a word makes it seem that I am appealing to pretension? I was unaware that words like "uninitiated", "description", and "archaic" were pretentious.

If they are, then how does your use of the word "polysyllabic" reflect upon you?

Peter Wiggin wrote:
PS, the "you don't agree with me so you are dumb" thing is still a fallacy no matter how many fancy words you put in to obscure your own snide nature.

That's not the argument that I made. That is, however, the argument that you made. You have, several times in this thread, impugned my intelligence or argumentative ability.

dogma wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Let me translate.

Dogma says: Words can mean more than one thing and I will include something polysyllabic to try and confuse you into thinking I'm actually making a point.

So, am I to assume that the polysyllabic nature of a word makes it seem that I am appealing to pretension? I was unaware that words like "uninitiated", "description", and "archaic" were pretentious.
.

Yes what you said sounds very pretentious, uninitiated made no sense in that context either.

Really? I would have thought that "uninitiated" was a clear reference to the study of certain disciplines. I mean, I know we try to pretend that hierarchy doesn't exist in the West, but I was unaware that people actually believed that.

Pretentious I can see, as claims to the existence of hierarchy tend to elicit such a response.

Stop derailing the thread just to see yourself type Dogma. For real.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
PS, the "you don't agree with me so you are dumb" thing is still a fallacy no matter how many fancy words you put in to obscure your own snide nature.

That's not the argument that I made. That is, however, the argument that you made. You have, several times in this thread, impugned my intelligence or argumentative ability.

Never once did I say you were dumb. I think that the argument you are holding in this thread (IE I disagree with whatever anyone else says) is beneath your level of intellect. Take a stance, support it, and make it clear what you are advocating for because all I see is that you want to argue. About anything. Every day.

Which is fine, but you are crapping up a thread that some folks are taking seriously. Thanx.

dogma wrote:Really? I would have thought that "uninitiated" was a clear reference to the study of certain disciplines. I mean, I know we try to pretend that hierarchy doesn't exist in the West, but I was unaware that people actually believed that.

Pretentious I can see, as claims to the existence of hierarchy tend to elicit such a response.

Uninitiated in its archaic context (see what I did there?) would refer to someone who is not a full member of a guild or society and since information is free to those who desire it for the most part this makes no sense.

Am I right in saying the jist of what you were saying was "some words have more than one meaning so if everyone uses the standard meaning it makes things simpler to understand for laymen?" in which case archaic is also used out of context as it refers to age not how common it is.

I like this kid.

Also, I like Pat Robertson. I also like that blue haired lady on the Catholic Channel. Hmm, maybe I need to go visit "you find them attractive but you don't know why".

I think its funny that AZ legalized medical cannabis in the same year they passed the most draconian immigration laws in the country.

Peter Wiggin wrote:Stop derailing the thread just to see yourself type Dogma. For real.

Derailing the thread would involve actively trying to move it to another topic, I'm not doing that. I'm carrying the thread from the point at which you mentioned that weed has no physical side effects.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Never once did I say you were dumb.

I think that bolding my own text is tacit to impugning my intellect. As is repeatedly ignoring my argument in order to make your own, unrelated, point about being a clinician.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I think that the argument you are holding in this thread (IE I disagree with whatever anyone else says) is beneath your level of intellect.

See, you did it again. That isn't my argument. I think that you are wrong, and I have explained why that is. The only time you have addressed this was something along the lines of "derp derp derp" which is, again, an insult to my intelligence.

You aren't arguing from an honest position. No one, prior to yourself, was discussing the treatment of addiction. It only became relevant when you confused addiction treatment, with the nature of addiction.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Take a stance, support it, and make it clear what you are advocating for because all I see is that you want to argue. About anything. Every day.

I've already stated, in plain text, several times, what my stance is. At this point its a matter of your inability to perceive that, or your willful ignorance with respect to what I'm saying.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Which is fine, but you are crapping up a thread that some folks are taking seriously. Thanx.

Serious threads do not involve people that ignore the statements of others in order to deflect from their inability to respond.

dogma wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:Stop derailing the thread just to see yourself type Dogma. For real.

Derailing the thread would involve actively trying to move it to another topic, I'm not doing that. I'm carrying the thread from the point at which you mentioned that weed has no physical side effects.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Never once did I say you were dumb.

I think that bolding my own text is tacit to impugning my intellect. As is repeatedly ignoring my argument in order to make your own, unrelated, point about being a clinician.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I think that the argument you are holding in this thread (IE I disagree with whatever anyone else says) is beneath your level of intellect.

See, you did it again. That isn't my argument. I think that you are wrong, and I have explained why that is. The only time you have addressed this was something along the lines of "derp derp derp" which is, again, an insult to my intelligence.

You aren't arguing from an honest position. No one, prior to yourself, was discussing the treatment of addiction. It only became relevant when you confused addiction treatment, with the nature of addiction.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Take a stance, support it, and make it clear what you are advocating for because all I see is that you want to argue. About anything. Every day.

I've already stated, in plain text, several times, what my stance is. At this point its a matter of your inability to perceive that, or your willful ignorance with respect to what I'm saying.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Which is fine, but you are crapping up a thread that some folks are taking seriously. Thanx.

Serious threads do not involve people that ignore the statements of others in order to deflect from their inability to respond.

TLDR, not interested in fighting anymore. Make love not war.



P.S. I'm right cause I use facts and data, you use polysyllabic words. Its OK, I did high school level debate as well!

corpsesarefun wrote:
Uninitiated in its archaic context (see what I did there?) would refer to someone who is not a full member of a guild or society and since information is free to those who desire it for the most part this makes no sense.

Information isn't free. Unless that subscription fee I pay for access to journal archives is not what you're talking about?

In any case, I was speaking euphemistically. The uninitiated are those who have not done, or studied, something. This is the modern usage, and we live in modern times. Archaic definitions have no place in the present, barring special circumstances, which is what I've been saying.

Simply using archaic in a sentence isn't really a witty retort.

corpsesarefun wrote:
Am I right in saying the jist of what you were saying was "some words have more than one meaning so if everyone uses the standard meaning it makes things simpler to understand for laymen?" in which case archaic is also used out of context as it refers to age not how common it is.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that some disciplines use lay definitions in order to facilitate communication with the relatively uneducated, I'm not making a comment on "everyone" or what should be done; I'm discussing what is actually done. I'm also not attempting to make things easy to understand for laymen, not really. I'm explaining, to an extent, the meaning that lies behind the lay usage of terms. So the use of the word "archaic" is not out of context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm right cause I use facts and data, you use polysyllabic words. Its OK, I did high school level debate as well!

No, you use use accepted definitions for clinical treatment. Again, I'm not arguing with respect to what clinical treatment is. I'm arguing with respect to the degree that clinical treatment has anything to do with reality, which was the initial point of contention.

I understand that you enjoy playing the willfully ignorant foil, you've said as much in previous threads, but let's not pretend that you're doing anything else.

And once again you are speaking complete drivel.

Good day sir.

corpsesarefun wrote:And once again you are speaking complete drivel.

Good day sir.

I find it funny that you seem to know enough to consult a dictionary, but not enough to actually make use of it.

dogma wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:
Uninitiated in its archaic context (see what I did there?) would refer to someone who is not a full member of a guild or society and since information is free to those who desire it for the most part this makes no sense.

Information isn't free. Unless that subscription fee I pay for access to journal archives is not what you're talking about?

In any case, I was speaking euphemistically. The uninitiated are those who have not done, or studied, something. This is the modern usage, and we live in modern times. Archaic definitions have no place in the present, barring special circumstances, which is what I've been saying.

Simply using archaic in a sentence isn't really a witty retort.

corpsesarefun wrote:
Am I right in saying the jist of what you were saying was "some words have more than one meaning so if everyone uses the standard meaning it makes things simpler to understand for laymen?" in which case archaic is also used out of context as it refers to age not how common it is.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that some disciplines use lay definitions in order to facilitate communication with the relatively uneducated, I'm not making a comment on "everyone" or what should be done; I'm discussing what is actually done. I'm also not attempting to make things easy to understand for laymen, not really. I'm explaining, to an extent, the meaning that lies behind the lay usage of terms. So the use of the word "archaic" is not out of context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm right cause I use facts and data, you use polysyllabic words. Its OK, I did high school level debate as well!

No, you use use accepted definitions for clinical treatment. Again, I'm not arguing with respect to what clinical treatment is. I'm arguing with respect to the degree that clinical treatment has anything to do with reality, which was the initial point of contention.

I understand that you enjoy playing the willfully ignorant foil, you've said as much in previous threads, but let's not pretend that you're doing anything else.

Again, TLDR....use some facts or something concrete and I'll start reading your posts again. Until then...troll is as troll does. U being the trolly troll sir.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Again, TLDR....use some facts or something concrete and I'll start reading your posts again. Until then...troll is as troll does. U being the trolly troll sir.

I am using facts. It isn't my responsibility to source them for you.

After all, any website that I might cite could just as easily be as incorrect as I might be. Simply citing what someone else says is no claim to truth. After all, anything that my sources might say may be just as flawed as what I am saying. As a result, it makes no sense to trust my word in the context of theirs any more than you trust mine in the context of nothing. You can debate in good faith, or you can hide behind artificial standards as to what might be true. One shows a sharp mind, and the other doesn't.

I think, maybe, neither you, nor corpsesarefun, understand much about what knowledge is.

dogma wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Again, TLDR....use some facts or something concrete and I'll start reading your posts again. Until then...troll is as troll does. U being the trolly troll sir.

I am using facts. It isn't my responsibility to source them for you.

After all, any website that I might cite could just as easily be as incorrect as I might be. Simply citing what someone else says is no claim to truth. After all, anything that my sources might say may be just as flawed as what I am saying. As a result, it makes no sense to trust my word in the context of theirs any more than you trust mine in the context of nothing. You can debate in good faith, or you can hide behind artificial standards as to what might be true. One shows a sharp mind, and the other doesn't.

I think, maybe, neither you, nor corpsesarefun, understand much about what knowledge is.

TLDR facts please not typed opinion masquerading as facts.

Excessive verbosity does not entail quality of information conveyed. LOOK I KAN DO EET 2!~!!!!

Peter Wiggin wrote:
TLDR facts please not typed opinion masquerading as facts.

Excessive verbosity does not entail quality of information conveyed. LOOK I KAN DO EET 2!~!!!!

I've already given you "facts" such as they are relevant here (two journal articles, and if you wish more, I have more).

Indeed, you have even gone so far as to agree with me that treatment is not reflective of reality.

At this point it is clear that your are exercising some frustration from the rest of you life in an online format.

Say what you like about dogma, but I can honestly say I've never seen him leave an argument shouting "You're a troll, everything you say is wrong, I'm tired of arguing, and also I object to your use of words that I don't understand".

Keep it up, man

Interesting....thats not really what I said. As for Dogma....well he's smart. However his propensity to e-fight everyone about every post they put up is very very irritating. As for leaving an arguement...well I don't expect to change anyone's views when they are completely incapable of admitting that they may just be wrong in the face of someone with greater experience.

He's already said he doesn't care about credibility, and that no matter what evidence is provided he feels it is incorrect. Its ok, I like to say that people are wrong when they don't agree with me too! Everyone does.

However in this case he's trolling....in the most literal sense of the word. By obfuscating the actual point of his posts (what were they again?) he takes the focus off of the actual subject under discussion and turns it into yet another "Dogma point by point response to every question in a thread while supporting no stance in particular" that contributes NOTHING to the conversation in the thread.


Reminds me of kids on the play ground saying "Neyner neyner, I bet I'm smarter than you"....which is the standard MO for several posters on here. <yawn> get some new tricks....I'm not impressed.


I don't discount his opinion because he never brings up a valid point, I discount it because its pure idiocy to sit and argue that you know more about a subject and are more correct in your analysis than someone who has an education and years of professional experience. Please, by all means tell me how Dogma's relentless barrage of verbosity establishes ANY crediblity for his stance. Here's a tip, it doesn't.

Again, using feline research papers from 70 years ago is NOT a valid "factual basis" for modern medical or clinical information.

Hey Peter, if I haven't smoked for 3 weeks should I pass a pee test? I'm 155 and 5' 10.

Peter Wiggin wrote:As for Dogma....well he's smart. However his propensity to e-fight everyone about every post they put up is very very irritating.

It wouldn't be an issue if the majority of posters weren't consistently wrong in nearly everything that they say.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
As for leaving an arguement...well I don't expect to change anyone's views when they are completely incapable of admitting that they may just be wrong in the face of someone with greater experience.

Why are you assuming that you have more experience than I do when I have never spoken of my experience?

Peter Wiggin wrote:
He's already said he doesn't care about credibility, and that no matter what evidence is provided he feels it is incorrect.

No, I said that I don't care about credibility. I never said anything at all about the latter.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
However in this case he's trolling....in the most literal sense of the word. By obfuscating the actual point of his posts (what were they again?) he takes the focus off of the actual subject under discussion and turns it into yet another "Dogma point by point response to every question in a thread while supporting no stance in particular" that contributes NOTHING to the conversation in the thread.

I cannot even remember how many times that I've explicitly stated what my point is; at least 7.

In fact, I've reiterated the above sentence at least 3 times.

I you cannot understand blunt fact, then you are being willfully ignorant, or you are simply not very bright.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I don't discount his opinion because he never brings up a valid point, I discount it because its pure idiocy to sit and argue that you know more about a subject and are more correct in your analysis than someone who has an education and years of professional experience. Please, by all means tell me how Dogma's relentless barrage of verbosity establishes ANY crediblity for his stance. Here's a tip, it doesn't.

Your statements about what classes you have taken do?

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Again, using feline research papers from 70 years ago is NOT a valid "factual basis" for modern medical or clinical information.

Nor did I say that it was. Again, I have, at several points, explicitly stated that I was not arguing about the nature of clinical treatment. You may not be paying attention, you may be incompetent, or you may be a simple troll.

Given that you have admitted to the latter, I expect that it is the truth.

The Dreadnote wrote:Say what you like about dogma, but I can honestly say I've never seen him leave an argument shouting "You're a troll, everything you say is wrong, I'm tired of arguing, and also I object to your use of words that I don't understand".

Keep it up, man

He probably should, he's arguing with some college kids yak-back that he filled up after smoking a pretty big bowl one day.

However his propensity to e-fight everyone about every post they put up is very very irritating.

As is your propensity to drop the science without checking your arguments or really interfacing with anyone elses. You basically construct and argue against effigies while people try to talk to you around the straw.

well I don't expect to change anyone's views when they are completely incapable of admitting that they may just be wrong in the face of someone with greater experience.

Unless you're in a biomedical field, logical phi field, or work in some form of administrative think tank then all the experience you have on him involves smoking up and looking at how large your hands are. None of which I believe he has been arguing against.

He's already said he doesn't care about credibility, and that no matter what evidence is provided he feels it is incorrect. Its ok, I like to say that people are wrong when they don't agree with me too! Everyone does.

That isn't what he said, but the fact that he's explained thats not what he said like four times and you're still hammering that point implies pretty heavily that you did a whole lot of research before sitting at your computer and have an axe to grind.

However in this case he's trolling....in the most literal sense of the word. By obfuscating the actual point of his posts (what were they again?) he takes the focus off of the actual subject under discussion and turns it into yet another "Dogma point by point response to every question in a thread while supporting no stance in particular" that contributes NOTHING to the conversation in the thread.

You hadn't exactly been holding a very cognizant or meaningful conversation before his entry and you didn't do to well in his stead regardless. Smokers think they know law and biology, usually they don't have a particularly meaningful grasp of either and it shows strongly.

Reminds me of kids on the play ground saying "Neyner neyner, I bet I'm smarter than you"....which is the standard MO for several posters on here. <yawn> get some new tricks....I'm not impressed.

Hows that straw man coming along? You got a hangin' place all set up or is this just sort of a dollmaking hobby at this point?

I don't discount his opinion because he never brings up a valid point, I discount it because its pure idiocy to sit and argue that you know more about a subject and are more correct in your analysis than someone who has an education and years of professional experience.

You discount them because you are incapable of actually interfacing with them. You refuse to try, as you refuse to try with the opposite side in most arguments you hold dear.

Please, by all means tell me how Dogma's relentless barrage of verbosity establishes ANY crediblity for his stance.

Words combine to form sentences which are a basic component of language and communication.

Here's a tip, it doesn't.

Snorlax.

Again, using feline research papers from 70 years ago is NOT a valid "factual basis" for modern medical or clinical information.

I think he was using the paper to imply that people who think otherwise are idiots for believing something that has been common scientific factual knowledge for nearly a century.

Peter Wiggin wrote:Interesting....thats not really what I said. As for Dogma....well he's smart. However his propensity to e-fight everyone about every post they put up is very very irritating. As for leaving an arguement...well I don't expect to change anyone's views when they are completely incapable of admitting that they may just be wrong in the face of someone with greater experience.

He's already said he doesn't care about credibility, and that no matter what evidence is provided he feels it is incorrect. Its ok, I like to say that people are wrong when they don't agree with me too! Everyone does.

However in this case he's trolling....in the most literal sense of the word. By obfuscating the actual point of his posts (what were they again?) he takes the focus off of the actual subject under discussion and turns it into yet another "Dogma point by point response to every question in a thread while supporting no stance in particular" that contributes NOTHING to the conversation in the thread.


Reminds me of kids on the play ground saying "Neyner neyner, I bet I'm smarter than you"....which is the standard MO for several posters on here. <yawn> get some new tricks....I'm not impressed.


I don't discount his opinion because he never brings up a valid point, I discount it because its pure idiocy to sit and argue that you know more about a subject and are more correct in your analysis than someone who has an education and years of professional experience. Please, by all means tell me how Dogma's relentless barrage of verbosity establishes ANY crediblity for his stance. Here's a tip, it doesn't.

Again, using feline research papers from 70 years ago is NOT a valid "factual basis" for modern medical or clinical information.

Well then we might as well ignore pasture's research then i mean that happened 150 years ago, the paper is entirely relevant to this discussion. Anyways you're both right, in your field emotional and physical effects of withdrawal are separated for ease of treatment and diagnostic. However all responses are derived from chemical interactions in the body, so in the end all responses are physical.

...Plus weed makes Warhammer way more awesomer.

Khornholio wrote:...Plus weed makes Warhammer way more awesomer.

So true.

Pete I think I know why we were disagreeing. Your coming at the question from a psychological background where as I am looking at it from a biological background. So in a way were both right about the whole withdrawal thing.

Im too lazy to took for it but Im pretty sure it was on CNN not too long ago where 3 guys tried to rob a dispensary and 2 of them were marines or something. I will agree that pot doesn't promote violence, but it does promote poor decisions.

For the record I believe in the total legalization or marijuana. I just think some of the pro-legalization people need to realize that it is a dangerous substance that needs to be treated with respect. Do that and you'll have a lot less problems, but that goes for every drug really. I also think the anti-legislation people need some better arguments because the ones they put forward are always slowed, gateway drug and such.

Anyway if I ever make it back out to Cali well have to roast one and play a game.

youbedead wrote:Anyways you're both right, in your field emotional and physical effects of withdrawal are separated for ease of treatment and diagnostic. However all responses are derived from chemical interactions in the body, so in the end all responses are physical.

This is exactly what I've been saying the entire time.

Yup.

Dogma pointed out that the line differentiating between "emotional" and "physical" isn't a real one. They're separate categories of withdrawal in addiction medicine, but that doesn't mean they're actually distinct things in real life. Insomnia, headaches, and irritability are physical symptoms, even if they don't fall into the "Physical Withdrawal" category for the purposes of addiction treatment.

The fact that emotions derive from physical processes has been documented for a long time in clinical research, as the paper Dogma cited showed. The use of the terms "physical" and "emotional" as categorical differences in the DSM is a use of the older (archaic) meanings of the words; as if emotions weren't physical. This makes the distinction easier and more intuitive for people who aren't aware of the physical basis of emotion, but is essentially inaccurate.

Peter misunderstood the point Dogma was making, and I'm not sure if he ever tried to understand it. Peter also tried to reference his training in the place of making an actual argument a couple of times.