Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Gundude, Feb 20, 2020.
I smelled weed all over the place walking down the street.
Not necessarily. Since it’s voluntary, those that make that choice may suffer whatever extreme consequences ensue from their poor choices without intervention from those that chose not to. Though it may actually create reevers (firefly reference).
I have never put much weight on meta analysis. It seems to me to be distilled antidotal evidence.
Spare me. next you’ll say weed leads to heroin.
Spare me. next you’ll say weed leads to heroin.
There are some streets like that, and there were streets like that long before weed was legal.
From what I've heard, the Vegas tourists are not so familiar with the specifics of the law. They're smitten with the novelty of being able to buy weed in a store, and aren't too concerned about the fact that they don't have any place to legally smoke it (since they tend not to stay in private residences). Illegal public weed smoking is probably some of the least trouble you can get into in Vegas, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an upswing in that respect. I haven't been to Vegas since weed was legalized, so I can't speak for that part of the state.
Pot or alcohol, one's as bad as the other.
A meta-analysis is just work performed by a researcher to round up all the available evidence on a subject and summarize it in one paper.
Peer-reviewed only means that a manuscript has been reviewed for quality and approved by an author's scientific peers as a condition for publication in a recognized scientific journal.
A peer-reviewed article that was reviewed by antifa before being published on DU would not meet a high standard of quality.
A peer-reviewed article published in the New England Journal of Medicine is currently the highest standard of quality that can be achieved for articles pertaining to health sciences.
I agree with you that it is wise to consider quality standards when choosing information for making decisions.
Nice things about a NEJM meta-analysis:
1 - someone else did all the legwork to summarize available information,
2 - NEJM won't publish a meta-analysis that intentionally excludes some parts of available scientific data or information,
3 - money and political agenda cannot skew a quality meta-analysis because the analysis includes all available data (the analysis could only be skewed if all available scientific data were skewed by money/agenda, or if NEJM intentionally allowed the authors to omit relevant data.)
I feel like maybe I'm posting too much, or being too argumentative, but at the same time I also feel like the points I'm making are worth making in this kind of discussion.
We are a self-governed society, but most of our members are disengaged from the process of self-governance, which leaves a minority of engaged active citizens in control of public policy, and it seems apparent that most of the engaged citizens prefer to run the greatest nation on earth on the basis of emotion and misinformation rather than reason and truth.
Regarding 2A - the right of law-abiding citizens to KBA does not cause crime or any other societal problem, but the active political class insists that icky guns cause crime and seeks to ban all guns.
Regarding psychotropics and weed, scant available evidence suggests that widespread consumption is detrimental to health and costly to society. This thread discusses continued expansion of weed consumption. Maybe that is a decision that should be based more on available evidence than personal anecdote, and recognizing that available evidence is scant, maybe the discussion should include the question of whether we get better evidence before we finalize the national weed legalization issue.
FWIW, I consume some alcohol. My personal opinion is that moderate consumption of some alcohol or weed is likely to have no effect on health or society. I'm reasonably concerned that moderate consumption of psychotropics may permanently alter brain chemistry or function.
I'm a fan of evidence-based decisions.
Anecdotally, of the four guys I hung out with in my pothead days. Half are dead or in jail, and all ended up hooked on heroin, though the other two were clean last I heard of them.
I ducked out of the group when they started getting into the harder drugs.
However, I also know a number of very productive (though, sadly ultra liberal) responsible adults who are also huge pot heads.
It's not, IMO, so long as the government doesn't use my tax money to support potheads that are too burned out or unmotivated to earn a living, and as long as those individuals are not stealing from others to support themselves, or doing things like driving under the influence that can harm innocents.
Well, Ds seem to do better with low info voters... As I said above, I'm ok with freedom, as long as that freedom doesn't harm or cost others money to support. The trouble is that in our current system, this is not the case and there are entirely too many pols who are happy to dole out taxpayer cash to 'help'. Freedom doesn't mean freedom from responsibilities.
And I say this as one who's never smoked weed.