Pot Kills! [W:498]

[Ontologuy]

Well...your post didn't disappoint me. I asked you some fundamental questions and you choose to ignore them. Cool, whatever.

Hence, by your response, in my opinion, you know relatively little to nothing about addiction or recovery.

Your denialist tactic was visible to a blind man from the onset.

The actual content I've posted simply speaks for itself.

 

[Ontologuy]

Any drug I've ever seen used to alter the mood or mind for recreational purposes had a very high risk of physical harm, except possibly LSD and mushrooms, which have a high risk of causing severe mental injury. Marijuana is observably safer than alcohol, cocaine, speed, opiates, barbituates, etc. I'd say that this is true, too, as compared to any pharmaceutical.

Playing with scorpions is safer than playing with rattlesnakes, alligators, grizzly bears and even irritated pit bulls.

I wouldn't reccomend it, though.

:roll:

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Your denialist tactic was visible to a blind man from the onset.

The actual content I've posted simply speaks for itself.

you got that right!

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I have been asked by a number of posters in this thread "why" I started this thread and with the presentation that I did and continue to support throughout.

I had wanted to defer answering that subtext-revealing question until much later, previously merely hinting that there were indeed subtexts to this discussion.

However, I realize that it may be best if I present this answer now rather than defer too much longer when it may then likely be too late. My collaborators knew this might become necessary, even if such a revelation might compromise the effectiveness of the thread from here on, which we have documented to this point.

Regardless, suffice to say that the OP and all the posts I've made do indeed reflect my personal perspective, and I would be quite happy if more people understood and supported it.

I was challenged by a number of people in healthcare I know to present at the forum the scientific, medical, psychological healthcare facts about drugs and addiction as it relates to pot.

In discussing the matter, speculation was made as to the reaction and responses the message would receive, aspects of which would play out as subtexts in the process, and I too was curious about this, so I decided to accept the challenge, considering that I was allowed both to stimulate response and reflect natural latitude in my responses, per normal discussion.

It was speculated that most general political debate sites would not be receptive to the healthcare facts of the presentation, as the population of these boards tends to be composed of people who reflect individualism to a degree considerably greater than found in the mainstream, and because such indivdualists have a marked tendency to advocate freedom at the expense of security, a number of healthcare aspects that provide for security would be strongly opposed by the great majority at the forum. Considering one of the purposes for creating this thread, that made this environment the perfect place to present the healthcare message.

It was also speculated that life events that compel individualism as a reaction also predispose one to drugs and that many on the board would have had a previous history or current association with pot, and would thus perhaps still be enamored with pot as a memory/concept and unreceptive to the healthcare message. Such was indeed beneficial to an important goal of this thread.

I was also told that people in healthcare can be bombarded by addict minimization messages of denial of addiction to the degree that the continuous onslaught of such chips away at their healthcare stance over time until they lose some effectiveness in working with addicts, sometimes unaware that such change is happening, and I was curious to see if any examples of such became manifest here. One of the more powerful challenges to staying on healthcare point can be when addicts trying to recover succumb to suicide, as such has a powerful effect on their counselor/therapist, who if not solidly grounded in their own health and maintaining healthy psychological boundaries, can begin to slip into a less effective modality as a reaction, falsely blaming themselves that their client's suicide was partially their fault.

After roughly 50 years of getting its pot-abuse/legalization message to fall on psychologically receptive ears through a complicit media, how would the counter-culture message be reflected back in response to the healthcare message. I have been most fascinated and amused by those manifestations.

I was asked to present during discussion the foundational principles of addiction in general to see if such registered with anyone.

In working with addicts, willing or otherwise to enter recovery, there are many manfiestations of denial in response to the unwavering healthcare presentation. I wanted to see how many of those played out in discussion as well. I was a bit taken aback by some of them.

The psychology of paradigmic immersion and transcendence also came up in pre-thread discussion, which is alive and well in the drug-culture and recovery experiences respectively. We were quite curious to see how those might be manifest in a forum thread.

Also broached prior to posting this thread was whether forum management would allow the thread to continue for long. Because of the individualism that dominates at such boards, it was speculated that the healthcare message would receive little if any support for its foundational premises and conclusions, and because of that, would forum management allow a thread to continue that, not only had one major perspective represented by essentially only one debater, but might also be a position strongly opposed by people in positions of forum management as well? I am grateful the thread was allowed to span over 50 pages at this point.

It was also decided that, if this thread continued to the degree it now has, it would be presented to selected people recovering from pot-abuse. A few test clients have since been presented with this thread. Their reaction to the opposition to the healthcare message has essentially been "Oh my God -- that's me!" and has been a beneficial eye-opener for them. Granted, this select few were really dedicated to their recovery. I am interested on hearing the reactions from others, including those who were forced into recovery by the courts.

Although there were other subtexts I personally am following, suffice to say that those listed made it imperative that I keep the aforementioned to myself for as long as possible.

I apologize to those who have participated in this thread, for encouraging participation in a number of ways in a process that had underlying goals.

If it's any consolation, your participation has already been beneficial to drug-abuse recovery for those who really want to recover .. and my guess is that for those not yet ready to work their recovery, the healthcare message will nevertheless stick and be of value later when they are ready.

I call bull****. I am the master of doing "social experiments" at DP. Your explanation above has so many holes in it one could drive a truck through them. Firstly, you've been here a bit and you know that DP accepts the presentation of pretty much any position that does not violate rules, such as hate speech. So, the thought that forum management might shut down the thread is ludicrous. Secondly, this one sentence is indicative that you are making this up:

I was asked to present during discussion the foundational principles of addiction in general to see if such registered with anyone.

You completely failed to do this... in fact what you did demonstrate was either a complete lack of knowledge on the foundational principles of addiction or an extreme hyperbolic version which, if this was an experiment, would have destined it to fail. Lastly, it is unethical from a reseach standpoint for you to do what you claim to have done, and show it to others, without the consent of those of us who participated. Are you going to get signed informed consents from every member in this thread?

No, I've seen you do this before, several months ago in a gay marriage thread. You present your personal position, usually an extreme position, one that you demonstrate you know little about based on the lack of facts you present. THEN, when you get completely roasted in debate, you completely back off. LAST time, you claimed that you had "seen the light" and decided to agree with everyone. I didn't buy it then, nor do I buy this "experiment". This is just you trying to save face after getting beaten in debate. Peddle this stuff elsewhere.

 

[Ontologuy]

Very true. Keeping it sold on every street corner, by criminals, makes access very easy for kids. If it was sold in stores, with ID, kids would need the old "buy it for me?" to get any; and I don't think that would be nearly as common as kids going to the corner for it today.

Cigarettes are legal, and there's still a black market for them, and, of course, there's still a black market for moonshine.

That's because legalizing things like alcohol, tobacco and pot cause the price to be jacked up sky high for the many regulation and tax reasons I've previously itemized.

So the kids' black market will always be there for pot, and, due to legalization of pot, the corner drug-pusher would be less hounded by law enforcement and less ratted out than otherwise.

And anyone can purchase a beer distillery to make beer in their home, thanks to legalization of alcohol, increasing availability of alcohol for kids to abuse.

When it comes to kids abusing drugs, the "buy it for me" has long been hugely easy and effective; it would remain just as common with pot.

Nevertheless, the entry-point for kids abusing drugs like alcohol and tobacco has always been the parents -- dad's liquor cabinet, mom's cigarette carton -- which would also cause pot to be more visible and openly abused in front of children by parents if legal, not only thereby desensitizing children to the damages done by yet another drug, but making it so very easy for kids to reach.

Pot legalization remains bad news for so many ethical and moral reasons, including that it would make it soooo much easier for kids to abuse pot.

 

[Ontologuy]

I call bull****. I am the master of doing "social experiments" at DP.

Then I call you on your projected call of bull****.

Do you ever reveal to other posters that you were doing a "social experiment"?

:roll:

Your explanation above has so many holes in it one could drive a truck through them.

No, I'm afraid that's not true.

But if you wish to paint a picture with holes in it, considering you have the majority backing, you can probably thereby convince them.

Firstly, you've been here a bit and you know that DP accepts the presentation of pretty much any position that does not violate rules, such as hate speech. So, the thought that forum management might shut down the thread is ludicrous.

If you're feigning obtuseness, then let me feign needing to provide you a response, that often those who don't like a position violate protocol sufficient that management closes the thread rather than deals with the offenders. Those who know that often employ that "sacrificial" tactic.

In addition, some forums do indeed shut down threads that are either too one-sided or that management judges to reflect an "extreme" or "incompatible" position, despite the letter of their law.

To deny that reality simply to manufacture your defensive point, is disingenuous.

Secondly, this one sentence is indicative that you are making this up:

I was asked to present during discussion the foundational principles of addiction in general to see if such registered with anyone.

You completely failed to do this...

That, of course, is not true.

I presented the physical addiction aspect of pot which you yourself substantiated in your presentation and links.

I presented the addiction withdrawal post that conflicted with your "only alcohol withdrawal is deadly" error, which you then admitted to your error, but still couldn't resist manufacturing some fault with my presentation that revealed your error.

I accurately presented the neurotransmitter-receptor nature of different types of addiction.

And, highly important, I presented the nature of psychological addiction, the low-level residual chronic psychologically engendered pain from family-of-origin issues yet unresolved through therapeutic recovery.

I presented all of that, accurately.

It's all there in this thread for anyone to read and see for themselves.

I find it interesting that you need to make a point here about something where I corrected you and you reluctantly admitted to it.

I believe that's the basis of your directed attempt to create a point where none actually exists.

in fact what you did demonstrate was either a complete lack of knowledge on the foundational principles of addiction

Since that was not the case, and since I corrected you on point to which you admitted, I would say that, between the two of us, I'm the least lacking in knowledge of the foundational principles of addiction.

or an extreme hyperbolic version which,

There was no hyperbole of any kind in my presentation.

I presented the true facts, underscoring with proper healthy emotion when necessary.

Indeed, the part about paradigmic reaction to challenge, that's where hyperbole was presented, not by me, and for understandable reasons.

And that's still occurring.

if this was an experiment, would have destined it to fail.

Since your premises are false, so is your conclusion.

Indeed, when deprogrammers work with cultists to help them transcend the paradigmic mindset, they simply tell the cultist the straight truth, uncompromised by codependent coddling with euphemisms and manipulation.

I simply presented the straight healthcare truth, no hyperbole, no codependent coddling, no manipulation.

The reactions were thus uncontrived as well.

Everything succeeded according to theory ..

.. As well as in actual practice.

Lastly, it is unethical from a reseach standpoint for you to do what you claim to have done, and show it to others, without the consent of those of us who participated. Are you going to get signed informed consents from every member in this thread?

Your hyperbolic accusation, based on assumption that peoples names and comments are going to appear in a book or something external to the forum for research study reference or the like .. is simply preposterous.

Considering that you admit to being the master social experimenter here at DP, you might do well integrity-wise on a number of counts to just let it go.

I, at least, apologized.

Do you apologize after "fooling" everyone with your "social experiments"?

No, I've seen you do this before,

"This"?

What is the "this" to which you refer?

Do you mean agree with others to post a thread to review reaction to the specifics of the topic of the thread to benefit others?

If that's what you mean, no, I've never done "this" before.

I wonder why you'd want to portray me as chronic offender or something.

I mean, that's gonna play well with your audience .. so maybe I can guess why you're doing this .. but soing so isn't admirable.

several months ago in a gay marriage thread. You present your personal position, usually an extreme position, one that you demonstrate you know little about based on the lack of facts you present. THEN, when you get completely roasted in debate, you completely back off. LAST time, you claimed that you had "seen the light" and decided to agree with everyone.

Oh for Pete's sake. :lol:

Not only was my position in that thread not extreme (merely conflicting with the liberal social position), I presented some aspects of the topic that were valid and had not yet been broached.

So I differed with you and those with a liberal social bent, that's all.

You then say "I lacked facts", when I didn't, that "I got roasted in debate", which never happened, and that I "completely backed off" rather than that, yes, some points made did cause me to change my own position on the topic in conclusion, though the facts I presented were still facts, but afterward I "agreed with everyone", when clearly I didn't agree with the conservatives after that ..

.. Somehow you're thinking that I was presenting some kind of "ploy" or "experiment" in that thread???

Does that not seem just a wee bit paranoid to you here? Your complaint here is really contrived.

If you want homogenous presentation void of valid aspects that challenge people to see more than just the paradigmic line, well, I don't think you would really be all that happy with the result, even if it's less threatening.

I didn't buy it then, nor do I buy this "experiment". This is just you trying to save face after getting beaten in debate. Peddle this stuff elsewhere.

I think, obviously, considering I accurately refuted your "only alcohol withdrawal causes death", which hyou posted succinctly multiple times, the only one attempting to save face here is you.

And, if the truth is important, when it comes to who wins a debate, it's not a matter of the numbers who posters who post a perspective, it's a matter of which presentation utilizes the most effective combinations of facts, truth and style.

In the gay marriage thread, I lost the debate, and I realized that, and I changed my position, though the perspective still remained.

In this thread, well, it's pretty obvious I simply kicked ass ..

.. About which some are still smarting.

Regardless, everything I have posted is true.

Deal with it.

 

[Pinkie]

Playing with scorpions is safer than playing with rattlesnakes, alligators, grizzly bears and even irritated pit bulls.

I wouldn't reccomend it, though.

:roll:

I would. As long as the person is healthy, isn't risking his career and chooses an appropriate time and place, I most certainly do recommend altering your mind and/or mood. Just as I recommend trying to find a creative outlet, having pet or many other activities that have no apparent value.

In your case, since substances are so repugnant to you, I'd recommend mediation, yoga, any rhythmic exercise, joyous sex, reading a good book, etc. You'll have to work harder IME to achieve the same degree of altered state as I do, using alcohol or some other drug, but you'll get there.

 

[4Horsemen]

If Marijuana was made available to Physicians to offer patients, they'd jump on it. no questions. no reservations.


But so long as Big Pharma says it's the bane of society, they go in lock step and indoctrinate their patients the same.



Funny how that works.

 

[Ontologuy]

I watched reefer madness in the sixties. for someone who has never smoked pot you try to make people think that you are an expert on the subject. Like what was once said to a pope, "you no a playa the game a, you no a make a the rules" [concerning birth control]

Your premise here is that if a valid authority in the matter, a healthcare practitioner, a doctor, a psychologist, who presents the fact-based truth of the damaging deadly nature of pot, who's conducted the studies that revealed the deadly damage pot does, or who studied those studies, or who witnessed first-hand the carnage in lives damaged and lost ..

.. All of that ..

.. If such people haven't abused pot themselves, then they can't possibly know what they know, or have witnessed what they witnessed, or be the valid authorities in the field that they truly are.

:roll:

As to your having watched "Reefer Madness" reference .. in the sixties .. .. your point?

 

[Removable Mind]

Your premise here is that if a valid authority in the matter, a healthcare practitioner, a doctor, a psychologist, who presents the fact-based truth of the damaging deadly nature of pot, who's conducted the studies that revealed the deadly damage pot does, or who studied those studies, or who witnessed first-hand the carnage in lives damaged and lost ..

.. All of that ..

.. If such people haven't abused pot themselves, then they can't possibly know what they know, or have witnessed what they witnessed, or be the valid authorities in the field that they truly are.

:roll:

As to your having watched "Reefer Madness" reference .. in the sixties .. .. your point?

Are you a valid "authority" or credentialed in the field of chemical dependency - or are you yourself living with issues caused by chemical dependency - or in recovery?

 

[Ontologuy]

Excep criminalization is no deterrent to recreational drug use.

Oh, absolutely it is a deterrent to drug-abuse!

Studies show that if pot was legalized that its proliferation and abuse would sky-rocket.

That's exactly what happened when alcohol was legalized after prohibition, and alcohol, due to its legality remains the main drug that damages pre-teens and teens today (though nicotene, due to the legality of cigarettes, isn't all that far behind).

So, obviously, keeping pot illegal is a great deterrent to quite a number of people -- especially kids -- who respect the law sufficiently to not risk getting in trouble with the law merely to abuse pot.

Is that figure 100%?

Of course not -- there is always a very tiny segment of society, as statistics show, that are so predisposed to addiction and acting-out that breaking the law won't deter them.

But for the great majority, the law is a great deterrent.

And that's really good for kids and other innocents.

So with criminalization, we get deaths from the methods you mentioned

Your presentation runs afoul of being disproportionate.

Keeping pot illegal keeps the number of those deaths way down compared to how high they would be if pot was legal.

as well as deaths from gang violence.

Gang violence would still happen if pot was legal.

I'm continually amazed by people who don't get the obviousness of it.

If pot were legalized the price would get jacked up multiple times due to the addition of regulations, licences, taxes of a number of kinds. That's cigarettes, and that's the reason a black market exists for them: to skirt some of these additional costs.

With pot, considering it can be grown outside the U.S., smuggled in, and competing gangs keep the price down, the price that is completely void of the regulatory, licensing, taxation, etc. charges passed down to consumers if pot was legal, so even if you legalize it, the black market will obviously remain for it, and greater so than with cigarettes, especially with regard to the cost that kids can afford.

And the gangs will still violently battle each other and die, and law enforcement will continue to track down, deal with, and sadly, get killed by these gangs, and kids will still get damaged and killed by pot if pot was legal.

The difference is that there are less deaths, way less deaths now with pot illegal, especially regarding kids and other innocents killed by stoned drivers.

And that's because keeping pot illegal keeps pot abuse way down compared to if it was legal.

With legalization, we cut out the deaths from gang violence an prison violence and reduce the overall amount of deaths.

I find your focus on reducing gang-violence and prison-violence deaths rather eerie.

Your perspective of pot legalization will not reduce these deaths all that much, if at all.

But your perspective of pot legalization will greatly increase the deaths of kids and other innocents, as I have accurately presented.

It's eerie to me that you would focus so much on gang and criminal deaths, and not seem to care much at all about the deaths of kids and other innocents .. very eerie.

 

[Ontologuy]

Though your sentence here is presented as a criticism, your thought process runs afoul of, not only the damaging deadly realities about pot-abuse, but also the normal healthy reaction to pot abuse.

Pot is damaging and deadly, obviously.

That so many children, pre-teens, and teens are damaged by it makes those parents and grandparents very angry, a natural, normal and healthy reaction.

That they thus come to hate what pot does to those they love, is again, a normal, natural, and healthy response to the matter.

Yet, clearly, you're trying to spin this normal, natural and healthy response into something that you imply is just the opposite.

And, of course, your spin and implication makes no rational sense at all.



No, that's not "the real question", that's simply a diversion digression by pot-heads and legalization apologists (if there's even a real difference between the two!) away from the intrinsic damaging and deadly nature of pot-abuse.

Obviously.



No, that's merely a misperception due to alochol's legality, as pot is worse for a number of obvious reasons.

Today, however, which harms more children, pre-teens, and teens: 1) alcohol, or 2) pot?

That's right, far and away, alcohol.

And why?

Because alcohol is .. wait for it .. .. legal.

By virtue of it being legal, it proliferates and is thus much more available and thus easy for kids to get ahold of.

Pot, by virtue of being illegal, is only abused by kids a fraction of the degree it would be if it was legal and thus more easily available.

And the proof is obvious. When alcohol was illegal, during prohibition, the percentage abuse and damage to kids caused by alcohol was also a mere fraction of what it became after alochol was legalized.

These are the facts that studies about the sky-rocketing damage to kids by legalizing pot also verify and jibe.

So .. parents and grandparents knowing the facts, what do you think they're going to sanely, rationally, soberly, logically do? That's right, keep damaging, deadly, socially unredeeming pot illegal, and continue to do all they can under the adverse circumstances to keep alcohol away from kids.

And this is what parents and grandparents will sanely, rationally, soberly, logically do because they love their kids.



When it comes to sane, rational, sober and logical behavior, keeping damaging deadly pot illegal is a consistent behavior parents and grapndparents present in reflection of the love they have for their children.

As usual, you pro-pot-abuse/legalization advocates argue from a meaningless superficial perspective via appealing only to form -- and, of course, in the name of "I want my drug!" -- and completely miss the valid-argument appeal to substance that truly does make keeping pot illegal the consistent thing to do for those who truly care about those they love.

So much unbelieveable nonsense. Propaganda is the driving force. Profit the motivation. Deliberate disinformation the method. None are so blind as those who will not see. Carry on. William Randolph Hearst wpuld be so proud of you.

:roll:

I present the fact-based truth of the realiies of the damaging deadly nature of pot.

That's not "nonsense", it's obviously not "propaganda", there's no "profit" motive here at all ...

I don't think I'm the blind one ..

.. And for certain I'm not hallucinating something that isn't there.

 

[Ontologuy]

When I was a minor, it was way easier to get pot than to get alcohol.

If you wanted alcohol, you had to know someone significantly older who was willing to buy it for you on short notice, or really stupid parents who won't notice there's suddenly a couple bottles missing. It's not easy.

But pot? The dealer doesn't care how old you are. They don't check ID's at the street corner. It's easy to get pot no matter how old you are, and it doesn't cost much more than alcohol. In a few places it costs less.

Yet alcohol remained the number one drug abused by high-schoolers: Teenage Alcohol Abuse - Underage Drinking - Binge Drinking | Caron Texas

Four in ten (41.8 percent) are current drinkers.

Yes, nearly 42 percent of high-schoolers abuse alcohol.

Teen Marijuana Use - Teen Pot Use - Teenage Marijuana Abuse | Caron Texas

Usage rates for high school students increased between 2009 and 2010 from 5.2% to 6.1% for high school seniors, 2.8% to 3.3% for tenth grade students and 1.0% to 1.2% for eighth grade students.

While the aggregate rate for pot-abuse among high-schoolers is just a little over 4.0 percent.

And why is alcohol-abuse among teens so much greater than pot-abuse among teens? Because alcohol is legal!

Just look, again from the first link:

Teens are influenced by advertising, parents and their friends and this has a great effect on whether or not they will engage in drinking and at what age they will start. Studies show that if a parent drinks then their child is more likely to drink.

And why do so many adults abuse alcohol than abuse pot? Because alcohol is legal!

And, oh yes, let's not forget all the alcohol advertising on TV that influences kids to abuse alcohol. If pot were legalized, then all the pot ads on TV would deluge our kids.

I don't know why your anecdotal situation was so greatly different from the norm, but statistics show that kids are getting their hands on alcohol a whole lot easier than they are with pot.

And the reason?

Alcohol is legal! .. and pot isn't!

Legality makes the difference in so many ways.

 

[Pinkie]

If Marijuana was made available to Physicians to offer patients, they'd jump on it. no questions. no reservations.


But so long as Big Pharma says it's the bane of society, they go in lock step and indoctrinate their patients the same.



Funny how that works.

I'm confident if I asked my doctor about marijuana, he'd answer me truthfully.

 

[marduc]

Yet alcohol remained the number one drug abused by high-schoolers: Teenage Alcohol Abuse - Underage Drinking - Binge Drinking | Caron Texas
Yes, nearly 42 percent of high-schoolers abuse alcohol.

Teen Marijuana Use - Teen Pot Use - Teenage Marijuana Abuse | Caron Texas
While the aggregate rate for pot-abuse among high-schoolers is just a little over 4.0 percent.

huh????

In 2011, 7.2 percent of 8th graders, 17.6 percent of 10th graders, and 22.6 percent of 12th graders used marijuana in the past month

Alcohol use among teens has dropped to historically low levels. In 2011, 4.4 percent of 8th graders, 13.7 percent of 10th graders, and 25 percent of 12th graders reported getting drunk in the past month

source: High School and Youth Trends | DrugFacts | National Institute on Drug Abuse

A far cry from 42% versus 4%. Looking at the NIDA info, - aside from seniors who have slightly higher alcohol usage rates - more 8th and 10th graders reported smoking pot within the last month than those who used alcohol.

With your off the wall obscure sources you like to use, it comes across as if you cherry pick and dig until you find something that supports what you want it to support.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Then I call you on your projected call of bull****.

Do you ever reveal to other posters that you were doing a "social experiment"?

:roll:

Absolutely. That's the ethical way of handling something like this. They know that a social experiment is occurring, they just may not know the purpose. Blind studies and double blind studies are conducted this way. There is nothing honest about what you did, here.

No, I'm afraid that's not true.

But if you wish to paint a picture with holes in it, considering you have the majority backing, you can probably thereby convince them.

I don't need the majority of anything to demonstrate the holes in what you claimed. Anyone with a sense of rationality, friend or foe, can see it.

If you're feigning obtuseness, then let me feign needing to provide you a response, that often those who don't like a position violate protocol sufficient that management closes the thread rather than deals with the offenders. Those who know that often employ that "sacrificial" tactic.

In addition, some forums do indeed shut down threads that are either too one-sided or that management judges to reflect an "extreme" or "incompatible" position, despite the letter of their law.

To deny that reality simply to manufacture your defensive point, is disingenuous.

Your explanation is hollow and has no substantiation. In order for you to hold this belief you would have to have some evidence of this occurring HERE; I don't care what happens elsewhere. You've been here a year and often take radical positions. You have never been "shut down". If you are not lying, which I believe you are, the only other possibility is that your "chicken little" act around marijuana extends to your fear of posting on message boards.

That, of course, is not true.

I presented the physical addiction aspect of pot which you yourself substantiated in your presentation and links.

I presented the addiction withdrawal post that conflicted with your "only alcohol withdrawal is deadly" error, which you then admitted to your error, but still couldn't resist manufacturing some fault with my presentation that revealed your error.

I accurately presented the neurotransmitter-receptor nature of different types of addiction.

And, highly important, I presented the nature of psychological addiction, the low-level residual chronic psychologically engendered pain from family-of-origin issues yet unresolved through therapeutic recovery.

I presented all of that, accurately.

It's all there in this thread for anyone to read and see for themselves.

I find it interesting that you need to make a point here about something where I corrected you and you reluctantly admitted to it.

I believe that's the basis of your directed attempt to create a point where none actually exists.

You have completely failed to identify the nature of abuse a key component in defining addiction. You have consistently misrepresented information regarding marijuana use... and if you want to examine my links, you will see that it is clear from the research that marijuana does NOT kill anyone, is a low level addictive substance, and affects different parts of the brain that alcohol. Further, you failed to identify causes of addiction... I did that, and your explanation of the physical addiction of marijuana was completely hyperbolic... which I and other corrected for you.

So, no, from what I see, your understanding of the nature of addiction is sorely lacking. It's a hyperbolic layman's understanding. You read a couple of links. Big deal.

Since that was not the case, and since I corrected you on point to which you admitted, I would say that, between the two of us, I'm the least lacking in knowledge of the foundational principles of addiction.

No, as I said above, your knowledge of the foundations of addiction are sorely lacking. I missed one point. You missed the entire barn.

There was no hyperbole of any kind in my presentation.

I presented the true facts, underscoring with proper healthy emotion when necessary.

Indeed, the part about paradigmic reaction to challenge, that's where hyperbole was presented, not by me, and for understandable reasons.

And that's still occurring.

Your presentation was ENTIRELY hyperbolic. This has been proven over and over. When you did present facts, they were so interspersed with hyperbolic misrepresentations that they were nearly unobservable.

Since your premises are false, so is your conclusion.

Since my premise is accurate, your comment is irrelevant.

Indeed, when deprogrammers work with cultists to help them transcend the paradigmic mindset, they simply tell the cultist the straight truth, uncompromised by codependent coddling with euphemisms and manipulation.

I simply presented the straight healthcare truth, no hyperbole, no codependent coddling, no manipulation.

The reactions were thus uncontrived as well.

Everything succeeded according to theory ..

.. As well as in actual practice.

YOUR premise that you presented truth and no hyperbole is false. This is where your error starts. This has been shown to you over and over. Come on Ontologuy. The jig is up. You've been badly beaten in this debate, so to save face, THIS is what you came up with?

Your hyperbolic accusation, based on assumption that peoples names and comments are going to appear in a book or something external to the forum for research study reference or the like .. is simply preposterous.

You claim to have shown this "experiment" to others. It is unethical to do so.

Considering that you admit to being the master social experimenter here at DP, you might do well integrity-wise on a number of counts to just let it go.

I, at least, apologized.

Do you apologize after "fooling" everyone with your "social experiments"?

I inform people of the "experiment" when I do them. I haven't done one in a while. And when one went array, I apologized to the community.

"This"?

What is the "this" to which you refer?

Do you mean agree with others to post a thread to review reaction to the specifics of the topic of the thread to benefit others?

If that's what you mean, no, I've never done "this" before.

I wonder why you'd want to portray me as chronic offender or something.

I mean, that's gonna play well with your audience .. so maybe I can guess why you're doing this .. but soing so isn't admirable.



Oh for Pete's sake. :lol:

Not only was my position in that thread not extreme (merely conflicting with the liberal social position), I presented some aspects of the topic that were valid and had not yet been broached.

So I differed with you and those with a liberal social bent, that's all.

You then say "I lacked facts", when I didn't, that "I got roasted in debate", which never happened, and that I "completely backed off" rather than that, yes, some points made did cause me to change my own position on the topic in conclusion, though the facts I presented were still facts, but afterward I "agreed with everyone", when clearly I didn't agree with the conservatives after that ..

.. Somehow you're thinking that I was presenting some kind of "ploy" or "experiment" in that thread???

Does that not seem just a wee bit paranoid to you here? Your complaint here is really contrived.

If you want homogenous presentation void of valid aspects that challenge people to see more than just the paradigmic line, well, I don't think you would really be all that happy with the result, even if it's less threatening.

I don't think you were presenting an "experiment" in that thread any more than I think you were presenting one in THIS thread. Both times you presented radical position... positions that you admit that you held. Both times your "facts" were shown to be faulty. Both times you have designed a "way out" of the beating you were taking. There, you claimed to completely change your mind; here you're pulling a "it was all a social experiment" card. Your position is faulty; the facts prove it. Just admit it.

I think, obviously, considering I accurately refuted your "only alcohol withdrawal causes death", which hyou posted succinctly multiple times, the only one attempting to save face here is you.

Not at all. People make errors. When I do, I move on.

And, if the truth is important, when it comes to who wins a debate, it's not a matter of the numbers who posters who post a perspective, it's a matter of which presentation utilizes the most effective combinations of facts, truth and style.

Which you have completely failed to do. It has nothing to do with the number of posters who have disagreed with you. It has to do with the pure hyperbole and lack of facts of your position.

In the gay marriage thread, I lost the debate, and I realized that, and I changed my position, though the perspective still remained.

In this thread, well, it's pretty obvious I simply kicked ass ..

.. About which some are still smarting.

Regardless, everything I have posted is true.

Deal with it.

You got beat in both debates. The difference is that you have chosen to exit in two different ways; there you admitted your mistake (or feigned it in order to bow out), here you have refused to admit your mistake.

Deal with that.

 

[Thorgasm]

How much pot should I smoke to kill myself?

 

[cAPSLOCK]

How much pot should I smoke to kill myself?

"A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.” -The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 337, No. 6, August 7, 1997.

Reading this thread does make one begin to wonder if it would be worth testing that hypothesis. :lamo I can't go away. I am drawn to it like a train wreck.

 

[Dezaad]

"A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.” -The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 337, No. 6, August 7, 1997.

Reading this thread does make one begin to wonder if it would be worth testing that hypothesis. :lamo I can't go away. I am drawn to it like a train wreck.

I know, me too. But, I am trying not to post. Just watching the bizarre show, mostly.

 

[Thorgasm]

"A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.” -The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 337, No. 6, August 7, 1997.

Reading this thread does make one begin to wonder if it would be worth testing that hypothesis. :lamo I can't go away. I am drawn to it like a train wreck.

This strain is known as "train wreck". :lol:

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Your premise here is that if a valid authority in the matter, a healthcare practitioner, a doctor, a psychologist, who presents the fact-based truth of the damaging deadly nature of pot, who's conducted the studies that revealed the deadly damage pot does, or who studied those studies, or who witnessed first-hand the carnage in lives damaged and lost ..

.. All of that ..



.. If such people haven't abused pot themselves, then they can't possibly know what they know, or have witnessed what they witnessed, or be the valid authorities in the field that they truly are.

:roll

As t
o your having watched "Reefer Madness" reference .. in the sixties .. .. your point?

You mean you are assuming that that is my premise, which it is not. My premise is that nothing gives better hindsight and is more factual than hands on experience, making your assumption invalid from the the very begining.
Since I never abused pot, my asserations are more valid than yours
.



You claimed it came to popularity in the 70's. I was only correcting you.

 

[sokpupet]

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/08/09/420lawyer03.jpeg