Various Races

[Jake]

Has there ever been a local or statewide politician that has run on the platform of having everyone have a say on each issue by way of online vote? That would be crazy.

 

As our resident public opinion researcher, I don't think this would work for a few different reasons. For one, nobody would do it. People don't vote for freaking President. It would also cost a good deal of money to set up an online infrastructure that would be relatively immune to being hacked/taken advantage of.

 

Even once you've set up a system with decent integrity and access, I'm not sure what good it ultimately does. If you rely on people to give input, you'll get an awful skew of public opinion. People will go crazy about this or that issue. Most legislative issues are "AW HELL NAW" versus "yeah, we should do that thing" or vice versa. You only get the all-caps people.

 

Then, even if you do get "turn out" for you online polls...how do you poll? Do you ask them if they are in favor of [Law X regarding the budget] or cutting pensions? Sometimes you'll love everything about a given law, but not a small thing so you vote against it in hopes that the small thing gets removed. Sometimes you don't, too, obviously. These things are hard to message. Those assholes stick the indefinite detention amendment onto the NDAA every year at the last minute and leave nobody any choice but to a. fund military and allow this provision to exist or b. risk f***ing the military out of resources or otherwise dicking up the entire agreement into a stalemate that winds up risking the integrity of the budget.

 

Lots of them do internal polling, research, and obviously try to canvas/solicit feedback from constituents. I think the more you try to make it scientific with the "you vote!" model, the more grave your errors will be in this case. The beauty of it will be that you may very well have a candidate who votes with the real public opinion of the district every time but still gets ousted because the summary of legislative judgements doesn't amount to their holistic opinion. Might just have everybody be pissed off.

 

There are many studies which show the adverse effects of marijuana. They are much worse the tobacco for cardiovascular risks. You can pretty much guarantee a heart attack if you smoke it regularly. I posted some articles in another thread.

 

One of the paradoxical effects is the TCH and the anti-inflammatory capabilities. It is prescribed for some inflammatory conditions such as glaucoma for this reason. The other side is that any other injury will take much longer to heal or won't heal due to the inflammatory process not occurring. So in the short term and long term it will have an impact on your health, which in turn may have an effect on the long term health care of the state.

 

Is this true of eaten THC as well? Asking out of ignorance.

[RockRaines]

Is this true of eaten THC as well? Asking out of ignorance.

I havent seen the articles he linked somewhere else but I assume its the horribly flawed Harvard study where people who had heart attacks had smoked marijuana once in the past year before they had one. They didnt study any other factors about their lives and didnt factor in the overwhelmingly large portion of our population that smokes or has smoked marijuana. There is also an article passed around about risk of stroke where they asked no other questions and when they went back and asked about tobacco they found there was the exact same percentage of users.

 

The lack of any real evidence of adverse effects in all these years should be a pretty decent indicator of its safety. With tobacco or alcohol you can literally find the exact chemicals that cause disease like cancer. Tobacco is rarely ever JUST tobacco as well. With marijuana they have not only medical upside but havent found any real long term health risks outside of the norm.

 

And its not to say that marijuana is "healthy" because any mood altering substance is going to effect you in a negative way whether its pills, alcohol or marijuana. However when weighed against other "legalized" substances its not even close. There are probably worse risks with today's supermarket foods and Gluten than Marijuana. Shoot, Soy-based items are shown to cause cancer, but people still drink their soy lattes.

Edited March 19, 2014 by RockRaines

[southsider2k5]

Has there ever been a local or statewide politician that has run on the platform of having everyone have a say on each issue by way of online vote? That would be crazy.

 

According to the last document dump, the Clintons picked their fights exactly by public opinion polling.

[Y2HH]

I disagree wholeheartedly. Marijuana doesnt contain carcinogens like tobacco and the heart attack risk you speak of has no validity other than a questionnaire aimed at proving a correlation between the two.

 

Not to mention edibles is by far the largest market for people which wouldnt have any cardiovasular effect no matter how false the studies are.

 

Marijuana DOES contain a lot of carcinogens, just like tobacco. Not sure where you heard that.

 

Look no further than the inside of a bong.

[RockRaines]

Marijuana DOES contain a lot of carcinogens, just like tobacco. Not sure where you heard that.

 

Look no further than the inside of a bong.

Smoking anything is bad for you, however its not even remotely like tobacco.

 

I use a vaporizer, it doesnt ignite the plant whatsoever.

[Y2HH]

Smoking anything is bad for you, however its not even remotely like tobacco.

 

I use a vaporizer, it doesnt ignite the plant whatsoever.

 

It's not as bad as tobacco, and supposedly has anti-cancer properties, but turning your lungs black can't be good no matter what material you do it with.

[RockRaines]

It's not as bad as tobacco, and supposedly has anti-cancer properties, but turning your lungs black can't be good no matter what material you do it with.

Thats why you eat it instead. Edibles is a HUGE market.

[Jake]

There are some quite interesting studies where weed smokers are less fat than non-weed smokers, even when controlling for caloric intake, etc

[Soxbadger]

Its interesting to look at the law historically to try and find when exactly people gave up the right to ingest whatever they want.

 

I doubt what I do is healthy, but who exactly is the US govt to tell me not to? People can eat bad food, they can drink things that kill them, so why do we arbitrarily draw the line.

 

Crazy to say it, but there are likely more deaths attributed to drinking too much water in a single day than smoking too much weed in a single day.

 

 

[farmteam]

I havent seen the articles he linked somewhere else but I assume its the horribly flawed Harvard study where people who had heart attacks had smoked marijuana once in the past year before they had one. They didnt study any other factors about their lives and didnt factor in the overwhelmingly large portion of our population that smokes or has smoked marijuana. There is also an article passed around about risk of stroke where they asked no other questions and when they went back and asked about tobacco they found there was the exact same percentage of users.

 

The lack of any real evidence of adverse effects in all these years should be a pretty decent indicator of its safety. With tobacco or alcohol you can literally find the exact chemicals that cause disease like cancer. Tobacco is rarely ever JUST tobacco as well. With marijuana they have not only medical upside but havent found any real long term health risks outside of the norm.

 

And its not to say that marijuana is "healthy" because any mood altering substance is going to effect you in a negative way whether its pills, alcohol or marijuana. However when weighed against other "legalized" substances its not even close. There are probably worse risks with today's supermarket foods and Gluten than Marijuana. Shoot, Soy-based items are shown to cause cancer, but people still drink their soy lattes.

I read the studies he posted in the earlier thread. They said that there was in increased chance of heart attack immediately after use (in other words, while still high), but didn't say anything about long-term effects.

 

I'd like to see more research done on this in general. That's what bugs me most about it being Schedule I.

[Jenksismyhero]

Its interesting to look at the law historically to try and find when exactly people gave up the right to ingest whatever they want.

 

I doubt what I do is healthy, but who exactly is the US govt to tell me not to? People can eat bad food, they can drink things that kill them, so why do we arbitrarily draw the line.

 

Crazy to say it, but there are likely more deaths attributed to drinking too much water in a single day than smoking too much weed in a single day.

 

I'd imagine the argument is eating something unhealthy doesn't increase the risk of harm to other people like drugs do, be it from drug crimes or from being high while driving a car.

[southsider2k5]

I'd imagine the argument is eating something unhealthy doesn't increase the risk of harm to other people like drugs do, be it from drug crimes or from being high while driving a car.

 

Only now your behaviors have a direct cost to those around through your insurance requirements.

[Soxbadger]

I'd imagine the argument is eating something unhealthy doesn't increase the risk of harm to other people like drugs do, be it from drug crimes or from being high while driving a car.

 

It could increase the risk. How many people have been killed in car accidents due to another party having a heart attack? What about eating turkey and falling asleep at the wheel? What if I ingest to much sugar and go into a coma?

 

And "drug crimes", what about "food crimes", when someone steals so that they can eat. Should we ban food? What about money crimes, someone steals money/kills for wealth? Should we outlaw money?

 

This is merely about government control. Its not even like guns where the gun itself can kill. Its not like "Oh s*** I accidentally hit that bong and someone died." There is no direct causation to other people. Drugs are just a convenient excuse for when people make bad decisions.

 

Its just an excuse. There is only 1 drug that I have ever taken where I seriously could not comprehend the consequences of my actions, its hilariously alcohol. So there is no rhyme or reason, because alcohol is basically the most dangerous. Not only to you, but to others.

[Jenksismyhero]

It could increase the risk. How many people have been killed in car accidents due to another party having a heart attack? What about eating turkey and falling asleep at the wheel? What if I ingest to much sugar and go into a coma?

 

And "drug crimes", what about "food crimes", when someone steals so that they can eat. Should we ban food? What about money crimes, someone steals money/kills for wealth? Should we outlaw money?

 

This is merely about government control. Its not even like guns where the gun itself can kill. Its not like "Oh s*** I accidentally hit that bong and someone died." There is no direct causation to other people. Drugs are just a convenient excuse for when people make bad decisions.

 

Its just an excuse. There is only 1 drug that I have ever taken where I seriously could not comprehend the consequences of my actions, its hilariously alcohol. So there is no rhyme or reason, because alcohol is basically the most dangerous. Not only to you, but to others.

 

I miss the overreaction, sliding scale SB post. Thanks.

[Y2HH]

What about eating turkey and falling asleep at the wheel?

 

Not for nothing, as I know you simply used this as an example, but Turkey contains less L-tryptophan than cheddar cheese, and about the same as chicken. The amount of turkey you'd have to eat to produce this effect is more than most would actually eat, even on Thanksgiving, and those to do eat that much would have to do so on an empty stomach WITHOUT eating anything but the turkey. Mixed with other amino acids, the sleep effect produced by L-tryptophan is negated.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

I miss the overreaction, sliding scale SB post. Thanks.

 

You mean hyperbole to create a reaction about the absurdity of the law.

 

Not for nothing, as I know you simply used this as an example, but Turkey contains less L-tryptophan than cheddar cheese, and about the same as chicken. The amount of turkey you'd have to eat to produce this effect is more than most would actually eat, even on Thanksgiving, and those to do eat that much would have to do so on an empty stomach WITHOUT eating anything but the turkey. Mixed with other amino acids, the sleep effect produced by L-tryptophan is negated.

 

One time I ate a turkey and it made me sleepy, I almost fell asleep while driving. We should ban turkey.

 

Thats the type of anecdotal evidence that was used to make marijuana illegal in the first place. Which is kind of the point, if you repeat something enough times, people start to believe it.

[ptatc]

Rock pointed out that in Colorado they're seeing a majority of the sales in edible THC.

 

Is the comparison with tobacco done on a equivalent-amount-smoked basis or a comparison of how much tobacco someone actually uses versus how much pot someone actually uses? People might smoke a pack of cigarettes a day or every couple of days, but they're not going to go through 20 joints that fast.

 

edit: I can't imagine that the long-term health effects of THC, especially if its ingested instead of smoked, are anywhere near as bad as the long-term health effects of alcohol.

Its done on the chemical effects on the body not in a comparison of how much is smoked. I posted only studies that looked at the chemicals and their effects. I don't know about how it compares to alcohol. The effects on the cardiovascular system are different. My comment was only in relation to using money from it to bring in tax more tax dollars. Over the long term I don't think it will be much of a net gain.

[ptatc]

I disagree wholeheartedly. Marijuana doesnt contain carcinogens like tobacco and the heart attack risk you speak of has no validity other than a questionnaire aimed at proving a correlation between the two.

 

Not to mention edibles is by far the largest market for people which wouldnt have any cardiovasular effect no matter how false the studies are.

The studies I posted showed the effects of marijuana on the cardiovascular system. There are real and do effect the body. I really don't care if they legalize it. People can do whatever they want to thier body. The idea that legalizing it will net the state money over the long term is probably not correct.

 

We've seen what things like tobacco and alcohol have done to thehealth of people who use them and what that does to medical bills. With Obamacare do we really wantto add another?

[Jake]

Its interesting to look at the law historically to try and find when exactly people gave up the right to ingest whatever they want.

 

I doubt what I do is healthy, but who exactly is the US govt to tell me not to? People can eat bad food, they can drink things that kill them, so why do we arbitrarily draw the line.

 

Crazy to say it, but there are likely more deaths attributed to drinking too much water in a single day than smoking too much weed in a single day.

 

A great deal of legal and political philosophy is based on the idea that people know what is best for themselves and act somewhat rationally pursuing whatever it is that is best for them. This is why children, the extremely mentally ill, and the senile do not get this benefit of the doubt. It is also why we don't like applying those terms too liberally.

 

The reason we ban certain things is because they put us in a state where we no longer can act for our own good. You don't just try meth - you have it once and, usually, you never get the chance to return to Earth and start wondering about the pros and cons of what you've done. This has consequences for more than just you, too. When you aren't in a mental state to decide whether what you're doing endangers me or whether you mugging me for drug money could make you go to jail, everything starts falling apart. When we craft our laws, we try to balance a concern for letting you do what you want with these concerns for your likelihood to harm others as well as the kind of self-harms that come from your activity.

 

This is why I'm cool with legalizing marijuana, beyond the technocratic concerns like revenue, cutting prison costs, releasing a racial underclass from prison, etc. There are a million points of return with weed. Every time you smoke it could probably be the last time. When you are high on 'potenuse, you aren't much of a hazard to yourself or society. While health effects aren't great, they accumulate slowly enough that they need not be outright banned to protect you and those around you.

 

Other public policy efforts like labeling, age restriction, etc. can act as nudges to make people tread lightly with the health concerns. There are no big "you have pretty good odds of killing yourself in the midst of use" concerns here. It's even less than alcohol, which I'd argue falls below the "it must be banned!" guideline in terms of the immediate health effects of use. The Phillip Seymour Hoffmans of the world just never have a reefer by their side when they are found.

 

Another way to think about it: people that use meth aren't choosing to remove themselves from society, they choose to use meth once or twice before losing their ability to really make many choices at all. You might be able to think of some potheads that are unproductive citizens, but chances are they chose being unproductive citizen first and marijuana second. This is why there are lots of successful, normal people that like to blaze up sometimes (or all the time).

[Jake]

Its done on the chemical effects on the body not in a comparison of how much is smoked. I posted only studies that looked at the chemicals and their effects. I don't know about how it compares to alcohol. The effects on the cardiovascular system are different. My comment was only in relation to using money from it to bring in tax more tax dollars. Over the long term I don't think it will be much of a net gain.

 

The decriminalization side of it rather than the tax side of it may be what benefits the state both financially and otherwise.

[StrangeSox]

Its interesting to look at the law historically to try and find when exactly people gave up the right to ingest whatever they want.

 

with respect to drugs it was pretty much a race thing

[ptatc]

The decriminalization side of it rather than the tax side of it may be what benefits the state both financially and otherwise.

Good point. It may save the state alot of money not having to prosecute and enforce the laws which govern it. I wonder if like drunk driving, there will be monetary and medical costs. The cumulative health effects and what it costs long term still cause me worry though.

[RockRaines]

The studies I posted showed the effects of marijuana on the cardiovascular system. There are real and do effect the body. I really don't care if they legalize it. People can do whatever they want to thier body. The idea that legalizing it will net the state money over the long term is probably not correct.

 

We've seen what things like tobacco and alcohol have done to thehealth of people who use them and what that does to medical bills. With Obamacare do we really wantto add another?

Thats why I dont agree with your point. It's nowhere in the same universe as tobacco and alcohol as far as health risks.why

Edited March 20, 2014 by RockRaines

[Jenksismyhero]

with respect to drugs it was pretty much a race thing

 

What? No. I don't think blacks were the main users of pot, LSD, heroin, meth, etc. in the 60's and 70's when the anti-drug kick started. Crack maybe, but not much else.

 

I don't think there's some arbitrary or even sinister reason why the government tried to ban some of this stuff. Prohibition gained traction because women stood up and said they were tired of dead beat and abusive husbands. Crime was a serious issue with drugs in the 60/70's (and even today). Doesn't mean that ALL drug laws are good, but I can see the need for it in some situations.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[ptatc]

Thats why I dont agree with your point. It's nowhere in the same universe as tobacco and alcohol as far as health risks.why

It is for the cardiovacualr system. It's worse than the other two by far. You won't get the liver problems with alcohol or the lung cancer from tobacco however you are much more likely to have a heart attack. Some studies even go further and state you are nearly guaranteed to have a heart attack with regular use.