Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday October 28, @01:28AM   Printer-friendly
from the next-up?-legalize-pans! dept.

64% of Americans now support the legalization of cannabis, an all-time high since Gallup first asked the question in 1969. Also for the first time, a majority of Republicans (51%) support legalization, up from 42% last year:

As efforts to legalize marijuana at the state level continue to yield successes, public opinion, too, has shifted toward greater support. The Department of Justice under the current Republican administration has been perceived as hostile to state-level legalization. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions could find himself out of step with his own party if the current trends continue. Rank-and-file Republicans' views on the issue have evolved just as Democrats' and independents' have, though Republicans remain least likely to support legalizing pot.

Also at NPR, The Hill, NORML, and Reason.

Related: New Attorney General Claims Legal Weed Drives Violent Crime; Statistics be Damned
4/20: The Third Time's Not the Charm


Original Submission

Related Stories

New Attorney General Claims Legal Weed Drives Violent Crime; Statistics be Damned 188 comments

The Center for American Progress reports

On [February 27], days after White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters to expect stricter enforcement of federal pot law, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recycled discredited drug war talking points in remarks of his own.

"I believe it's an unhealthy practice, and current levels of THC in marijuana are very high compared to what they were a few years ago, and we're seeing real violence around that", Sessions said. "Experts are telling me there's more violence around marijuana than one would think and there's big money involved."

In reality, violent crime rates tend to decrease where marijuana is legalized.

Denver saw a 2.2 percent drop in violent crime rates in the year after the first legal recreational cannabis sales in Colorado. Overall property crime dropped by 8.9 percent [PDF] in the same period there, according to figures from the Drug Policy Alliance. In Washington, violent crime rates dropped by 10 percent [PDF] from 2011 to 2014. Voters legalized recreational marijuana there in 2012.

Medical marijuana laws, which have a longer track record for academics than recreational pot legalization, are also associated with stable or falling violent crime rates. In one 2014 study of the 11 states that legalized medical pot from 1990 to 2006, there was no increase in the seven major categories of violent crime and "some evidence of decreasing rates of some types of violent crime, namely homicide and assault."

[...] Elsewhere in his remarks, Sessions unwittingly made the case against treating pot activity like serious crime. "You can't sue somebody for drug debt". he said. "The only way to get your money is through strong-arm tactics, and violence tends to follow that."

Legalizing, regulating, and taxing the sale of marijuana is the surest way to remedying that exact tendency for pot commerce to trigger violent score-settling. Legalization invites pot business into the light, granting cannabusinesses at least partial access to official modes of recourse when they are defrauded.

8 states and the District of Columbia have legalised marijuana for recreational use.
Ever see anyone use cannabis and become more aggressive rather than more mellow?

Note: ThinkProgress redirects all accesses of their pages and will attach tracking numbers. I have made sure that those are not in the URLs.


Original Submission

4/20: The Third Time's Not the Charm 55 comments

Past articles: 20152016

What's up, Soylenteers? I've got to write another one of these? #420TooMainstream.

Legalization Status

Timeline of cannabis laws in the United States
Timeline of cannabis law

Since this time last year, Ohio, Florida, North Dakota, and Arkansas legalized medical cannabis, Illinois decriminalized it, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts legalized recreational cannabis. An attempt to legalize recreational cannabis in Arizona narrowly failed.

29 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for medical use, although restrictions vary widely from state to state.

Germany's medical cannabis law was approved in January and came into effect in March. Poland has also legalized medical cannabis, and Georgia's Supreme Court has ruled that imprisonment for possession of small amounts of cannabis is unconstitutional.

Recently: West Virginia on Course for Medical Marijuana

🍁 Cannada: Not So Fast 🍁

Last week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unveiled (archive) legislation (archive) that would make Canada the first major Western country to legalize recreational cannabis (the only country to legalize it to date is Uruguay, although implementation has taken years), dealing a serious blow to the crumbling United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. However, the Liberal Party of Canada intends to wait more than a year to act on its campaign promise, during which time Canadians can still face prosecution for possession of the drug:

True to form, this government has written down a series of talking points, in this case, trying to make it sound like it's cracking down on pot rather than legalizing it. And Justin Trudeau's ministers are sticking to the messaging from party central like a child reciting Dr. Seuss.

Not once in that As It Happens interview did [Justice Minister Jody] Wilson-Raybould explain why the government intends to keep on criminalizing Canadians so unfairly (see the Liberal party's website statement) for another year. Instead, literally every second time she opened her mouth, she re-spouted the line about "strictly regulating and restricting access." Off asked eight questions. Four times, Wilson-Raybould robotically reverted to the same phrase.

Meanwhile, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, a parliamentary lifer who mastered the art of repetitive dronetalk sometime back in the last millennium, was out peddling more or less the same line, but with an added warning: Not only will the government continue to criminalize Canadians for what it considers a trifling offence, enforcement will be vigorous. "Existing laws prohibiting possession and use of cannabis remain in place, and they need to be respected," Goodale declared. "This must be an orderly transition. It is not a free-for-all." Why the government cannot simply decide to invoke prosecutorial and police discretion, and cease enforcing the cannabis laws it considers unjust, was not explained. Why that would necessarily be a "free for all" also went unexplained.

The Liberal Party of Canada has taken pains to remind everyone that the Conservative Party will "do everything they can to stop real change and protect a failed status quo". Unfortunately, they did not get the memo that "marijuana" is a term with racist origins.

Make like a tree and legalize it, Cannadia... Cannibinoidia.

President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Backtrack to April 20th, 2016. Bernie Sanders still seemingly had a shot at becoming the President of the United States. Sanders, as well as Hillary Clinton (though begrudgingly), supported decriminalization of cannabis, medical use, and the continuation of states making decisions about recreational use. The #2 Republican candidate Ted Cruz also had a "let the states sort it out" stance.

One contender stood out, and he went on to become the @POTUS to #MAGA. The widely predicted "third term" was prevented, and that outcome may greatly affect a burgeoning semi-legal cannabis industry. One recent casualty are Amsterdam-style "cannabis clubs" (think: brewpubs). Colorado's legislature has backed off on a bill that would have allowed on-site consumption of cannabis at dispensaries due to the uncertain future of federal enforcement of cannabis prohibition.

Trump's position on cannabis has been ill-defined, although he supports medical use and has indicated that states should handle the issue. But the same can't be said of his Attorney General, former Senator Jeff Sessions. Here are some quotes about the drug from Mr. Sessions:

I thought those guys were OK until I learned they smoked pot. [Source. Context: Sessions later testified that the comment was a joke.]

We need grown-ups in charge in Washington to say marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized, it ought not to be minimized, that it's in fact a very real danger.

I think one of [President Obama's] great failures, it's obvious to me, is his lax treatment in comments on marijuana... It reverses 20 years almost of hostility to drugs that began really when Nancy Reagan started 'Just Say No.

You can't have the President of the United States of America talking about marijuana like it is no different than taking a drink... It is different... It is already causing a disturbance in the states that have made it legal.

Good people don't smoke marijuana.

Cannabis advocates are becoming increasingly paranoid about the federal government's stance towards the states (and a certain District) that have legalized cannabis. And this is following an Obama administration that was criticized for conducting raids in states with legalization. It is too early to tell how the Trump administration will choose to deal with cannabis, but there are signs that harsher policies and greater enforcement could be coming:

On Wednesday, [April 5th,] Jeff Sessions directed Justice Department lawyers to evaluate marijuana enforcement policy and send him recommendations. And some state officials are worried. This week the governors of Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington wrote the attorney general. They asked Sessions and the new Treasury secretary to consult with them before making any changes to regulations or enforcement.

At the White House, press secretary Sean Spicer said recently that the president is sympathetic to people who use marijuana for medical reasons. He pointed out that Congress has acted to bar the Justice Department from using federal money to interfere in state medical cannabis programs. But Spicer took a harsh view of recreational marijuana. "When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we need to be doing is encouraging people. There is still a federal law we need to abide by," Spicer said.

Really, Spicer? Recreational cannabis use shouldn't be encouraged during an opioid addiction crisis? Read on.

Politics nexus unavailable for comment.

The Opioid Crisis Drags On (it's relevant)

Heroin use has become more dangerous as dealers have increasingly added other substances that massively increase potency without affecting the size of a dose significantly. Carfentanil, which is used as an elephant tranquilizer, has led to hundreds of deaths over very short timespans. It is impossible for the average user to predict the potency and potential danger of street heroin. While there have been international responses to these compounds, new chemical analogues are being created all the time:

Chinese labs producing the synthetic opiates play hide-and-seek with authorities. On their websites, they list fake addresses in derelict shopping centers or shuttered factories, and use third-party sales agents to conduct transactions that are hard to trace. The drugs themselves are easy to find with a Google search and to buy with a few mouse clicks. A recent check found more than a dozen Chinese sites advertising fentanyl, carfentanil, and other derivatives, often labeled as "research chemicals," for sale through direct mail shipments to the United States. On one website, carfentanil goes for $361 for 50 grams: tens of thousands of lethal doses.

The cat-and-mouse game extends to chemistry, as the makers tinker with fentanyl itself. Minor modifications like adding an oxygen atom or shifting a methyl group can be enough to create whole new entities that are no longer on the list of sanctioned compounds. Carfentanil itself was, until recently, unregulated in China.

2016 saw the addition of kratom to Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act in the U.S. Advocates for the tree leaf drug, which was formerly classified as a supplement, believe that its painkiller effects and low risk factors make it a useful replacement for the oft-deadly opioids that millions of Americans are addicted to. Kratom users have treated their pain and opioid withdrawal symptoms using the formerly "legal high". The DEA has refused to acknowledge this application and points out the "skyrocketing" number of calls to the Poison Control Center regarding kratom in recent years. One skeptic of kratom, Dr. Josh Bloom of the American Council on Science and Health, has looked at the same evidence and concluded that the trail of bodies left by substances like fentanyl and the scarce number of deaths (perhaps wrongly) attributed to kratom make it clear that the substance is the better "poison". He also notes that:

The number of calls to poison control centers is not reliable for determining how many poisonings actually occurred. It is a crude approximation at best.

Much like kratom, medical cannabis has been touted as a solution to the opioid crisis. States with legalized medical cannabis have seen a reduction in reported instances of opioid dependence [DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.01.006] [DX] So it is puzzling that White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer would use opioids as a bludgeon against cannabis legalization while AG Sessions expresses astonishment over the suggestion of using cannabis as a "cure" for the opioid crisis.

Bonus: Here's a video (2m14s) of a woman getting administered Narcan/naloxone. Here's an alternate video (2m39s) in which a man who overdosed on heroin is able to sit up in about a minute after being administered naloxone.

⚚ The Slow March for Science ⚕

While the Drug Enforcement Agency has refused to reclassify cannabis from its current Schedule I status, citing the supposedly rigorous conclusions reached by the Food and Drug Administration, it will allow more than one institution to grow cannabis for research purposes, ending the monopoly held by the University of Mississippi. However, the Schedule I status of cannabis remains an impediment to further research:

[...] DEA's decision not to reschedule marijuana presents a Catch-22. By ruling that there is not enough evidence of "currently accepted medical use"—a key distinction between the highly restrictive Schedule I classification and the less restrictive Schedule II—the administration essentially makes it harder to gather such evidence.

"They're setting a standard that can't be met," says David Bradford, a health economist at the University of Georgia, Athens. "That level of proof is never going to be forthcoming in the current environment because it requires doing a really extensive clinical trial series, and given that a pharmaceutical company can't patent whole plant marijuana, it's in no company's interest to do that."

Schedule I status presents obstacles for clinical researchers because of restrictions on how the drugs must be stored and handled, Bradford says. Perhaps more significant, that listing may evoke skittishness at funding agencies and on the institutional review boards that must sign off on research involving human subjects.

Researchers have disparaged the quality and potency as well as the appearance and odor of the University of Mississippi's cannabis products:

"It doesn't resemble cannabis. It doesn't smell like cannabis," Sisley told PBS NewsHour last week.

Jake Browne, a cannabis critic for the Denver Post's Cannabist marijuana news site, agrees. "That is, flat out, not a usable form of cannabis," he said. Browne should know: He's reviewed dozens of strains professionally and is running a sophisticated marijuana growing competition called the Grow-Off.

"In two decades of smoking weed, I've never seen anything that looks like that," Browne said. "People typically smoke the flower of the plant, but here you can clearly see stems and leaves in there as well, parts that should be discarded. Inhaling that would be like eating an apple, including the seeds inside it and the branch it grew on."

Research on cannabinoids and psychedelics is proceeding, slowly. One study published yesterday (74 years after the first LSD trip) came to an astounding conclusion: Psychedelics can induce a "heightened state of consciousness":

Healthy volunteers who received LSD, ketamine or psilocybin, a compound found in magic mushrooms, were found to have more random brain activity than normal while under the influence, according to a study into the effects of the drugs. The shift in brain activity accompanied a host of peculiar sensations that the participants said ranged from floating and finding inner peace, to distortions in time and a conviction that the self was disintegrating.

[...] What we find is that under each of these psychedelic compounds, this specific measure of global conscious level goes up, so it moves in the other direction. The neural activity becomes more unpredictable," said Anil Seth, a professor of neuroscience at the University of Sussex. "Until now, we've only ever seen decreases compared to the baseline of the normal waking state."

Inconceivable!

Increased spontaneous MEG signal diversity for psychoactive doses of ketamine, LSD and psilocybin (open, DOI: 10.1038/srep46421) (DX)

♯ Ending on High Notes ♯

Vape Naysh, y'all!

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions Will Rescind the Cole Memo 112 comments

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions will reportedly rescind the Cole Memo (DoJ), effectively ending the moratorium on enforcing cannabis prohibition in states where it has been legalized:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions will roll back an Obama-era policy that gave states leeway to allow marijuana for recreational purposes.

Two sources with knowledge of the decision confirmed to The Hill that Sessions will rescind the so-called Cole memo, which ordered U.S. attorneys in states where marijuana has been legalized to deprioritize prosecution of marijuana-related cases.

The Associated Press first reported the decision.

Sessions, a vocal critic of marijuana legalization, has hinted for months that he would move to crack down on the growing cannabis market.

Republican Senator Cory Gardner says he will hold up the confirmation process for DoJ nominees:

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) threatened on Thursday to start holding up the confirmation process for White House Justice Department nominees unless Attorney General Jeff Sessions reverses a decision to roll back a policy allowing legalized recreational use of marijuana in some states.

Gardner said in a series of tweets that Sessions had told him before he was confirmed by the Senate that he would not change an Obama-era policy that discouraged federal prosecutors from pursuing marijuana-related offenses in states where the substance had been legalized. Colorado is one of those states.

[...] The Justice Department's reversal of the Cole memo on Thursday came three days after California's new law allowing recreational marijuana use went into effect.

Other politicians have reacted strongly to the news.

Previously: New Attorney General Claims Legal Weed Drives Violent Crime; Statistics be Damned
4/20: The Third Time's Not the Charm
Jeff Sessions Reboots the Drug War
According to Gallup, American Support for Cannabis Legalization is at an All-Time High
Opioid Commission Drops the Ball, Demonizes Cannabis
Recreational Cannabis Goes on Sale in California

Related: Attorney General Nominee Jeff Sessions Backs Crypto Backdoors


Original Submission

Opioid Commission Drops the Ball, Demonizes Cannabis 23 comments

Opioid commission's anti-marijuana argument stirs anger

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, head of the presidential commission on opioids, warned of the dangers of marijuana in a letter to President Donald Trump earlier this month about the panel's findings, saying the current push for marijuana legalization could further fuel the opioid epidemic.

"There is a lack of sophisticated outcome data on dose, potency, and abuse potential for marijuana. This mirrors the lack of data in the 1990s and early 2000s when opioid prescribing multiplied across health care settings and led to the current epidemic of abuse, misuse and addiction," Christie wrote in the letter, which was released with the commission's final report.

"The Commission urges that the same mistake is not made with the uninformed rush to put another drug legally on the market in the midst of an overdose epidemic."

[...] But some experts say the commission's fixation on marijuana was bizarre and troubling, lending credence to outdated views of marijuana as a gateway drug. And these experts want to nip such thinking in the bud.

They emphasized that they support efforts to curb the nation's opioid epidemic, but not the demonization of marijuana in the process.

"I was surprised to see negative language about marijuana in the opioid report," said Dr. Chinazo Cunningham, a professor of medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. "Research that examines pain and marijuana shows that marijuana use significantly reduces pain. In addition, the majority of studies examining marijuana and opioids show that marijuana use is associated with less opioid use and less opioid-related deaths."

You had one job.

Previously:


Original Submission

FDA Cracking Down on Unsubstantiated Cannabidiol Health Claims 24 comments

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning four companies that sell products containing cannabidiol (CBD) to stop making unsubstantiated health claims, such as "combats tumor and cancer cells":

The FDA has grown increasingly concerned at the proliferation of products claiming to treat or cure serious diseases like cancer. In this case, the illegally sold products allegedly contain cannabidiol (CBD), a component of the marijuana plant that is not FDA approved in any drug product for any indication. CBD is marketed in a variety of product types, such as oil drops, capsules, syrups, teas, and topical lotions and creams. The companies receiving warning letters distributed the products with unsubstantiated claims regarding preventing, reversing or curing cancer; killing/inhibiting cancer cells or tumors; or other similar anti-cancer claims. Some of the products were also marketed as an alternative or additional treatment for Alzheimer's and other serious diseases.

The companies in question are Greenroads Health, Natural Alchemist, That's Natural! Marketing and Consulting, and Stanley Brothers Social Enterprises LLC.

Also at Bloomberg, The Cannabist, The Hill, NBC, and Newsweek.

Related: U.S. Federal Cannabis Prohibition Remains Intact
"Hollyweed" and More Cannabis Stories
According to Gallup, American Support for Cannabis Legalization is at an All-Time High
Study Finds That More Frequent Use of Cannabis is Associated With Having More Sex


Original Submission

4/20: The Mary Jane Majority 50 comments

Past articles: 201520162017 👀

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has come out in support of federal cannabis decriminalization, just in time for 4/20:

The Minority Leader of the Senate is making it official the day before 4/20: He's down with legal weed. In an exclusive interview with VICE News, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) confirmed he is putting his name on legislation that he said is aimed at "decriminalizing" marijuana at the federal level. For Schumer, this is a shift. While he has backed medical marijuana and the rights of states to experiment with legal sales of pot, what he is proposing is a seismic shift in federal drug policy.

"Ultimately, it's the right thing to do. Freedom. If smoking marijuana doesn't hurt anybody else, why shouldn't we allow people to do it and not make it criminal?" Schumer said.

The legislation should be available within a week or so, and would remove cannabis (still listed as "Marihuana") from the Drug Enforcement Administration's list of Schedule I substances. States would then be free to regulate or continue to prohibit the plant. Cannabis advertising would be regulated as are alcohol and tobacco advertising. (Also at NPR, CNN, The Washington Post, and CNBC, as well as Reason taking a shot at Schumer for not doing it sooner.)

A majority of Americans support the legalization of cannabis, including, for the first time, a majority (51%) of Republicans, according to Gallup. Nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for recreational use. 29 states, D.C., Guam, and Puerto Rico have legalized medical use of cannabis, and another 17 states have legalized the use of cannabidiol (CBD). Cannabis became available for recreational purposes in California on January 1.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 28, @01:47AM (12 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 28, @01:47AM (#588501) Journal

    Americans have supported cannabis for decades. For most of my life, actually. The sixties flower children didn't spring out of a vacuum, after all.

    Today's support is getting close to unanimous. (Given that no decision will ever be really unanimous in a population larger than a dozen or so.)

    All that is happening today is, those more gullible people who were easily swayed by nonsense propaganda are dying off. Facts are facts, and the facts are cannabis has killed almost no one in the past hundred years. If a person crawls inside of a two ton joint before lighting it, it will probably kill him. That two ton joint might kill a couple people if it's rolled down a hill, into traffic. Otherwise, cannabis is pretty damned safe. Almost everyone understands that today.

    --
    Death smiles at everyone. Sailors smile back.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by a262 on Saturday October 28, @02:40AM (7 children)

      by a262 (6671) on Saturday October 28, @02:40AM (#588527)

      And yet, in a democratic country where the majority agrees it should be legal, it is still not legal. How does that make sense?

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday October 28, @02:55AM

        by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday October 28, @02:55AM (#588533) Journal

        The War on Drugs has been a long national nightmare. Don't forget the experiment with alcohol Prohibition.

        Added the following to tomorrow's opioid story:

        [takyon: a262 [soylentnews.org] would like you to know that Insys Therapeutics donated $500,000 [usnews.com] to help defeat Arizona's 2016 ballot initiative [ballotpedia.org] that would have legalized recreational use of cannabis.]

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 28, @04:01AM (5 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 28, @04:01AM (#588557) Journal

        And, I must point out an error on your part. We don't live in a democracy. Public schools indoctrinate us to believe that we do, but we do not. We live in a republic. We have democratically elected representatives, but that doesn't make it a democracy. The republic has it's own agenda, which seems to be selling influence to the highest bidders. With respect to cannabis, the highest bidders seem to be the pharmaceuticals.

        --
        Death smiles at everyone. Sailors smile back.
        • (Score: 5, Touché) by Whoever on Saturday October 28, @06:01AM (3 children)

          by Whoever (4524) on Saturday October 28, @06:01AM (#588589) Journal

          And, I must point out an error on your part.

          I wonder what that would be.

          We don't live in a democracy. Public schools indoctrinate us to believe that we do, but we do not. We live in a republic.

          Nope, that's not it. I wonder what it is?

          The Republic of the USA is a type of democracy. So, we do live in a democracy.
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.0cc3eefaade0 [washingtonpost.com]

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 28, @09:43AM (2 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 28, @09:43AM (#588622) Journal

            From your link, "The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote."

            That puts paid to the Democrat's complaint that Hillary won the "popular vote", however they wish to define "popular vote". And, it most certainly ruins the idea that "we live in a democracy". In a real democracy, every vote is equally valued, and equally valuable. In a real democracy, whatever is popular becomes law. We live in a republic, in which the popular vote is kind of important, but the vote doesn't decide what law is. Even if a majority of residents in your town decide that a huge vacant lot should become an amusement park, they don't get that park unless a whole bunch of other hoops are jumped through. And, even then, the vote can be trumped by city council, because business and/or industry will likely generate more revenue for the city, than an amusement park.

            --
            Death smiles at everyone. Sailors smile back.
            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Saturday October 28, @03:47PM (1 child)

              by Whoever (4524) on Saturday October 28, @03:47PM (#588703) Journal

              Did I claim we live in a direct democracy?

              You keep adding your own qualifiers to the definition of democracy and then say the the USA doesn't meet your definition. But it's your definition. It's not a definition of democracy.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @05:02PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @05:02PM (#588722)

                dude, first try to have clean elections. Only after that you can shout about how great your democracy is

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @07:03AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @07:03AM (#588597)

          And if you look historically you will see this has been true since the founding of the country.

          Most people go 'oh the supreme court was the founding father's invention!!!' It was not. The original system only had the Executive and the Legislative branches. The addition of the supreme court was done by the federalists as a new enforcement/filibuster mechanism for laws when the next party took over as Federalist influence was waning (as had Whig influence prior to it.)

          American politics has however always revolved around two parties. If one of the parties sufficiently incensed the population or otherwise weaked its support a third party might spring up and wash it away (As in fact happened with the Democratic Republicans which in turn eventually split into the Democrats and Republicans before the civil war, along with the short lived Warhawks and a few other parties whose names I forgot.) Then the Democrats and Republicans to a certain degree flipped stances during the 20th century as each tried to cater to a different audience. The Democrats to Unionists, Blacks, Bankers/Brokers and eventually Hollywood, and the Republicans focusing on Big Oil, an ever broadening range of religious groups, many of whom might have offended the religious supporters of the Republican party from the past, and businesspeople, both large and small, but over time more to the large players, while throwing the small guys rhetoric and a bone here and there (Democrats do the same, but this is already twice as long as I was expecting and I don't feel like backtracking in my stream of thought.)

          If people decide that a representative democracy is no longer for them, or that the electoral college is no longer providing the benefits that it was claimed to provide for the stability of the country, then it is time to draft up measures, exert political pressure on your representatives, and get the system changed. American politics have changed, the old ways have begun failing us, even if most of the Constitution itself hasn't (although the 2nd, 4th, and 9th may have, and the 5th is certainly being strained under the level of deep data mining and informational recording going on at the corporate and national level...) It is really time for more Americans to stop taking others words for it and start doing the research themselves, even if they can only spare a few minutes each day between their other obligations, because the America of Tommorrow is being decided today and far too many people are treating it as somebody else's problem. And hint for them: those somebodies might not have their collective best interests at heart.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by chromas on Saturday October 28, @02:47AM

      by chromas (34) on Saturday October 28, @02:47AM (#588529)

      those more gullible people who were easily swayed by nonsense propaganda are dying off. Facts are facts

      Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

      …hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
    • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @02:58AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @02:58AM (#588534)

      But now we have the Elite via the media telling us that democracy is bad (populism!), because the Wrong People can get elected, while the Right People know what's good for us.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @03:06AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @03:06AM (#588537)

        Their claws are on SN as well, we've had a few people try and propose that democracy is dead. Maroons.

  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 28, @01:47AM (11 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday October 28, @01:47AM (#588502) Journal

    But people are sending a mixed message, saying one thing to the press and doing just the opposite in the voting booth.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 28, @01:52AM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday October 28, @01:52AM (#588506) Journal

      Maybe true, but is Gallup "the press"?

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday October 28, @05:10AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 28, @05:10AM (#588577)

        Gallup, Gollum, the press, what's the difference?
        Everyone and their orange dog tries to muddle the difference between opinion, greed and the truth, how's one of the people to know what to believe?
        The school only taught the one how to pass a grid test, thinking is so deprecated one can't remember when it happened the last time.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday October 28, @01:56AM (1 child)

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 28, @01:56AM (#588508) Journal

      But people are sending a mixed message, saying one thing to the press and doing just the opposite in the voting booth.

      Apparently not.

      When cannabis bills fail (rarely) it is because some absurd power grab was welded on.
      The entire west coast of the US has approved cannabis, which by some standards makes it inevitable.

      As you approach 30 some states approving cannabis, (I forget the exact number) Congress will have the power to tell the Feds to butt out, remove it from the schedule, criminalize Federal DEA operations against it, and tell dinosaurs like Sessions and Steven A Smith to shut up and sit down.

      Even Cops have come to realize that pot heads drive safer than drunks.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday October 28, @02:03AM

        by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday October 28, @02:03AM (#588511) Journal

        When cannabis bills fail (rarely) it is because some absurd power grab was welded on.

        Here's is an example for others who read your comment:

        Why Ohio voted against legal marijuana — and what it means for the future of the pot debate [washingtonpost.com] (archive [archive.is])
        Ohio’s Marijuana Oligopoly Concerns [uclawreview.org]
        Marijuana and the Ohio Oligopoly [cannabispatientsalliance.org]
        Ohio's Legal Weed Proposal Could Create the World’s First 'Pot Grower Oligarchy' [vice.com]

        What about Arizona? [phoenixnewtimes.com]

        "It was a bad proposition. It was designed to serve the interest of business owners," says Caulkins, who's based in Pittsburgh. "I'm sort of pleased and stunned that voters were able to tell the difference."

        Caulkins refers to the provision in Prop 205 that gave preference for marijuana retail licenses to existing, nonprofit medical-marijuana dispensaries. With about 130 dispensary licenses already in play, that would have left only about 20 licenses for new entrepreneurs, at least at the outset.

        Although the license-giveaway scheme wasn't as "breathtaking" as the legalization measure Ohio voters rejected in 2014, which would have given cultivation rights to just 10 businesses, Caulkins says it was unethical nonetheless. He compares the scenario to an oil company being in charge of writing regulations on where to drill.

        By contrast, the 2012 recreational-cannabis law that passed in the state of Washington was written by the American Civil Liberties Union, Caulkins notes, "with more of an ACLU mindset: Let's stop people from being arrested."

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Saturday October 28, @07:44PM (6 children)

      by Hawkwind (3531) on Saturday October 28, @07:44PM (#588765)

      538.com went further in to the data. No large group feels steongly enough about the issue to cast a vote based solely on it.

      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 28, @07:53PM (5 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday October 28, @07:53PM (#588768) Journal

        That is why all laws need to have an expiration date.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @08:00PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @08:00PM (#588774)

          Excellent. Come talk to me after the law against murder has expired...

          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 28, @08:31PM (3 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday October 28, @08:31PM (#588786) Journal

            Well, your congress better be ready with a new one when it does, just like they do with the budget.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @08:50PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @08:50PM (#588793)

              If your hopes for a long life are pinned on the US Congress being ready ahead of a deadline, you may not want to put off shopping for a nice plot.

              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 28, @09:20PM (1 child)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday October 28, @09:20PM (#588802) Journal

                No, I pin my hopes on the civility of the people around me. Not everybody needs an act of congress to act courteously and respectably. Those that do aren't going to change anyway.

                • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29, @09:38PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29, @09:38PM (#589221)

                  Interesting that you expect civility from "the people around you" when you lie like a rug. [soylentnews.org] Even if you merely perceived in your own mind as having given answers to the questions you'd claimed to have answered, a simple link to your "answer" is supremely easy to do. That you didn't is evidence of your malice.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @02:33AM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @02:33AM (#588523)

    I can accept the idea that it isn't good to have SWAT team raids to keep people from their vices, but...

    This stuff is still bad. Heck, ignore the drug aspect. Suppose it was sawdust from oak trees. When you smoke, you fill your lungs with tar. You are breathing carbon monoxide, particulates, and all sorts of kinds of cancer-causing lung-obstructing crap.

    It is 100% certain that large corporations will engage in sophisticated lifestyle marketing to push the product. There will be brands for women, brands for hipsters, brands for gay people (separately for tops and bottoms), brands for hispanics, brands for business executives (or those who aspire to be such), brands for athletes...

    It's like with tobacco: Virginia Slims for women, Newports for blacks, etc. We see it with soda too (extreme sports for one brand, tradition for another...) and with beer and with vodka and with cars...

    Business will push this hard, using every psychological trick to make people buy more and be brand-loyal.

    Meanwhile, any regulations will be toast. Business will lobby the regulatory agency and the politicians controlling it. Friendly people will get appointed. It will be easiest to pass regulations that show up already written, supplied by the businesses that want to sell this product.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by a262 on Saturday October 28, @02:38AM (3 children)

      by a262 (6671) on Saturday October 28, @02:38AM (#588525)

      The most important thing that has to happen for *true* legalization is the right to grow one's own supply. Without that, we're still restricted. Give me the right to grow my own plants and do with them as I choose, and I'll be just fine.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @03:26AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @03:26AM (#588546)

        I consider it a mildly poisonous plant. It's not for human consumption.

        It's pretty. It's resistant to bugs. It would be perfect growing under the windows in front of my house.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday October 28, @05:39AM (1 child)

        by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 28, @05:39AM (#588585) Journal

        *true* legalization is the right to grow one's own supply.

        In what states is it legal to purchase for recreational use, but illegal to grow your own? (Its a real question, I really have no idea).

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday October 28, @05:48AM

          by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday October 28, @05:48AM (#588587) Journal

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction [wikipedia.org]

          Sort by the second column (the colors - get green to the top).

          For Washington state, it says "The state allows licensed growers to cultivate marijuana, but does not permit personal growing in one's home except for medical use." For Nevada there is no info in that column.

          Everywhere else with legal recreational has allowed plants, usually six, to be grown in one's home. And if you can grow six legally, you can probably get away with 50 with nobody caring.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 28, @02:42AM (7 children)

      by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday October 28, @02:42AM (#588528) Journal

      When you smoke, you fill your lungs with tar. You are breathing carbon monoxide, particulates, and all sorts of kinds of cancer-causing lung-obstructing crap.

      Vaping might reduce that, and is considered superior to smoking, although the science is not settled on vaping:

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/vaping-health-problems-smoking-e-cigarettes-north-carolina-study-danger-lung-conditions-disease-a8016861.html [independent.co.uk]

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Nerdfest on Saturday October 28, @03:43AM (2 children)

        by Nerdfest (80) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 28, @03:43AM (#588549)

        Vaping with e-gigs is a completely different thing, and more likely to be bad for you as well. Dry-herb vaping just boils the THC and other compounds off. No tar, no smoke, no strong smell.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 28, @03:49AM (1 child)

          by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday October 28, @03:49AM (#588552) Journal

          I think there are e-cigs specifically designed to vape weed. Or more accurately, a vape in pen/e-cig form rather than a tabletop device like the Volcano.

          Either way, there is an allegedly safer alternative to smoking cannabis (other than edibles).

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by t-3 on Saturday October 28, @05:30PM

            by t-3 (4907) on Saturday October 28, @05:30PM (#588728) Journal

            Other than burnt herb and edibles, there's sublingual drops, oils which can be used topically or for cooking, varied concentrates which can be smoked or vaporized, and there are also pills available worth synthetic or extracted THC.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @07:37PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @07:37PM (#588762)

        I don't think people remember Dr Donald Tashkin.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html [washingtonpost.com]

        " "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

        Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought."

        https://youtu.be/GJmQ16cGBHU [youtu.be]

        Interview of Dr Tashkin with Lanny Swerdlow of Marijuana News

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 28, @07:46PM (2 children)

          by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday October 28, @07:46PM (#588766) Journal

          Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

          Everyone can tell that medical science with low sample sizes, p-value hacking, and lots of unknown variables is going to produce contradictory results. That's why I said the science isn't settled.

          You just admitted that the same guy has found evidence in both directions, believes cannabis is potentially harmful, and that it has "cancer-causing effects" (of variable/unknown concern). And you're calling me forgetful? Put down the reefer!

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @07:54PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @07:54PM (#588771)

            "Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood."

            so 2240 people is a low sample size? OK

            thanks. I'm not a previous anon. I lurk and I've read SN.

            You are just being rude and obtuse.

    • (Score: 2) by chewbacon on Saturday October 28, @03:43AM

      by chewbacon (1032) on Saturday October 28, @03:43AM (#588548)

      Smoking it isn’t the only way to consume it. You can extract the psychoactive ingredients and the possibilities are pretty broad there.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @05:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @05:54PM (#588734)

      This stuff is still bad. Heck, ignore the drug aspect. Suppose it was sawdust from oak trees. When you smoke, you fill your lungs with tar. You are breathing carbon monoxide, particulates, and all sorts of kinds of cancer-causing lung-obstructing crap.

      That only implies that we should restrict smoking cannabis to the same level we restrict tobacco, it does not support the current policies, nor does it support restricting other applications of hemp.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by a262 on Saturday October 28, @02:33AM (14 children)

    by a262 (6671) on Saturday October 28, @02:33AM (#588524)

    First off, let me say that I am for legalization of cannabis, as well as most any other substance. It is absurd to live in a "free" country that bans certain subsets of chemistry. The right to Pursuit of Happiness is written in our Constitution, yet we find ourselves unable to pursue happiness through chemistry.

    That being said, I have found that prolonged cannabis use deprives the user of certain aspects of their humanity. The greatest loss being that of self-reflection. In my experience, long-term cannabis users fail to see the effects that their habit has on their own lives and those around them. Any criticism of such use is met with wrath and incredulity. As a former friend said, "smoking pot changes the alignment of your internal compass - you begin to believe that you are on track, no matter what it is that you're actually doing."

    Short-term, or sporadic cannabis use, can be incredibly enjoyable and rewarding. It's the long-term, "smoke two joints" mindset that is truly damaging. Sporadic use grants one the true potential of cannabis: a sudden, dramatic shift in perception of both oneself and the world in which one lives. Once that shifts to long-term use, that contrast between normal and stoned no longer exists! A constant state of any mindset does not provide the useful contrast in perception.

    Of course, one should be free to consume any substance, or participate in any lifestyle one chooses, with the disclaimer that said lifestyle does not significantly affect anyone else. If you want to sit around your house and smoke yourself silly every day, go for it! If you're going to smoke yourself silly every damn day, while collecting welfare, or working alongside me as a coworker... well, you should fucking grow up and put the bong down. It comes down to a matter of personal honor, not law. Can you honestly be proud of your life when you're smoking a gram of wax a day?

    What ever happened to honor, anyways?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Saturday October 28, @03:19AM (9 children)

      by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday October 28, @03:19AM (#588541) Journal

      If you're going to smoke yourself silly every damn day, while collecting welfare, or working alongside me as a coworker... well, you should fucking grow up and put the bong down. It comes down to a matter of personal honor, not law. Can you honestly be proud of your life when you're smoking a gram of wax a day?

      What ever happened to honor, anyways?

      Cannabis isn't the problem, substance abuse is. For example, UK guidelines say that you shouldn't have more than 14 units of alcohol [bbc.com] (6 pints of beer) per week, and some say even that is high. Plenty of people will chug that much on a single Saturday (believe it or not, the guidelines recommend against that), and the ABVs of craft brews have skyrocketed. That 6 pints of beer? 4% ABV to hit 14 units. So it's also the equivalent of roughly 2.5 10% ABV pints.

      This fun study [ias.org.uk] quantifies the "harm" caused by various drugs, and found that alcohol is far worse than cannabis or even heroin. If you look at Figure 4, you can see that most of that harm is a result of car crashes, so if you take that out of the equation then heroin is worse to an individual under a bridge than a bottle of MD 20/20 [bumwine.com]. The study also found that cannabis is "worse" than stuff like ketamine, butane, "khat" [wikipedia.org], goddamn anabolic steroids, LSD, and mushrooms.

      Most societies recognize that there is a responsible level of alcohol use (although close to zero or very few units for heart benefits is recommended). Officially, cannabis is still an evil and incredibly harmful psychoactive gateway drug with no responsible level of use, but people see through that bullshit. On the flip side, some people have blinders on with respect to cannabis use, believing it will cure their cancer or doesn't do any damage ever. Maybe a study or two found an association with a lower chance of cancer but we all know how accurate and precise medical studies tend to be. Put down that coffee!

      As for honor, many people are deeply nihilistic and pleasure-seeking. They just don't care, and why should they? Just reading the slow SoylentNews feed can cause

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Saturday October 28, @03:20AM

        by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday October 28, @03:20AM (#588543) Journal

        Just reading the slow SoylentNews feed can cause

        {#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 28, @04:15AM (6 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 28, @04:15AM (#588562) Journal

        "Cannabis isn't the problem, substance abuse is."

        That, exactly. You mention alcohol. So very many studies, over the course of my life, have demonstrated that a single drink every day leads to the healthiest and longest lives. There is some debate about which drinks are best, with wine and beer being the leading contendors, and strong spirits trailing way behind. But, some health organizations want us to believe that a drink a month might be detrimental. A lot of more recent studies claim that if a woman drinks even a single drink while pregnant, she is guilty of destroying her baby.

        So, with all these crazy agendas being advanced through "studies", how do we even decide what "abuse" is?

        My view is, the average working person who gets a buzz on a Saturday night probably isn't being abusive. Waking up with a hangover is a pretty damned good indication that you're abusing the stuff. Of course, those who wait for the doctor to explain why their livers no longer function probably never shared the same zip code with a clue . . .

        --
        Death smiles at everyone. Sailors smile back.
        • (Score: 2) by lx on Saturday October 28, @11:28AM (3 children)

          by lx (1915) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 28, @11:28AM (#588637)

          So very many studies, over the course of my life, have demonstrated that a single drink every day leads to the healthiest and longest lives.

          Those figures were skewed due to faulty methodology [medicaldaily.com]. Turns out that many non-drinkers in those studies were either ex-alcoholics or people with serious unrelated health problems.

          But don't let the progress of scientific insight keep you from indulging in a little solvent abuse [wikipedia.org].

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @02:48PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @02:48PM (#588686)

            The other faulty methodology is not separating out by quality of the beverage. I homebrew my own beers and meads and know exactly what's in them and more to the point what is not.

          • (Score: 4, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 28, @03:04PM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 28, @03:04PM (#588691) Journal

            From that page, "It seems the verdict is still out on the health effects of moderate drinking."

            Their charts show a reduced health benefit for low and moderate volume drinkers - but the apparent benefit is still in the chart. They go on to show high volume drinkers, who we all know increase the risks for all manner of health problems. Medium volume drinkers (3-4 drinks per day) have moved from just below the line, to just over the line. But, personally, I don't consider 3-4 drinks per day as "medium" or "moderate". One or two drinks per day is what I call "moderate", and if a moderate drinker doesn't bother to drink anything for a day or six, it's no big deal to him. A lot of those who drink 3-4 per day will get cranky if he misses a day. And, that's the whole point of "moderation". Drink a little alcohol, it's good for you. Routinely drinking more than one or two per day indicates some kind of a problem - emotional, psychological, or maybe even physical.

            I wonder why the U of Victoria didn't "adjust" all those studies to separate relatively healthy moderate and heavy drinkers, from said drinkers who have unrelated and/or related serious health problems? Making that distinction would probably move all groups of drinkers (except unhealthy drinkers+) downward on that graph, just a little.

            If U of Vic wants to use only healthy abstainers, then they should seek a similar group of only healthy drinkers to compare them to.

            --
            Death smiles at everyone. Sailors smile back.
            • (Score: 2) by lx on Sunday October 29, @06:12AM

              by lx (1915) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 29, @06:12AM (#588949)

              Lesson learned: Never come between a man and his drink.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @11:29AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @11:29AM (#588638)

          >what "abuse" is?

          abuse in this context is equivalent to 'uses it to hide interior difficulties based on the emotions of fear and shame about one's primal negativities, helplessness regarding subjective and irrational inner/interpersonal dynamics and plain old fear of venturing out.' any and all of these can be true, but not all of them need to be true for the cover-up/abuse to become a habit.

          on another level, its a response to the obvious-to-some lies and deception channeled through this thing called culture. there, its desired as a means of social shaping amongst other things.

          but we should really include video-games here and be a bit less materialistic about the concepts if we wanted to look at it as a simple refuge from violence and other people's incompetence/ignorance about life as well.

          realize that anything producing dopamine is incapable of yielding happiness and explore more!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @09:37PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @09:37PM (#588808)

          So far, I have been unable to find risk statistics for drinking neat Ukrainian Tractor Fuel, so I will continue to assume it is safe if mixed with diet coke.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday October 29, @10:23AM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Sunday October 29, @10:23AM (#588984) Homepage
        +1 just for the link to bumwine!
        --
        The "free" in #freearistarchus is the "free" in "free jazz"
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Post-Nihilist on Saturday October 28, @04:03AM (1 child)

      by Post-Nihilist (5672) on Saturday October 28, @04:03AM (#588558)

      Can you honestly be proud of your life when you're smoking a gram of wax a day?

      Yes, yes you can... I use to smoke that much but stopped only cause my lung capacity shrunk and I am not bullish on emphysema...

      When I am sober for more than a week I become a competitive scheming narcicist that use people as if they are things made to be exploited for my benefits but I have an highly paid unionized¹ job in higher education that comme with a fat retirement plan, I don't need to participate in that competitive rat race

      And cannabis makes me a better person.
      When I am in my stoned mindset I am helpful, compassionate and I dont engage in workplace politics... i am pretty certain that my coworker preferred me when I smoked a few grams of buds each night than they do now that I am sober and don't give a fuck about them unless I have something to gain by giving a fuck.

      I will probably start using edibles cause I am not proud of my sober self... And I am pretty sure that my wife will soon ask me to drug myself again ... she already did a few years ago after about 6 month of sobriety she says that I got mean and manipulative.

      Sure I could drink to forget that deep inside I am a borderline sociopath (only borderline cause a true sociopath would not be bothered by his narcissism) and let my wife leave me cause she loves my stoner self (yet she hate to take cannabis but love it when I do) or I can use cannabis to be a more "normal" and lovable person....

      1- you can be easily fired in your first 6 years after that I think that I would need to do something outrageous like harassing a student to get fired

      --
      Be like us, be different, be a nihilist!!!
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @11:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @11:10AM (#588632)

        so higher-ed dude is self-medicating instead of using his urges against himself by way of some self-encounter therapy. rationalized to no end, likely mistakes pleasure for happiness, delusional, alienated in his tower. why am i reading this?? oh ya, to point-out that the things he seeks to repress will find a 3rd and a 4th and a 5th way out cause the impulses rejected will out. and they always do. so.. use the control you claim to have to overcome your nonsense. just go and trade your cover-up and self-diagnosing for dealing with your fears. go sane man.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @11:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @11:16AM (#588633)

      > What ever happened to honor, anyways?

      I think the word you're looking for is Integrity. It was traded for idiotic hippy lore by your parents and grand-parents. Its commercially extracted by robotized culture and made into aphrodisiacs for evil-doers everywhere nowadays. If you've got any left, and it sounds like you do because you know the H-word, keep sharp and watch your stash!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @08:20PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, @08:20PM (#588780)

      What ever happened to honor, anyways?

      Best answered by the good colonel: "...We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline..."

(1)