The general decline in standards today

[Feraud]

There has been a lot of thought provoking conversation I missed since yesterday.

First let me say I am sorry to read of sheeplady's medical issues. Many of us have either personally gone through or have close family members who've dealt with cancer. To put it mildly, it's a horrible experience for all involved.
I don't think we need anyone jumping in just to point fingers about how disgusting we are for not living up to their standard of compassion...

With regards to medical research I have no issue towards research and application. I view it as I would any other medicine. Just like any other medicine I prefer a high standard of research, review, and application with the full understanding that every drug has negative side effects. Current medical dispensaries seem like little more than "head shops" from my youth.

It's a shame the conversation about recreational and medical use are intertwined. These are two very separate issues and lumping them together hurts those who would benefit from proper medical application.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's a shame the conversation about recreational and medical use are intertwined. These are two very separate issues and lumping them together hurts those who would benefit from proper medical application.

Precisely. If supporters of serious medical research into cannabinoids want to be taken seriously and want real progress to be made, they need to stand up and tell NORML and MPP to go to hell. They need to get as far away as they possibly can from the junk science and junk politics of the Internet and be *scientists,* not activists.

 

[HudsonHawk]

The main point of all the Abrahamic faiths is submission of the individual to a greater power, not exaltation of the individual. Or so I learned in Sunday School. I can't speak for the old Norse gods, since I'm a Methodist myself.

And don't buy into any of that nonsense, particularly that born out of Midieval mysticism.

All I can say is, maybe you should have paid more attention in Junior High. The example holds -- there are plenty of other instances where the will of the individual is required to bend to the will of the community for the good of society, and to pretend otherwise is to deny a fundamental truth of human history. You can argue all you want about whether substance A or substance B ought to be legal or illegal, but to suggest that the community doesn't have the right to set those regulations for the good of the majority of its members carries about as much weight as a fly buzzing against a window screen. There's nothing absurd about it.

Of course it holds. I'm just saying if you think the most basic level is the starting point for a conversation on the nature of rights, we're a long way apart. I assumed such was a given and we were discussing the more compliacated.

 

[CharleneC]

I wonder if there's actually any clinical evidence or research on the effects of the "medicinal" use of weed; from what I've seen it all seems to be based on anecdotal evidence of people saying "oh it works for me", which is problematic to say the least for many reasons I need not mention. Not saying there definitely isn't, but I find it suspicious that hard clinical research so seldom ever seems to be mentioned in any discussions on the topic of medical use of mary jane.

I bet if you got blasted on booze every day of the week you'd probably have less pain too. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

On the subject of drug use as a whole and its effect on society and on individual's lives, I've had the dubious privelege of living in the city which has the biggest concentration of chronic drug addicts in all of north america, and to boot I've worked in a job that was right on the front line of it, in the hospital that primarily serves that community. I can say that if you really want to know what drugs do to people, watch "Through a Blue Lens" and the series "The Beat". It's about as raw and in your face as you can get, and I tell you from experience dealing with those people it's 100% authentic. Fair warning: not for the squeamish or the bleeding hearts.

If you haven't seen any clinical evidence perhaps you could look a bit harder.

As for the criminalization of drugs, it is precisely because they are criminalized that addicts have trouble getting help. They need help not jail and a criminal record. The criminalization of drugs only serves to keep police employed. Policing costs could be drastically reduced if drugs were legalized. And then it would be only a social problem, not a social and legal problem.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Of course it holds. I'm just saying if you think the most basic level is the starting point for a conversation on the nature of rights, we're a long way apart. I assumed such was a given and we were discussing the more compliacated.

The "nature of rights" is simple. Strip off all the powdered-wig philosophical mumbo-jumbo, and the bare fact of the matter is that "rights" are nothing more than what society agrees that rights are -- and that's been the case since the first hominids climbed down out of the trees. People banded together and developed societies as a protection against the environment and as a way of accomplishing work that was beyond the capabilities of a lone individual. To do that, they evolved notions both of personal rights and social responsibilities. All of these were the product of social evolution, not the result of some divinely-ordained structure.

The idea that somehow we are innately born with any rights whatsoever by the mere virtue of our existance is a high-sounding notion, but it's a philosophical *belief,* not an empirical fact. Your belief that man is born with certain specific individual rights is as much a creation of faith as the belief that a wandering Jewish teacher two thousand years ago was the Son of God. So don't be so quick to dismiss those who hold to such a belief, you yourself are no different in your adherence to things that can't be proven by hard fact.

Our beliefs clearly differ on a fundamental basis. My belief is that the personal rights of the individual must always be balanced against the personal obligations of that individual to society, and all my other views proceed from that basis. That being so, I don't think we really have any common ground in this discussion.

 

[sheeplady]

Several people did offer me their support in private messages. I think I replied to everyone, if I didn't I'm sorry. Also thank you to everyone who offered their support on this board too. I appreciate any and all prayers, positive energy, or thoughts. I have the best motivation in my bundle of joy who's taking a nap on the floor as we speak.

We need more research on everything. Seriously, we need more research on *everything.* You'll never see me disagree with that one. Sadly, however, we tend to be very short sighted in funding research. I was saddened to learn that the Komen foundation (a US breast cancer charity) spends only 16% of it's funding on research. That's a pathetically small amount of what they bring in- the vast majority of which is spent on early detection. We've reached the point where we've hit the maximum benefit from early detection in breast cancer. We're saving more lives through new drugs and new strategies of using the old drugs than early detection (because early detection only provides a certain leg up, it doesn't actually *cure* people). But we can only learn about these strategies through intensive (and sadly, often expensive) research.

Thank God for clinical trials. I'd support a clinical trial for anything anybody has a smidgen of evidence may work. The preliminary phases knock out the quack things pretty quick when it's still not too expensive, and there is amazing stuff that comes out of the trials. Absolutely amazing stuff.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

That 'nonsense' is what gives most of society some sort of moral compass and the belief systems developed through this 'nonsense' is what made the golden era great.

And don't buy into any of that nonsense, particularly that born out of Midieval mysticism.




Of course it holds. I'm just saying if you think the most basic level is the starting point for a conversation on the nature of rights, we're a long way apart. I assumed such was a given and we were discussing the more compliacated.

My stance on dope usage is the same as mine on alcohol consumption, in the fact that as soon as you're doing wrong, the authorities should be on your butt like white on rice. If you're in the privacy of your own home, they don't know what you're doing and are gonna leave you be, so what are all the dopers so upset about? They all sit around the house and smoke all day and nobody does anything about it. They should be happy.

Frankly, if one likes drug use so much, I suggest they move someplace where that is permitted. I'm sure the rest of the normal folks in that area would consider it a favor.

 

[Matt Crunk]

The idea that somehow we are innately born with any rights whatsoever by the mere virtue of our existance is a high-sounding notion, but it's a philosophical *belief,* not an empirical fact.

Exactly, Lizzie. But it's that very idea, the concept of basic human rights, that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Without it we revert to the law of the jungle.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Human rights are what we, as human beings, agree to conclude that they are to ensure the smoothest functioning of our society. That's what separates us from the law of the jungle -- and that jungle isn't as far away as we want to think it is. What is the law of the jungle but the ultimate example of individualism run amok?

 

[Feraud]

The Law of the Jungle being "every monkey out for himself".

 

[HudsonHawk]

The "nature of rights" is simple. Strip off all the powdered-wig philosophical mumbo-jumbo, and the bare fact of the matter is that "rights" are nothing more than what society agrenes that rights are -- and that's been the case since the first hominids climbed down out of the trees.

Well I couldn't disagree more.

The idea that somehow we are innately born with any rights whatsoever by the mere virtue of our existance is a high-sounding notion, but it's a philosophical *belief,* not an empirical fact.

Perhaps. But no more so than your belief otherwise. I've not argued to the contrary.

Our beliefs clearly differ on a fundamental basis. My belief is that the personal rights of the individual must always be balanced against the personal obligations of that individual to society, and all my other views proceed from that basis. That being so, I don't think we really have any common ground in this discussion.

We probably have more than you think. Of course rights have to be balanced, it's just the point of balancing on which we disagree. It's easy to reconcile things like yelling fire or running over someone with your car. It's much harder when things get more complicated. Perhaps you view it all as black or white. I obviously don't.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And again, with all the talk of *rights*, where's the talk of *responsibilities?*

To go back to the marijuana issue, a group of people choose to smoke dope. Some would argue they have the *right* to do that. And they gradually come together and form a culture that believes and teaches that the use of that substance is a healthy and harmless thing -- and then someone recruited into that culture on the belief that it was "healthy and harmless" suffers a grave injury from the substance. Who is responsible?

You might argue that the victim made the free choice to partake, and thus is responsible for what happened. I argue that the culture that enticed the victim into participating is responsible -- and the larger society that tolerated the development of that potentially-damaging culture is responsible as well.

Don't like the pot example? Substitute booze, prescription drugs, pornography, any vice you want to name. Society has a responsibility for the damage caused by these things to the extent that it permits them to exist in its midst. Too many people too concerned with their "rights" and oblivious of their "responsibilities" have given us a dangerous, degenerate society that's only going to get worse the more irresponsible it becomes.

 

[HudsonHawk]

That 'nonsense' is what gives most of society some sort of moral compass and the belief systems developed through this 'nonsense' is what made the golden era great.

It's a common misconception that non-religious people have no sense of morality. Likewise, it's a common misconception that the "golden era" was necessarily great for everyone.

Frankly, if one likes drug use so much, I suggest they move someplace where that is permitted. I'm sure the rest of the normal folks in that area would consider it a favor.

See, that's one of the great thing about America; there is a process in place to challenge and change laws that we find objectionable.

 

[HudsonHawk]

And again, with all the talk of *rights*, where's the talk of *responsibilities?*

That's part of the discussion. With rights come responsibilities and consequences when one fails to meet them.

 

[Feraud]

Perhaps you view it all as black or white. I obviously don't.

Not that Lizzie needs anyone to speak for her but I cannot help address this point. LizzieMaine has written multiple extremely thought out replies that demonstrate her position is anything but black and white. Not only does she write in volume, but can back up her assertion with any number or religious, medical, or historical reference to bolster her position.

On the other hand, I've observed the pro-legislation crowd work from a shallow and defensive point of view with simple minded rebuttals like "prove it", "where's the data", "in my opinion", and other such nonsense.

Considering marijuana is currently mostly illegal in this country, it's up to the pro-legislation group to show me why the laws should be repealed for recreational use.
I've not read anything here to make me think legal recreational use of marijuana is a better path for this country than keeping it illegal.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There's an old saying, "Don't chase after every dog that barks." I've made my points as clearly and explicitly as I can, and I think my views, and the philosophy behind them, have been laid out for anyone who wants to understand them. All I can do from here on is repeat myself.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Not that Lizzie needs anyone to speak for her but I cannot help address this point. LizzieMaine has written multiple extremely thought out replies that demonstrate her position is anything but black and white. Not only does she write in volume, but can back up her assertion with any number or religious, medical, or historical reference to bolster her position.

Well religious and historical references mean nothing. We don't and shouldn't make or repeal laws based on one particular religious belief, and if history has taught us anything it's that just because we've been doing it for some time doesn't make it right.

I've not read anything here to make me think legal recreational use of marijuana is a better path for this country than keeping it illegal.

That's probably because no one is suggesting it is. Don't conflate the discussion on individual rights and advocating a particular position.

 

[Feraud]

There's an old saying, "Don't chase after every dog that barks." I've made my points as clearly and explicitly as I can, and I think my views, and the philosophy behind them, have been laid out for anyone who wants to understand them. All I can do from here on is repeat myself.

That is very good advice. Every well thought out reply is either conveniently ignored or one is accused of muddying the discussion. Of course, the pro-legislation crowd can fabricate historical references all day long and conflate the discussion by lumping in medical and recreational use into some twisted position on human rights.
As you've shown a bright light on their tenuous position, those barks are barely worth chasing.

 

[HudsonHawk]

That is very good advice. Every well thought out reply is either conveniently ignored or one is accused of muddying the discussion. Of course, the pro-legislation crowd can fabricate historical references all day long and conflate the discussion by lumping in medical and recreational use into some twisted position on human rights.
As you've shown a bright light on their tenuous position, those barks are barely worth chasing.

Just a thought, but the discussion would probably be more meaningful if you addressed those who are participating in it rather than the "pro-legislation" crowd who are not.

 

[Touchofevil]

That is very good advice. Every well thought out reply is either conveniently ignored or one is accused of muddying the discussion. Of course, the pro-legislation crowd can fabricate historical references all day long and conflate the discussion by lumping in medical and recreational use into some twisted position on human rights.
As you've shown a bright light on their tenuous position, those barks are barely worth chasing.

Not only do some recreate history, they use the "what about alcohol?", or the it is an herb or it is natural argument. How about starting with the "I like to get high" argument? Be honest about what marijuana is and why you want to legalize it before there is any more discussion.