Seattle Hempfest at 4:20
August 26, 2006 11:15 PM   Subscribe

Randi Rhodes is the MC at the mainstage at 4:20 Seattle Hemp Fest 2006 I knew you were cool Randi! Also, Dr.Bob Melameda explains why humans need marijuana to fuction properly.
posted by augustweed (75 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
not really marijuana... just endocannabinoids.
posted by wumpus at 11:20 PM on August 26, 2006


Whatever, man. Puff, puff - pass.
posted by loquacious at 11:28 PM on August 26, 2006


It's actually amazing to me how not cool she is. I'm a pretty left wing guy & I can't stand to listen to her voice on Air America. She's such a strident, humorless nag, she's like the Anti-Franken. I imagine her converting fence-sitters to Republicans every time she opens her mouth.
posted by jonson at 11:43 PM on August 26, 2006


Wow. That first video was unbearable. Everything I hate in speakers at large events: talking about how great "we" are, asking for people to "gimme an" H!, "we almost didn't make it", but "it was all thanks to you people", etc. Brutal.

And I don't know who Randi Rhodes is but she was only on stage for 15 seconds and said nothing of value (maybe she came on again after the bad music, I dunno, I couldn't take it).

And the second video... that guy's a quack, right? He was the humor part of the event, correct?

In both vids the camera operator seemed about as interested as everyone else there (and myself): not at all.
posted by dobbs at 11:48 PM on August 26, 2006


Randi Rhodes is the Bill O'Reilly of the left. She is the reason I don't listen to Air America. Who made the decision to give her airplay, and why? Did they really think they need to try to ape the assholes in right-wing talk radio?
/derail

*sigh* Hempfest. I swear marijuana would've been regulated sanely a long time ago if it had better representation.
posted by mullingitover at 12:02 AM on August 27, 2006


I watched that entire video and there wasn't one guitar solo.
posted by suckerpunch at 3:37 AM on August 27, 2006 [1 favorite]


The first guy sort of reminded me of Steve Ballmer in the way he rallied up the crowd.
posted by Herr Fahrstuhl at 3:48 AM on August 27, 2006


Another eponysterical post. Is this some kind of record?
posted by asok at 4:34 AM on August 27, 2006


...if it had better representation...

I hope you mean by both sides...
posted by sunshinesky at 5:26 AM on August 27, 2006


Don't get it.
posted by MarshallPoe at 5:35 AM on August 27, 2006


Randi Rhodes epitomizes everything awful about Air America. She turns it into Hate Radio and gives me a headache every time I hear her.

I would almost rather listen to Ann Coulter.
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:35 AM on August 27, 2006


I talk to a lot of people who have drug problems as part of my job. I don't know if I have spoken to anyone who thinks that they have a problem with pot. Anyone with heroin, crack, etc. wishes they could quit. Many people who drink alcohol will talk about the negative effects and how they either need to cut back or to quit. But the pot smokers seem to not only think that what they are doing is not harmful to them in any way. In fact -- unlike any other drug -- they will tell me how good it is for them. They think other people should do it more. I find the whole thing to be pretty interesting.
posted by flarbuse at 7:05 AM on August 27, 2006


did I need to smoke before watching that?
bo-ring.

and I can't listen to Randi Rhodes anymore, either.

it's all about the Maddow.
posted by Busithoth at 7:11 AM on August 27, 2006


and I can't listen to Randi Rhodes anymore, either.

Me neither. That solo on "Crazy Train" just really bugs me, for some reason.
posted by Hypnic jerk at 8:08 AM on August 27, 2006


Randy rulez!!!1 (seriously)
posted by owhydididoit at 8:35 AM on August 27, 2006


I'm really tired of the "you can make anything out of hemp" and "marijuana changed us from silent protohominids into modern man" talk. It's bullshit, and it should have nothing to do with legalization. The legalization debate should be about personal freedoms, the costs to all of us that the war on drugs creates, and personal responsibility. That's it. Please stop being stupid, you dumb fucking hippies, put on a suit, and let the opposition take legalization advocates seriously for once.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:45 AM on August 27, 2006


Yeah, because no one can be serious unless they wear a suit.
posted by nyxxxx at 9:05 AM on August 27, 2006


But the pot smokers seem to not only think that what they are doing is not harmful to them in any way. In fact -- unlike any other drug -- they will tell me how good it is for them. They think other people should do it more.

Yeah, I too have noticed how stupid it makes people.

Ironically it makes them feel like geniuses because they get an overwhelming sense of accomplishment when they are able to successfully remember something that happened the day before, read a map, operate a DVD player, understand a song lyric, and so forth.
posted by fleetmouse at 9:10 AM on August 27, 2006 [1 favorite]


Optimus, I think at this point that the sillly hippies aren't really an obstacle to legalization.

The main obstacles are that the swing voters on the issue don't see advocates drawing a clear line between marijuana, on the one hand, and cocaine, heroin, and speed, on the other hand.

A secondary issue is that they also want advocates to be honest in their view that it isn't really just about personal freedom, but about the advocates' view that marijuana is far more like alcohol than tobacco (i.e., harmful only when abused, and therefore to be welcomed into society, rather than grudgingly tolerated in the manner that we now grudgingly tolerate tobocco).
posted by MattD at 9:11 AM on August 27, 2006


...swing voters on the issue don't see advocates drawing a clear line between marijuana, on the one hand, and cocaine, heroin, and speed, on the other hand.

Maybe that's because there *is* no clear difference in that they all make folks act real funny, sometimes very badly, and, for a goodly portion of users, totally screw up their lives. I'd throw alcohol in there too.
posted by MarshallPoe at 9:59 AM on August 27, 2006


What's with all the squares, man?
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:10 AM on August 27, 2006


MarshallPoe, do you not know any crack addicts or seen people do meth? Some drugs destroy human lives.

Pot just makes people lazy and forgetful. It's not the same order of magnitude.
posted by MythMaker at 10:14 AM on August 27, 2006


I hate when other people have fun! I have this friend with an XBox360 and he's always telling me to get one and that it is great. He does it after he gets home from work and plays for a couple hours to "unwind", I try to tell him it makes him look like a fool. One time we had to wait for him to get done with Madden 07 and missed the previews to the movie. It is so annoying when everytime I call him he's playing "Oblivion" or "Dead Rising" and telling me to come over and play to. He spends at least $150 a month on different games. Yeah sure when we go on vacation he doesn't seek it out or bring it on the plane with him but on the plane ride back he's talking about how we should all come over and play a quick game of Table Tennis. He admits sometimes when he's at work, he'd rather be playing video games -- sometimes as early as 10AM!
posted by geoff. at 10:18 AM on August 27, 2006 [2 favorites]


I love how smart martinis, cocaine, and sex make people. Everytime I go to a cocktail party, I feel surrounded by geniuses -- and dressed to kill, too! Enough of this dreary weed, this dreary "jazz," and these dreary potsmoking pseudo-intellectuals with their "feelings." So passé.
posted by digaman at 10:39 AM on August 27, 2006


Dr.Bob Melameda explains why humans need marijuana to fuction properly...

So being pantless on the bathroom floor trying to puke my guts up and feeling like my eyes are about to explode from a pan-spheric aneurysm is my proper state of being?

It should be legal, but the Potsies kinda get on my nerves with their Universal Cure Shtick ('Economic, social, medical, political, industrial, it's good for whatever ails you!'). It's a hell of a lot less harmful than tobacco and alcohol, and fighting it is a huge waste of government resources. I don't smoke, but I'd be happy to put my name on any petition if they'd give their hard sell evangelism a rest.

Oh, and:
"And all this time, I've been smoking harmless tobacco!"
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:49 AM on August 27, 2006


Randi Rhodes is very okay. Hemp is very okay. This is the first time it occurred to me that the two have any connection. Randi doesn't sound like a pot smoker on the air. In fact I think pot smoking would probably improve her show. She needs to lighten up.

Love her show though. I listen to Randi sometimes on the way home from work. But then again, I adored Janeane Garofalo when she was still on The Majority Report. Heck, I'd adore Janeane Garofalo no matter what she was doing.

...what were we talking about?
posted by ZachsMind at 11:39 AM on August 27, 2006


But the pot smokers seem to not only think that what they are doing is not harmful to them in any way. In fact -- unlike any other drug -- they will tell me how good it is for them. They think other people should do it more. I find the whole thing to be pretty interesting.

I'm not sure 'interesting' is the word I'd use, maybe 'dangerous' - I know two people who look likely to spend the rest of their lives in the nuthouse thanks to that attitude (including one who was given an ounce as a welcome home present after he was fucking sectioned), not to mention a good many more who suffered severe depression and/or paranoia as a result of the 'nah, it can't be the weed' thing. Yeah, I know weed is fine for the overwhelming majority people, but for some it definitely doesn't just make them 'lazy and forgetful'.
posted by jack_mo at 11:47 AM on August 27, 2006


So being pantless on the bathroom floor trying to puke my guts up and feeling like my eyes are about to explode from a pan-spheric aneurysm is my proper state of being?

I didn't know you liked to get wet, PCP man...
posted by geoff. at 11:49 AM on August 27, 2006


Yeah, because no one can be serious unless they wear a suit.
posted by nyxxxx at 9:05 AM PST on August 27


Acting and dressing like a professional takes away the very first defense of the anti-freedom authoritarians, that being the notion that all the "others" who want marijuana legalized are a bunch of jobless bums.

In addition there are plenty of people who don't smoke - myself included - who want our laws to be fair and sane. We all know that it's about framing, and acting like adults is the first step towards honest discussion and acceptance.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:05 PM on August 27, 2006


Oh, and PS - I, too, thought that Hempfest was going to be a bunch of crazy, dirty hippies running around and acting silly (which sounded like fun)...to my surprise, it was actually more like 50,000 Kevin Federlines, Snoop Doggs, 50 Cents and various flavors of hoochies. Very much not what I expected.
posted by tristeza at 12:11 PM on August 27, 2006


...do you not know any crack addicts or seen people do meth? Some drugs destroy human lives. Pot just makes people lazy and forgetful. It's not the same order of magnitude.

Well, I don't want to get into a whole big thang, but I know a lot of dope fiends, very well. And every darn one of them started their slide into addiction by thinking that alcohol or weed was just a harmless good time. Some people can do drugs, some people can’t. The problem is we can’t really tell the difference from the get go. It’s like Russian roulette, really, only that when you lose with drugs you usually end up taking a lot of people down with you (friends, family members, the innocent people you kill in the DUI car accident that kills you). Not dangerous? A matter of individual choice? With respect, it doesn't seem that way to me...
posted by MarshallPoe at 12:24 PM on August 27, 2006


And every darn one of them started their slide into addiction by thinking that alcohol or weed was just a harmless good time. Some people can do drugs, some people can’t.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that people don't pick and choose which substances they consume. A lot of people choose to consume marijuana, far more than do heroin, for example. Both are illegal, so why don't the same people who use pot also use heroin? Because some drugs are patently more dangerous than others, and people make up their own minds about which is which. Society might reasonably decide to recognize that marijuana is primarily made dangerous by its prohibition.
posted by owhydididoit at 12:45 PM on August 27, 2006


If ever there was a solid argument for legalizing marijuana, or at least decriminalizing it, it would be the issues associated with enforcing the laws regarding it.

Like, totally. Man.
posted by ninjew at 1:54 PM on August 27, 2006


Society might reasonably decide to recognize that marijuana is primarily made dangerous by its prohibition.

Primarily? Isn't marijuana "primarily" dangerous because it seriously impairs normal behavior? "No, your honor, I didn't hit that kid on the bike because I was wacked out on weed, but because weed is illegal." Hard to swallow.

Drugs are dangerous because they fuck you up--illegal or not.
posted by MarshallPoe at 2:00 PM on August 27, 2006


MarshallPoe writes "Drugs are dangerous because they fuck you up--illegal or not."

With marijuana, however, users face greater risks to personal safety from the justice system than from the drug itself.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:22 PM on August 27, 2006


Isn't marijuana "primarily" dangerous because it seriously impairs normal behavior?

No, and this is a disingenuous argument. Irresponsible use of most things is what makes them dangerous, not the thing itself.
posted by biscotti at 2:41 PM on August 27, 2006


Marshall Poe: Driving in altered states is always stupid - such as driving on allergy medicine. Not a good reason to make it illegal. Alcohol is far more likely to disinhibit you from such risk-taking behaviour.

Loaded language such as "seriously impairs" is disingenuous. Sure - you're right - you shouldn't drive on it. But it improves other behaviours - such as art appreciation. I rarely drive and read or watch DVDs. Other people find it improves their sociability (not me, but it's different for everyone). How am I impaired by playing jazz alone and loving it?

Your mom and dad fuck you up, too, according to Mr Larkin, and he wasn't just talking genetically. Ban them.
posted by Sparx at 2:43 PM on August 27, 2006


Perhaps it's a guilty pleasure, but I love me some Randi. Sure, she's abrasive, but it's the antithesis of O'Reilly, plus she does a hell of a lot of factual research. You go girl.
posted by moonbird at 2:46 PM on August 27, 2006


Sparx, that's one of my favorite poems. I know it by heart.

Anyway, sorry, but I just don't trust people to be "responsible" when they take a drug--any drug--that makes them systematically irresponsible (and, I would add, that ends up killiing roughly 5% of them via addiction). That weed makes you act irresponsibly and "leads to harder stuff" for an unlucky minority is proven in spades, like it or not.

Now, if you want go to the wilds of Montana and spark up, fine with me. It's your life. But so long as you live with the rest of us, recognize that taking drugs is irresponsible per se. It might be fun, but it ain't right.

Damn, I sound like friggin' Nancy Reagan. Or was it Tipper Gore?
posted by MarshallPoe at 3:18 PM on August 27, 2006



Primarily? Isn't marijuana "primarily" dangerous because it seriously impairs normal behavior? "No, your honor, I didn't hit that kid on the bike because I was wacked out on weed, but because weed is illegal." Hard to swallow.


My god, you're actually reciting a government-sponsored anti-marijuana TV commercial.
posted by odinsdream at 3:21 PM on August 27, 2006


Really? 5% are killed via addiction of marijuana? That's surprising considering that there the LD50 of marijuana is absurdly high (cannaboids do not attach themselves to the cardiovascular regions of the brain). And I don't know where to touch the systematically irresponsible portion. Perhaps you'd like to meet my friend who smokes every day and recently got accepted to Harvard Law? Does alcohol make people systematically irresponsible? Or tobacco? While yes, it does increase the chance that someone stupid does something stupid -- it seems rather asymmetric to me to punish everyone when stupid people and stupid decisions abound regardless of the legality of a substance.
posted by geoff. at 3:27 PM on August 27, 2006


MarshallPoe you are nuts.
posted by I Foody at 3:36 PM on August 27, 2006 [1 favorite]


I am actually in favor of legalizing marijuana (even though it would negatively affect my income), but don't make a pro-pot argument based on a friend of yours who smokes pot every day and got into Harvard Law. If you can show that there is a higher rate of potsmoking among the student body of Harvard Law than the general population, then that might be interesting. But pointing to one person to try to prove or disprove a generalization is not particularly useful.
posted by flarbuse at 3:40 PM on August 27, 2006


My god, you're actually reciting a government-sponsored anti-marijuana TV commercial.

Um, didn't see that one (no TV), but I wrote that because I'm anti-legalization. Or didn't you pick up on that? Here, let me say it: I don't think dope should be legalized.

Does alcohol make people systematically irresponsible?
No doubt about it, or at least at a greater rate than they would be normally. Which is the same thing.

MarshallPoe you are nuts.

I'll cop to that. And thanks for moving the conversation forward!
posted by MarshallPoe at 3:45 PM on August 27, 2006


Anyway, sorry, but I just don't trust people to be "responsible" when they take a drug--any drug--that makes them systematically irresponsible (and, I would add, that ends up killiing roughly 5% of them via addiction). That weed makes you act irresponsibly and "leads to harder stuff" for an unlucky minority is proven in spades, like it or not.

I think your problem is that you just don't trust people to be responsible, 'systematically' or otherwise. So you must be responsible for them - and if that means making up stats like 5% die of addiction (name for me the physically addictive substance in THC - or show how psychological addiction can kill) or using thoroughly discredited 'reefer madness' BS like gateway theory then so be it.

I have to agree with I foody. Seeing as you clearly can't think for yourself, I would suggest you don't risk further injury by thinking for me.
posted by Sparx at 3:48 PM on August 27, 2006


I am actually in favor of legalizing marijuana (even though it would negatively affect my income)

So do you deal, are you a cop, or do you run prisons?
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 3:58 PM on August 27, 2006


I couldn't care less if they kept every other damn thing illegal so long as they legalized pot for everybody over 18. If the War On (Some) Drugs (TM) can't be ended, it can at least be simplified -- just concede one lousy defeat, and FIDO.

Oh, and...Randi is hawt.

That is all. Carry on.
posted by pax digita at 3:59 PM on August 27, 2006


Sparx, let me take you to an AA or NA meeting (preferably in a jail) where you can explain to the assembled addicts that drink, weed and all the rest are really just good fun. And that the 'gateway' theory is discredited. Absolutely discredited! I'm sure you'll convince all of them right away. In fact, I think you should go to the nearest treatment center and spread the gospel right now! These people need you! Tell it from the mountain, bother!

Go ahead. Tell me how it works out.
posted by MarshallPoe at 4:08 PM on August 27, 2006


MarshallPoe, the fact that the throughly discredited gateway theory doesn't agree with your hysterical and inaccurate ideas about drug addiction doesn't make it NOT discredited. You know that, right? Do a wee bit of research. Blinkered closed-mindedness is a much more dangerous gateway drug than any other.
posted by biscotti at 4:33 PM on August 27, 2006


every darn one of them started their slide into addiction by thinking that alcohol or weed was just a harmless good time. Some people can do drugs, some people can’t.

The gateway isn't the drug. The gateway is the lie. The government bundled up marijuana in the same class as hard drugs. When kids try marijuana and realized they had been lied to about its harmfulness, they interpret that to mean they were lied to about the effects and consequences of all illegal drugs.
posted by augustweed at 5:05 PM on August 27, 2006


Why would I go to an AA or NA meeting to talk about pot? It being neither alcoholic or narcotic in nature. You do know what those words mean, don't you?

Seriously, do some research. Start here - lots of references you can verify for yourself so it's not just some vested interest spouting off on the internet. Watch out for the subtleties - just because 9 out of 10 people on air airplane have previously flown on airplanes, does not mean that airplanes are the leading cause of people taking airplane trips.
posted by Sparx at 5:11 PM on August 27, 2006


...on 'an' airplane. But you probably knew that.
posted by Sparx at 5:13 PM on August 27, 2006


So do you deal, are you a cop, or do you run prisons?

hey theonlycooltim

What does it matter what he does for a living? He could be part of the drug testing industry, or the pharmaceutical industry, or a part of any vast number of industries that benefit from the war on pot.
posted by augustweed at 5:14 PM on August 27, 2006


Thanks to everyone for the enlightenment (seriously). Wanted hear the vox pop. Heard it. I'm in the minority, clearly. I'm calling the "three revert" rule on my end and sending this Arbitration Committee. Lord of the Blue, make a ruling! Pot: Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?

Besides, gotta feed my cat.

PS: Sparx, you feisty bastard you! Love it! BTW: lots of folks at AA and NA talk about pot--the meetings are really for anyone who wants stop any drug and can't. Never seen anyone turned away. I'm helping a guy who's addicted to weed, so (as you guessed) I have a dog in this fight. Speaking of dogs, the cat's calling...
posted by MarshallPoe at 5:28 PM on August 27, 2006


Smells like teen copout, MP. No response to issues raised, just a retreat into insubstantial unfalsifiability. I call troll.

Besides - gotta feed my morphine sulphate habit.
posted by Sparx at 5:45 PM on August 27, 2006


Defense attorney.

We bitch about the narrowing of the Fourth Amendment and ridiculous or unconstitutional laws, but the truth is that all of those things put money into our pockets.
posted by flarbuse at 6:13 PM on August 27, 2006


flarbuse, I agree that one person does not make the rule but so often in discussions like these I hear of the incredibly out there story of how one relative/friend used weed and is now a druggie selling his body for weed money, or some other hyperbolized statement such as that. I am just trying to counter it show that weed does not, in all cases, cause fuck ups and that it depends more on the person and not on the drug. As I'm sure you will agree, weed does not destroy someone's free choice to fuck up their lives or not.
posted by geoff. at 7:22 PM on August 27, 2006


Marshall Poe sounds like Joe Friday on Dragnet.
posted by nyxxxx at 7:30 PM on August 27, 2006


I would certainly agree with you, geoff.
posted by flarbuse at 7:47 PM on August 27, 2006


... let me take you to an AA or NA meeting (preferably in a jail) where you can explain to the assembled addicts that drink, weed and all the rest are really just good fun.

MarshallPoe - I don't believe you've ever been to an AA meeting (or maybe didn't understand it). There's a solid distinction between alcoholics and "social drinkers". This is the whole point of going around the room with "My name is so-and-so, and I'm an alcoholic." The big book focusses over and over again that most people can drink normally, but some of us can't. For normal drinkers, it would be "just good fun".
posted by swell at 8:48 PM on August 27, 2006


FFS, is there an active effort underway to dumbify MeFi?

We have got to start eating the n00bs.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:50 PM on August 27, 2006


Marijuana is not a drug. I used to suck dick for coke. Now that's an addiction. You ever suck some dick for marijuana?
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:08 PM on August 27, 2006


MarshallPoe writes "Thanks to everyone for the enlightenment"

I have been through it, addiction and beyond. Your intentions are good, but you don't really understand.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:51 PM on August 27, 2006


Don't make a pro-pot argument based on a friend of yours who smokes pot every day and got into Harvard Law. If you can show that there is a higher rate of potsmoking among the student body of Harvard Law than the general population, then that might be interesting.

Not sure where you want to place this data point, then, but I didn't experiment with marijuana until after I was accepted to Harvard Law. That said, we do need more data. I'm sure the social-climbers and silver-spooners at the world's most overhyped vocational school would gladly volunteer their drug-use histories in the name of science. To the phones!
posted by joe lisboa at 10:15 PM on August 27, 2006


Missed this thread earlier.

Should MarshallPoe decide to check up, here's some research and opinions on marijuana, in particular.

"No, your honor, I didn't hit that kid on the bike because I was wacked out on weed, but because weed is illegal."

From Psychoactive substance use and the risk of motor vehicle accidents(PDF):

===
The risk for road trauma was increased for single use of benzodiazepines (adjusted OR 5.1 (95% Cl: 1.8–14.0)) and alcohol (blood alcohol concentrations of 0.50–0.79 g/l, adjusted OR 5.5 (95% Cl: 1.3–23.2) and ≥0.8 g/l, adjusted OR 15.5 (95% Cl: 7.1–33.9)). High relative risks were estimated for drivers using combinations of drugs (adjusted OR 6.1 (95% Cl: 2.6–14.1)) and those using a combination of drugs and alcohol (OR 112.2 (95% Cl: 14.1–892)). Increased risks, although not statistically significantly, were assessed for drivers using amphetamines, cocaine, or opiates. No increased risk for road trauma was found for drivers exposed to cannabis.
===

From the (internal) British PM's Strategy Unit drugs report, here's the slide from page 28

===
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
===

that ends up killiing roughly 5% of them via addiction

From the British Medical Journal, Comparing cannabis with tobacco—again:

===
"Although the use of cannabis is not harmless, the current knowledge base does not support the assertion that it has any notable adverse public health impact in relation to mortality."
===

let me take you to an AA or NA meeting (preferably in a jail) where you can explain to the assembled addicts that drink, weed and all the rest are really just good fun.

"Let me take you to the nearest terminal care ward and explain to people that life is just really good fun". Well, sorry for that, but you do realize that the response to an issue ought to be decided by the prevalence of adverse effects & their severity balanced against the freedoms and benefits accrued. In this respect, cannabis adversely affects a tiny minority of its users. The calculus isn't even close enough to warrant a demonization & prohibition. In fact, researchers have identified genetic factors that dispose a segment of the population to psychotic adversities due to cannabis, and even then they occur if the person takes up sustained use from adolescence (but not adulthood). For those not within this segment, there's no increased risk, irrespective of whether one starts smoking from adolescence or adulthood. From a strictly pragmatic perspective, the anti-drug messages fall flat if they don't match up with firsthand experience. And in the case of cannabis, by far the most widely prevalent illicit drug, there's plenty of scope for that naive trust in authority to be broken. An approach that acknowledges that there are some risk factors, like age, frequency..etc which can modulate effects will be more trustworthy.

And that the 'gateway' theory is discredited.

It won't be "discredited" till the establishment is prohibitionist, but the evidence is lacking.

From the UK House of Commons Science & Technology's recent report on drug classification:

===
"The RAND report also concluded that "the gateway theory has little evidence to support it despite copious research""

and

"in the course of this inquiry we have found no conclusive evidence to support the gateway theory."
===

I should note that there is a small gateway effect, but it's a result of cultural & legal factors, not biological. The factors being the shared illegality of cannabis & heroin, hence leading a skeptical pot user to dismiss claims about heroin, as well. The main social factor being that having crossed the line, why hold back? But given the tiny size of the gateway, these factors aren't strong in the first place.

As a last point, I should note the figures on employment among pot users and non-users, derived from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health:

===
Full-time employment among

Lifetime adult users: 67.4%
Past year adult users: 58.8%
Past month adult users: 58.3%
Former adult users: 70.1%
Adult non-users of this drug: 61.1%
===
posted by daksya at 12:43 AM on August 28, 2006 [4 favorites]


Ugh, facts. Let me tell you about my friend's friend's friend who smelled weed once and decided that he was going to kill the sun. Not so harmless now, is it?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:13 AM on August 28, 2006


It appears that Marshall Poe's day job is writing articles for The Atlantic. His latest work appears to be a cookie-cutter article about wikipedia, though I would have thought they'd have written that at least six months ago, if not a year or two ago.

At least he's not writing about marijuana.
posted by blasdelf at 7:56 AM on August 28, 2006


I thought the article on NPOV was fine. Just because he's ignorant about the effects of marijuana and the consequences of the drug war doesn't make him a bad person or have any bearing on his writing.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:36 AM on August 28, 2006


Let me tell you about my friend's friend's friend who smelled weed once and decided that he was going to kill the sun. Not so harmless now, is it?

Great, a solution for global warming! Hooray for pot!
posted by DenOfSizer at 10:50 AM on August 28, 2006


By the way, w/r/t Randi Rhodes' shrillness, why is it it Bill O'Reilly or Rush are never called shrill, when they are equally as partisan as she is? Is shrill used to denigrate annoying women but not men?
posted by DenOfSizer at 10:53 AM on August 28, 2006


No, 'shrill' is used by conservatives to denigrate liberals in general. It is such an uncommon word in politics outside of this particular usage that it can be used as a good indicator that the denigrater is a cloned Republicant.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:57 AM on August 28, 2006


Results 1 - 10 of about 119,000 for ann coulter shrill
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:03 AM on August 28, 2006


Thank you, daksya and others, for having the patience to educate the ignorant.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:07 AM on August 28, 2006


fff: Alas - it is only teh vox hoi polloi
posted by Sparx at 2:08 PM on August 28, 2006



At least he's not writing about marijuana.


Who knows? Maybe he's doing some research here?
posted by owhydididoit at 4:01 PM on August 28, 2006


« Older Jesus would run Ubuntu...  |  Dub Selector... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments