|
Nevvy Z posted:Could you clarify how that is even remotely true? TheRamblingSoul posted:Are we really white knighting "I smell pot" as probable cause? goodness posted:Either way, you know you are doing something illegal and it sucks to get caught if you do. Hate the laws, not the people who do their job serving them. NathanScottPhillips posted:Also, for the lawyers, how will this play out? and you won't see cannabis-infused beer under current CO law unless you make it yourself. not that hard! edit: checked the CO retail marijuana code to refresh my recollection. according to the regs: quote:R 402 – Retail Marijuana Sales: General Limitations or Prohibited Acts TenementFunster fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Jan 13, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
The implication of a cop saying "can I search you" and leaving you alone after you say no is he took a halfhearted shot and doesn't care. A cop who wants to actually intimidate someone can do a lot more than ask to search someone. Such as telling them if they refuse they will have to hang out and wait for the dogs.TenementFunster posted:"white knighting" is a funny way of saying "explaining long established law and the reasons behind it." "Explaining" is a funny way of saying you agree with the law then strawmanning with this ACAB poo poo and calling people punks and idiots who disagree with you about anything. No white knighting here no sir. BTW are you in the Yakuza? I totally get if your missing the ends of those fingers how capitalization could be difficult for you. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
I thought Funster was trying to make the point that, as driving under the influence is still illegal, that a cop smelling marijuana during a traffic stop could still constitute reasonable suspicion. This seems similar to a situation where a cop might smell alcohol on somebody and want to check for open containers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
DeadmansReach posted:I thought Funster was trying to make the point that, as driving under the influence is still illegal, that a cop smelling marijuana during a traffic stop could still constitute reasonable suspicion. This seems similar to a situation where a cop might smell alcohol on somebody and want to check for open containers? Driving under the influence has not been mentioned once. He thinks that if you want to protect your fourth amendment rights you must hate cops. Because no cop has ever abused the "I smell weed" to conduct an illegal search ever. EVER. The constitution is there to give cops excuses to search you and if the search finds something the search was automatically constitutional. Protect who from the government? What? I can't hear you over my club hitting your skull. He's also as obnoxious as possible about it so probably a troll. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
I assumed DUI because that's the only circumstance in a legal state where recently smoking would matter... right? As far as cops abusing it, I think that's a given. I read his post as pointing out that it probably wouldn't disappear over night and that you SHOULD hate cops. You should probably hate cops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
DeadmansReach posted:I assumed DUI because that's the only circumstance in a legal state where recently smoking would matter... right? As far as your first part goes, theoretically once it's no longer at all illegal when a cop pulls you over and smells weed you can hold up your bag and say "I just bought it I haven't had any yet" or point to your obviously high buddy and say "yeah he's been smoking I'm the DD" just like you currently do with alcohol. Remember this all stemmed from: quote:But Tom Raynes, the executive director of the Colorado District Attorneys Council, said the state's new marijuana laws are likely making it tougher for police to crack down on the remaining marijuana crimes. Because some marijuana possession and use is now legal, Raynes said that means police are no longer allowed to investigate in depth purely because they smell pot. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
To be honest I'm pretty wary of attaching profit motives to things which can cause harm, and I'm learning more towards that being the case for marijuana in teenagers than I've ever before been. I definitely think advertisements/products targeting children are unethical and I question to what degree it could be curbed in the internet era. I will warn in advance that I am a consequentialist and judge things as right or wrong purely based on their consequences and not any moral predispositions like "people should have the right to put what they want in their bodies", regardless of how well that might work as a heuristic. I smoke a bunch of weed too if you want to question my motives. I read a blog post weighing the pros and cons of marijuana legalization here, it is long but pretty good. I definitely have criticism of it but it seems a lot more clear-headed than other writing on the subject: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ He does pretty good back of the envelope math which didn't come to a strong conclusion due to lack of data(it comes out weakly in favor of legalization with the caveat that more data is really needed to say anything conclusively), but made me think a lot about the actual effects legalization would have. I had previously overlooked a bunch of factors due to my instincts, like the right to put something in my body, my personal fear of being arrested, and just generally being in communities where it was seen as a net win. The primary negative factor he came up was studies showing that marijuana use in teens would probably go up, and heavy marijuana in one's teenage years is associated with a decrease in one's IQ by 8 points. With the magnitudes he cites this is actually somewhat more alarming than I expected it to be and suggests that more research needs to be done in the area regardless of legalization efforts. The primary positive effect he finds is the decrease in traffic fatalities from people diverting from alcohol to marijuana. No one ever brings up this traffic fatalities in these sorts of discussions, but as soon as he did the math it seemed blindingly obvious that it was the absolute best reason to do it of all of them. 30000+ people die in traffic accidents each year in the US alone and even if you could get rid of 4000 of those it would make a huge difference, much more so than the costs and harm caused by the imprisoning people for marijuana offenses. This is unfortunately where the lack of data rears its head and so it is only based on estimates. Basically, I think the harms are greater in magnitude than tend to be acknowledged in most drug-friendly forums, and people have their priorities all wrong as to what the benefits are. More than anything there should be strong prohibitions against marketing marijuana to children(like there are for cigarettes), and more careful studies should be done into the rate of substituting marijuana for alcohol, and the relative impact on driving for both drugs. EDIT: Wow I took awhile typing this, it started off in response to that article posted a page ago. PS please stop sperging about capital letters no one cares. His posts can be annoying but criticize them on their merits or lack thereof. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:a decrease in one's IQ by 8 points. What does this actually mean for anyone. How does it impact their life in any way? EDIT: I choose to hope that we can maintain a higher quality of posting than illiterates. I can do both. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:What does this actually mean for anyone. How does it impact their life in any way? It has measurable predictive power several life outcomes, like school performance, job performance, income(weaker than the others), likelihood to commit crimes. Obviously it isn't sufficient to predict much on its own and 8 is a pretty small number, but a small change in a very large group of people amounts to a big change. I guess you could dispute that last part but it seems fairly obvious to me... Edit: The standards of posting I would like are in reasoning ability, clear expression, and lack of appeals to logical fallacies. Capital letters I could take or leave. Obviously there is a line here where something becomes unreasonable, correcting someone's use of the subjunctive is definitely on one side and splitting  into paragraphs is on another and I'm fine with disagreeing on which side capital letters fall under.
Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:It has measurable predictive power several life outcomes, like school performance, job performance, income(weaker than the others), likelihood to commit crimes. Obviously it isn't sufficient to predict much on its own and 8 is a pretty small number, but a small change in a very large group of people amounts to a big change. I guess you could dispute that last part but it seems fairly obvious to me...
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:The implication of a cop saying "can I search you" and leaving you alone after you say no is he took a halfhearted shot and doesn't care. A cop who wants to actually intimidate someone can do a lot more than ask to search someone. Such as telling them if they refuse they will have to hang out and wait for the dogs. I gave you the reasons and the reasons are pretty sound, except in the instance of cops lying and weed being illegal yes i am in the yakuza and i'm not strawmanning anything. i loving hate cops, but plain view would still be part of a mythical just and fair police force. it will be a lot more fair once weed is legal and can't be a reasonable suspicion pretext. Nevvy Z posted:No he's really just being as obnoxious as possible about defending the law because it's the law and it can't be wrong because precedent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:It has measurable predictive power several life outcomes, like school performance, job performance, income(weaker than the others), likelihood to commit crimes. Obviously it isn't sufficient to predict much on its own and 8 is a pretty small number, but a small change in a very large group of people amounts to a big change. I guess you could dispute that last part but it seems fairly obvious to me... I just think we don't have enough information to even show the group would be big. It specifically says heavy use, and I think it's hard to say just how many high schoolers are going to become heavy users who wouldn't have already. That's not even looking at confounding factors like the fact that any teenager whose allowed to engage in heavy use probably has fairly disinterested parents for one. I do agree that it should have the same marketing restrictions as alcohol and tobacco though, that is a fairly obvious and good way to start solving the problem. TenementFunster posted:plain view would still be part of a mythical just and fair police force Plain view doesn't have to include smells. Smell works differently than sight. You aren't informed, you just assume because we disagree with the status quo we don't understand it. We understand it, it's bullshit. I get that plain view is a thing. It's a fine thing. It should not include smell. Sorry I misunderstood you as being pro cop. Now understand that you aren't any more informed than anyone else, you just don't understand how disagreeing with things works. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:The primary negative factor he came up was studies showing that marijuana use in teens would probably go up, and heavy marijuana in one's teenage years is associated with a decrease in one's IQ by 8 points. With the magnitudes he cites this is actually somewhat more alarming than I expected it to be and suggests that more research needs to be done in the area regardless of legalization efforts. I don't have time to read the full article at the moment, but as soon as I saw him trying to use decrim as a barometer, I began skimming to see if he mentions the positive effect of legalization in this area. Decrim cuts the penalty for possessors, but still leaves distribution to a black market, which gives you the benefit of not nailing people to the wall for weed while missing out on the supply control benefits that legalization can entail. The plural of anecdote is not data, of course, but my experience and the experience of many I grew up with was that weed was easier to obtain than alcohol, precisely because weed was available from that kid in your 3rd period class and since it was all under the table he didn't give a poo poo about your age. Alcohol, meanwhile, required you to get a good fake ID, or to find a straw purchaser over 21, or to find some kid whose parents have a liquor cabinet you can steal from. The loss of the black market should hopefully decrease that access for teenagers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Sorry I misunderstood you as being pro cop. Now understand that you aren't any more informed than anyone else, you just don't understand how disagreeing with things works. Do you even realize you're trying to argue that someone who has a JD, lives in Colorado, and had to extensively study both Colorado's marijuana regulations and the US law system in general? He's certainly more informed than you are, as you keep being outraged and amazed by the precedent-based common law system that the US has operated under since before it was a nation. EDIT: I'm not even meaning to sound like a TF cheerleader or anything, but he's by far the most well-informed person in this thread on matters of law. Preem Palver fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
First fact claim made by that article that I looked into has me doubting that it relies upon an honest interpretation of data. quote:Second, we know that medical marijuana has twice as much THC as street marijuana. Maybe everyone keeps using the same amount of marijuana, but when medical marijuana inevitably gets diverted to the street, addicts can’t handle it and end up behaving much worse than they expected. Or, less charitably, "weed grown with the female plants segregated is more potent." Obviously, this existed before the passage of SB420. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Preem Palver posted:Do you even realize you're trying to argue that someone who has a JD, lives in Colorado, and had to extensively study both Colorado's marijuana regulations and the US law system in general? He's certainly more informed than you are, as you keep being outraged and amazed by the precedent-based common law system that the US has operated under since before it was a nation. I think in general we could do a better job of being clear whether we are giving our opinion of how things are or how things should be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Preem Palver posted:Do you even realize you're trying to argue that someone who has a JD, lives in Colorado, and had to extensively study both Colorado's marijuana regulations and the US law system in general? He's certainly more informed than you are, as you keep being outraged and amazed by the precedent-based common law system that the US has operated under since before it was a nation. KernelSlanders posted:I think in general we could do a better job of being clear whether we are giving our opinion of how things are or how things should be. This is very true and happens a lot. Thread conversations are complicated and that's expounded by multiple people expressing variations on the same view. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Preem Palver posted:Do you even realize you're trying to argue that someone who has a JD, lives in Colorado, and had to extensively study both Colorado's marijuana regulations and the US law system in general? He's certainly more informed than you are, as you keep being outraged and amazed by the precedent-based common law system that the US has operated under since before it was a nation. Um, I don't think you are reading his posts at all. It does not matter if TF is on the Supreme Court. He responds to people like an rear end in a top hat and just berates people with "legal knowledge". Good job, someone knows how to read a book. EDIT: When you have to put a disclaimer that you are not supporting something, you are. "I dont mean to offend you, but..." 1. 8 points in IQ does not affect anything at all. And this is ignoring the fact that the IQ system is pretty meh. 2. What is he talking about when he says teens? Because if someone between 0-16 is smoking weed everyday then they were dumb before they even started smoking. goodness fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
I'm having a hard time following this but is it that Nevvy is against this because on a fundamental level the drug laws in places like the U.S are completely hosed to begin with, thus finding a non-verifiable way to randomly search people and gently caress people over by exposing them to the way drug offenses are handled is completely garbage and unfair to people who have done nothing morally wrong? What gaygundam man is saying may be legally correct (I have no idea) but morally it is still absolute poo poo. Also I have never seen a person with a rap sheet as long as his so might I suggest putting him on ignore and moving on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
I found this part of the article particularly specious: quote:The arrests are going to require even more fudging than normal. Average jail time for a marijuana arrest (when awaiting trial) is “one to five days” – let’s round that off to two and then use our prison number to say that the jail from each arrest is 2/365 * 0.5 = three-thousandths of a QALY. I am going to arbitrarily round this up to one one-hundredth of a QALY to account for emotional trauma and the burden of fines, then even more arbitrarily round this up to a tenth of a QALY to account for possibility of getting a criminal record. This sets the burden of 700,000 arrests at 70 kiloQALYs. He assumes that being arrested for marijuana results in a QALY of 1/10. Conversely, a 4-8 point decrease in IQ is 3 QALY, by his guesswork. His assumption is that a criminal record is far less life-altering than small (but non-negligible) IQ drop. I think he severely underestimates the effect that a felony conviction can have on one's life circumstances. I'll note that he brings in no evidence to support his figures here, despite the fact that criminal records and subsequent employment prospects have been studied before. Generally speaking, this author seems to have done more research into the negative effects of marijuana use than the positive effects of legalization. That's understandable, because his language at the beginning suggests he is trying to remind the pro-legalization crowd that there ARE some negative effects to cannabis use. I think he's reasonably honest about the shortcomings in his research, but after reading through the full article I came to the conclusion that it wasn't too useful in determining what our policy should be. It is good for providing lots of links to scientific articles on marijuana, and I do think that the pro-legalization crowd needs to soberly acknowledge the adverse effects of marijuana abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
This was published today:quote:Cannabis rots your brain — or does it? Last year, a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) suggested that people who used cannabis heavily as teenagers saw their IQs fall by middle age. But a study published today — also in PNAS — says that factors unrelated to cannabis use are to blame for the effect. Nature explores the competing claim... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pot-smokers-might-not-turn-into-dopes-after-all Also this: quote:Alan S. Kaufman, clinical professor of psychology at the Yale University School of Medicine: KingEup fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
I'm a little confused because I'm pretty sure TenementFunster isn't arguing that cops using the 'I smell weed' line is 'morally correct' (whatever that means), just that it's backed up by a ton of precedent, which to a non-lawyer like me seems pretty objectively true. So what's the disagreement everyone seems to be having?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
cafel posted:I'm a little confused because I'm pretty sure TenementFunster isn't arguing that cops using the 'I smell weed' line is 'morally correct' (whatever that means), just that it's backed up by a ton of precedent, which to a non-lawyer like me seems pretty objectively true. So what's the disagreement everyone seems to be having? If you'll allow my humble interpretation of the arguments (apologies in advance if I misconstrue your position): Nevvy Z's is saying "The law is bullshit and should be changed" (Incidentally, I agree, "I smell weed" is a bullshit reason that lets any cop conduct a search at their own discretion, which violates the spirit of the 4th amendment.) TenementFunster is saying "This is the law. It's not going to be changed anytime soon." They're talking past each other because one is discussing changing the law and the other is discussing the law as it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
cafel posted:I'm a little confused because I'm pretty sure TenementFunster isn't arguing that cops using the 'I smell weed' line is 'morally correct' (whatever that means), just that it's backed up by a ton of precedent, which to a non-lawyer like me seems pretty objectively true. So what's the disagreement everyone seems to be having? Well by morally correct I meant that while arresting someone for smoking weed is legal it sure as poo poo ain't moral, should have been more descriptive with my made up words. What you are saying makes sense, now I am more confused. Edit: ^^^ Yes thanks that help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Elotana posted:http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/248e922c-7a0c-11e3-a3e6-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2qJOLGRs8 Kleiman has been wrong before: quote:There’s one problem with legalizing, taxing and regulating cannabis at the state level: It can’t be done. The federal Controlled Substances Act makes it a felony to grow or sell cannabis. California can repeal its own marijuana laws, leaving enforcement to the feds. But it can’t legalize a federal felony. Therefore, any grower or seller paying California taxes on marijuana sales or filing pot-related California regulatory paperwork would be confessing, in writing, to multiple federal crimes. And that won’t happen…
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Bushmaori posted:while arresting someone for smoking weed is legal it sure as poo poo ain't moral To you. Do you guys thank everyone in the world is alright with you smoking weed? I love weed, we all do here I think, but its embarrassing to see people complain about getting in trouble when they smelled like weed and had weed on them...
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:If you'll allow my humble interpretation of the arguments (apologies in advance if I misconstrue your position): Oh, alright. I mean, yeah the law should probably be changed, but it seems more likely to me marijuana is going to be widely legalized as opposed to some kind of major shakeup in how the courts deal with searches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
cafel posted:Oh, alright. I mean, yeah the law should probably be changed, but it seems more likely to me marijuana is going to be widely legalized as opposed to some kind of major shakeup in how the courts deal with searches. Even if it was legal, "I smell weed" turns any traffic stop into a search, since we're still planning on keeping DUIs illegal. Weed being fully legalized also isn't even on the radar yet, so maybe it'd be better if we worked on improving police behavior now rather than go "Eh, it'll all work itself out eventually."
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
goodness posted:Um, I don't think you are reading his posts at all. It does not matter if TF is on the Supreme Court. He responds to people like an rear end in a top hat and just berates people with "legal knowledge". Good job, someone knows how to read a book. goodness posted:1. 8 points in IQ does not affect anything at all. And this is ignoring the fact that the IQ system is pretty meh. I stated this earlier but IQ is useful enough as a predictive factor in various life metrics. The research he alludes to looks at how IQ starts out at a young age(before smoking), and how it changes as one gets older for nonsmokers, light smokers, heavy smokers, and former smokers. It is a small difference but it is multiplied by a large number of people which makes it significant when talking about the public good. The study found that most people's IQs go up during their teenage years(say 13-18), the study shows the opposite is true only for heavy marijuana smokers. Heavy users in this context means 5 or more joints a week.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Gah, lots of responses and I had to stop posting at work, I'll try to get to these but sorry if I miss you. Also somehow I split this into two posts and put the wrong one first, I'm bad at forums.gvibes posted:Are you saying that marijuana use causes those results? I don't think the research makes clear that the relationship is a causative one. The studies he cited are: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.full http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.full Both show the same results. I haven't read them(I will), but at least one of them differentiated between not just non-users, light users, and heavy users, but also former users. Only heavy users showed the negative effects, suggesting that either the effects revert or require a longer time period to take hold. Nevvy Z posted:I just think we don't have enough information to even show the group would be big. It specifically says heavy use, and I think it's hard to say just how many high schoolers are going to become heavy users who wouldn't have already. That's not even looking at confounding factors like the fact that any teenager whose allowed to engage in heavy use probably has fairly disinterested parents for one. thefncrow posted:I don't have time to read the full article at the moment, but as soon as I saw him trying to use decrim as a barometer, I began skimming to see if he mentions the positive effect of legalization in this area. For what it's worth my anecdata indicates that it was about equal in my high school and which one people did was more based on social group. eviltastic posted:First fact claim made by that article that I looked into has me doubting that it relies upon an honest interpretation of data. Furthermore it is in a survey section of his article where he looks at a great variety of published research related to marijuana use and tries to explain it charitably, regardless of the merits of the research itself. None of the rest of the article cites that study at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
forgot my pants posted:I think he's reasonably honest about the shortcomings in his research, but after reading through the full article I came to the conclusion that it wasn't too useful in determining what our policy should be. It is good for providing lots of links to scientific articles on marijuana, and I do think that the pro-legalization crowd needs to soberly acknowledge the adverse effects of marijuana abuse. I don't actually find the blog honest. From the blog: quote:More impressively, Model 1993 (a source of some exasperation for me earlier) finds that after decriminalization, marijuana-related emergency room visits went up (trying to interpret their tables, I think they went up by a whopping 90%, but I’m not sure of this). From the paper: quote:DAWN reports refer to ER drug episodes directly related to substance abuse (such as overdoses) as well as incidents in which evidence of drug use was obtained. For example, a victim in a motor vehicle accident exhibiting evidence of drug use would be interviewed and tested for possible inclusion as a DAWN drug abuse episode. The DAWN documentation states that for each drug abuse episode, “the drug’s causal involvement can range from being directly and totally responsible for the emergency room episode, acting in combination with other abused drugs to bring about the crisis, or have no causal relationship even though abused and present during a given episode.” The data are also periodically updated when a previously unrecorded episode is found to have involved drug abuse (National Institute on Drug Abuse 1976). What the blog counts as a "marijuana-related emergency room visit" just means someone who went to the ER and marijuana was detected in their system. I think that's stretching the definition of ER visit being marijuana related. From the blog: quote:No one will be surprised to hear that the first foreign country involved is the Netherlands, which was famously permissive of cannabis up until a crackdown a few years ago. Despite popular belief they never fully legalized the drug and they were still pretty harsh on production and manufacture; distribution, on the other hand, could occur semi-openly in coffee shops. This is another case where we have to be careful to distinguish legal regimes from actual effects, but during the period when there were actually a lot of pot-serving coffee shops, the Netherlands did experience an otherwise-inexplicable 35% rise in marijuana consumption relative to the rest of Europe. This is true even among teenagers, and covers both heavy use as well as occasional experimentation. Some scientists studying the Netherlands’ example expect Colorado to see a similar rise; others think it will be even larger because the legalization is complete rather than partial. From the paper: quote:Although the Dutch depenalized use in the 1970s, there was little impact until the retail coffeeshop outlets began proliferating in the 1980s. Past-month prevalence from 8.5 percent to 11.5 percent between 1984 and 1992, and the growth in this period (relative to other nations) was plausibly attributable to the commercialization of cannabis; see MacCoun and Reuter (1997, 2001a, 2001b). This implies a potential increase of around 35 percent in past-month use. However, the following two points come directly after the above point in the paper: quote:This increase was short-lived. By 2005, Dutch cannabis prevalence was below that of Spain, England, Italy, and France, and well below that of the US. quote:The leveling off of cannabis use in the Netherlands is plausibly attributable to various ways in which the Dutch tightened No mention in the blog of the follow two points. Edit: I should note - those are the only two citations in the blog that I actually finished checking. I started looking at Chu 2013, and while I think the work is good given the limitations of the data set Chu is working with, there are some fairly serious limitations in the analysis. From a control systems perspective, it makes no sense - it assumes that marijuana usage (or at least the indicators of marijuana usage being analyzed) have a fixed value that is perturbed by an external event (legalization of medical marijuana). Or to put it another way - it does regression on x, but not on delta x. I find that an extremely odd assumption. On the other hand, given the limitations of the data set, doing regression on delta x might introduce too many variables and result in over-fitting. moebius2778 fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:I stated this earlier but IQ is useful enough as a predictive factor in various life metrics. The research he alludes to looks at how IQ starts out at a young age(before smoking), and how it changes as one gets older for nonsmokers, light smokers, heavy smokers, and former smokers. It is a small difference but it is multiplied by a large number of people which makes it significant when talking about the public good. The study found that most people's IQs go up during their teenage years(say 13-18), the study shows the opposite is true only for heavy marijuana smokers. Heavy users in this context means 5 or more joints a week. Except IQ is not useful when you are talking about 8 points, that is nothing. Maybe if he said smoking weed while a teen drops you 50 points it might mean something. Also, there are studies showing that weed can actually help repair brain cells. At my school, the top 10% academically were a pretty cliquey group. We all did drugs (way more than weed) and we all still went to excellent colleges and such. Its not the weed making people stupid. It is stupid people smoking weed!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
goodness posted:Except IQ is not useful when you are talking about 8 points, that is nothing. Maybe if he said smoking weed while a teen drops you 50 points it might mean something. smoke weed less than five times a week.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
gvibes posted:In the first study he posted, light users showed the highest IQ gains. Heavy use is not 5 joints a week. Heavy use is 5 joints a day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
goodness posted:To you. Do you guys thank everyone in the world is alright with you smoking weed? I love weed, we all do here I think, but its embarrassing to see people complain about getting in trouble when they smelled like weed and had weed on them... I'm not using the form of moral that means public consensus, I mean like what is genuinely right and wrong as supported by facts but you are right I should have used the word logically not morally.My bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
goodness posted:To you. Do you guys thank everyone in the world is alright with you smoking weed? I love weed, we all do here I think, but its embarrassing to see people complain about getting in trouble when they smelled like weed and had weed on them... So you break the law and are savvy/lucky enough to avoid the consequences but look down on people who complain about receiving draconian punishments for the same transgressions you yourself commit?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Bushmaori posted:I'm not using the form of moral that means public consensus, I mean like what is genuinely right and wrong as supported by facts but you are right I should have used the word logically not morally.My bad. No, I knew exactly what you meant. But those are actually the same thing. Do you know who decides what is right and wrong? Yourself. Not the public or anyone else. Some people think it is genuinely right to not do drugs, some think it is. Just like any other issue. MixMasterMalaria posted:So you break the law and are savvy/lucky enough to avoid the consequences but look down on people who complain about receiving draconian punishments for the same transgressions you yourself commit? I was in jail for 7 months and I am on probation for 5 years (3 felony charges).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
goodness posted:No, I knew exactly what you meant. But those are actually the same thing. Interesting. I would argue that it is logically, and as you say morally wrong, to arrest someone for doing something that they enjoy and that does minuscule harm to both the individual and society at large. The ideas of other people regarding this matter, their opinions, are important to note but when there is logically no upside and a huge downside to the application of these laws, not to mention the hypocritical implications of the status of this drug compared to tobacco and alcohol (both of which do considerable harm) then it is a fairly simple thing to determine who is right and who is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
goodness posted:I was in jail for 7 months and I am on probation for 5 years (3 felony charges). While that's certainly more cred than anticipated, I still disagree that it's unreasonable to complain about harsh sentences for possession.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
Bushmaori posted:Interesting. I would argue that it is logically, and as you say morally wrong, to arrest someone for doing something that they enjoy and that does minuscule harm to both the individual and society at large. The ideas of other people regarding this matter, their opinions, are important to note but when there is logically no upside and a huge downside to the application of these laws, not to mention the hypocritical implications of the status of this drug compared to tobacco and alcohol (both of which do considerable harm) then it is a fairly simple thing to determine who is right and who is wrong. But it is not logically wrong for the cities arresting people. They get hundreds and hundreds of millions from state and federal government to run their prisons. So it is very logical to do what they do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 04:26
|
|