damn_registrars's Journal: Welcome back, SlashPot (thank you failure machine samzenpus)

I guess "failure machine" samzenpus really will post anything.

Now, before the Pro Pot Propaganda Pushers here start calling me a fascist, let me point out where my criticism is. This is about how samzenpus failed to even approach a useful summary of the article that the summary linked to - which I will point out is freely available to everyone. In particular, because failure machine couldn't be bothered to read the article, he missed:

Nevertheless, as previously stressed, our findings should not be interpreted that moderate alcohol consumption poses a higher risk to an individual and their close contacts than regular heroin use14. Much of the harm from drug use is not inherently related to consumption, but is heavily influenced by the environmental conditions of the drug use2, and this additional hazard is not included in a drug ranking based on (animal) toxicology.

The first major problem of the approach is the lack of toxicological dose-response data for all compounds except alcohol and tobacco. No human dose-response data are available; also no dose-response data in animals, only LD50 values are published. Furthermore, no chronic-toxicity data (long-term experiments) are available, which are usually used for such kinds of risk assessment. Therefore, we can assess only in regards to mortality but not carcinogenicity or other long-term effects. The absence of such data is specifically relevant for compounds with low acute toxicity (such as cannabis), the risk of which may therefore be underestimated.

In other words, the study was looking to see how much of a substance was required to kill you immediately. They mentioned very few substances have known limits for that. They also went on to mention that cannabis in particular is not studied much from a toxicology standpoint when compared to other drugs:

The second major problem is the uncertainty in data about individual and population-wide exposure due to the illegal markets. There is a scarcity of epidemiological studies of cannabis use by comparison with epidemiological studies of alcohol and tobacco use

Indeed, I agree with their closing remark:

Currently, the MOE results point to risk management prioritization towards alcohol and tobacco rather than illicit drugs. The high MOE values of cannabis, which are in a low-risk range, suggest a strict legal regulatory approach rather than the current prohibition approach.

Not that the propagandists here on slashdot would bother to read that far.

First Fascist!

[fustakrakich]

All prohibitionists are not only fascists, but are also bigots. You're just a sloppy middle-of-the-roader. You sound silly when you criticize 'conservatives'.

There! I fed the troll! nom nom...

Re:

[damn_registrars]

So you're the first person to reply without reading the full length of the JE. Well done.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

You vote for prohibitionist candidates. And you're willing to let people remain in jail until you get your precious bureaucracy in place to control it. And then you will still bitch it's not enough. No, the only solution is to abolish prohibition and free the prisoners under its black boot of fascism. You're just as conservative as your Obama.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

You vote for Mickey Mouse for president and a Ficus Tree for your senator. You then criticize the rest of us for voting for actual living breathing human beings instead. Then you spout nonsense beyond that to waste my time.

Carry on, sir.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

You are a victim of disinformation. That you continue to believe it does not speak well.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Oh, and you vote for living breathing crooks! That also does not speak well.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Maybe you haven't noticed this, but when you vote for something that is not a living breathing person, you still end up with one. You can claim superiority but you can't back it up.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Except I do vote for living breathing people, without a care in the world because I already accept that you morons will prevail with the criminals you reelect. Are you so dumb to not understand the metaphorical Mickey Mouse? It is your characterization of any and all opposition to your idealism that you express over the vote. Accept it, man, you are simply a conformist. You follow mass media like Smith. I cannot nor really have any real desire to argue against your demagogues. You are hopelessly fixated, an

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Except I do vote for living breathing people

You say that, but have never given any reason for me to believe it. I have asked you many times to name a candidate who you support, and not once have you ever named one for any race. You have repeatedly claimed to know better than I a candidate who would support what would be best for me, yet that person has never been given a name.

Frankly, I highly doubt you vote at all. I expect most likely you just jerk off to CSPAN on election day and then tell everyone else the day after how wrong they were for

Re:

[fustakrakich]

You believe in the tooth fairy. Why should I care what you believe?

Re:

[damn_registrars]

I don't force you to write comments in reply to what I write here. You should ask yourself why you are writing comments to me, when you can't be bothered to ever back up anything that you claim to believe in. You are likely the best candidate we have currently on slashdot for a "refined troll".

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Because I feel like it. I need no reason, or purpose. And I don't need to back up anything to you. Everything I say is filtered through your own hypocrisy, not as it is. You are free to ignore. I do not care.

"refined troll"

Well, the kind of troll you are is not so 'refined'.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Because I feel like it. I need no reason, or purpose.

True, you need no purpose. I don't care that you have none, but the lack of a purpose does make you look rather ridiculous.

And I don't need to back up anything to you.

True, but by never backing anything up you end up supporting the hypothesis that nothing you write comes with any sincerity at all

You are free to ignore. I do not care.

Considering how often you write replies to what I write - particularly since you reply to what I write without reading what I write - you can't make much of an argument for not caring.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

You might be a prohibitionist if:

You automatically dismiss out of hand any study at all that confirms the relative harmlessness of pot as *pro-pot propaganda*

Yep, you're definitely a prohibitionist. It is fun to watch you try to hide it. Like Smith, you just cannot accept what you are.

Nixon commissioned a study. It didn't come up with the desired results, in direct contradiction to his prejudices, and he did like you're doing now. He trashed the report. You and Nixon are very similar, about as 'liberal' as

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Too bad you didn't actually read what I wrote, or you could have spared yourself the embarrassment of writing that comment. I could point out to you how wrong you are, but if you didn't read it the first time why would I expect you to read it later?

Go on, say something else stupid and fact-free; I'll let you have the last word.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Too bad you didn't actually read what I wrote..

That lead balloon doesn't fly. Just admit you are as conservative as Obama, if not more so, and that you are a fraud. You are a prohibitionist.

Re:

[mcgrew]

Coincidentally, I saw this JE this morning right after seeing a report on CBS's morning news program that said that marijuana is by far the least dangerous of all recreational drugs. They found the most dangerous was alcohol, followed by heroin, followed by cocaine. I did a quick search, it doesn't look like they've posted it to their web site.

I've found an incredible amount of misinformation about marijuana. This article [cbsnews.com] says "Those who might remember pot from the 70s - the marijuana grown and sold in Colo

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Now, even if pot wasn't the safest of all recreational drugs, even if it were the deadliest, how does your neighbor getting stoned affect you or society at large?

I believe I've said this before, but I'll rephrase it. If my neighbor wants to get stoned at home and stay home, I don't care. Hell he can do heroin, coke, whatever he wants at home as long as he stays home. I don't care if he uses a combination of different recreational drugs as long as he stays home.

I have a problem when people who are under the influence go out and interfere with non-intoxicated society. If someone has too much to drink and goes out wandering around they can expect to be charged w

Re:

[fustakrakich]

The Pro Pot Propaganda Pushers...

I believe Harry Anslinger is your real name.

Re:

[mcgrew]

I have a problem when people who are under the influence go out and interfere with non-intoxicated society.

That is not and never has been one of pot's effects. You're describing alcohol, not pot. Why not outlaw beer? Sorry, dude, but your stand is illogical, irrational, and ignorant.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

I've dealt with stoned people before who I am perfectly fine associating with when they are sober, but I find obnoxious when they're stoned. I don't give a damn how stoned they want to be when they are alone, but they don't have any more of a right to interfere with society than any person under any other substance. Just because they aren't violent - and not every drunk is violent, either - doesn't mean they need to be welcomed into society.

And you know I don't support outlawing pot. I have said that

Re:

[fustakrakich]

And you know I don't support outlawing pot.

pro-pot propaganda! Yes you do! Otherwise you would not be defending the status quo. You ARE a prohibitionist! Mr. Mcgrew cannot be more correct. Your attitude is illogical, irrational, and ignorant, and I will add, most arrogant. Once again you are proving pudge right. Typical sneaky rat. A conservative, or what used to be called bourbon democrat, the very worst kind that robs all value of the party's stated purpose. You only help the opposition. Which may be why

Re:

[damn_registrars]

If you can't spare the effort of reading a comment before replying to it, there is no reason to attempt a discussion with you. Come back when you read what I say before you just spew out what you want to say about me.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

You can squirm all you want. What you say beyond *pro-pot propaganda* is totally, completely, and utterly irrelevant. You advocate prohibition, and here you are lying about it. It cannot be more simple. You are not discussing anything. As a prohibitionist you have nothing to say that could possibly have any significance, except to illustrate your attempt at deception. You are only putting forth your personal propaganda. Do you work for the democratic party? If not, you should. Deception seems to come natura

Re:

[damn_registrars]

I'm not squirming. I have held a consistent position and you have consistently not bothered to read it. I'm sorry you keep coming here and making yourself look like such an idiot.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

I have held a consistent position...

Yes, as a prohibitionist! That is what you are. Your consistency is not being challenged, it is well documented, never said otherwise, but all your denials are up for grabs, phoney as a three dollar bill. You're doing a Bill O'reilly.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Your consistency is not being challenged

You are consistently not reading what I write, that is clear.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

No need, after *pro-pot propaganda* it's all bullshit. You have made your position perfectly clear, yet you live in denial, or are trolling. Doesn't matter either way, it just needs to be understood that you aren't serious, except that you find the collateral damage perfectly acceptable, just a regular weasel. I do credit you for clarifying many things though, so for that, thanks.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

I'll leave it up to any other readers to tally up the unsupported claims in that comment you just made. There are at least three that I can plainly see in just that one comment of yours that are completely counter to reality.

Since you seem to love the sound of your own words, go ahead and say something else stupid that is counter to reality. I'll let you have the last word again as I'm tired of your nonsense. Should you ever decide to let up on your trolling and try an actual discussion, you know whe

Re:

[fustakrakich]

One has already supplied his answer.

I'll let you have the last word again as I'm tired of your nonsense.

I neither require your attention or response. I'm just pointing you out to the rest.

*pro-pot propaganda* is direct quote, nothing unsupported there. It's right there for everybody to see. You needn't post anymore to confirm what you are.

You are a prohibitionist. As such you are illogical, irrational, arrogant, and totally unreasonable. That makes the concept of 'discussion' a complete farce. As a prohibit

Re:

[gmhowell]

You are a prohibitionist. As such you are illogical, irrational, arrogant, and totally unreasonable.

Most people do not have a problem with the jackboot of authority, so long as it is on their feet rather than their neck.

Re:

[gmhowell]

Once again you are proving pudge right

This is the worst crime of all.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Don't get yourself too excited about what my trolls like to try to rattle my cage with. As usual, when he uses a word derived from "prove" it doesn't mean anything.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

*pro-pot propaganda* is proof enough of what you are...

Re:

[gmhowell]

'Proof' (and derivatives thereof) means almost nothing when related to Pudge, no matter how tangentially. Much like 'lie' means... I don't even know what, when related to Pudge.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Much like 'lie' means... I don't even know what, when related to Pudge.

It appears that "lie", when he says it, merely means "something I don't agree with". It jives well with his philosophy of himself being The One Source of True Knowledge.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

You would know. You are exactly the same. You deny what you are.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

:-) I still give pudge points on style. But I have to admit I admire a guy who sticks to his story no matter what, like this one here. He is Bill O'Reilly. I mean, what the hell, it works! Our entire system rewards this shit. That's why they (O'Reilly, Limbaugh, whoever) make the big bucks. It is a winning formula

Anyway, I figure any time I bump into this prohibitionist bullshit, I'll have something to say about it, regardless the effect. It is just one of those evils no one should ever tolerate, no matter

Re:

[fustakrakich]

He doesn't care. His mind is made up. Shut like a trap. He will not accept that prohibition is absolutely indefensible and that any and all deference makes one a prohibitionist. Without the huge bureaucracy he desires, incarceration will remain the rule. He doesn't care that incarceration is many times more harmful than the drug. He is a 'conservative' democrat, more politically aligned with the republican stereotype. The reason the other democrats stay home. I heard over 65% of the voters stayed home. If t