***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[dwalk31]

I posted a study, and as I imagined, it is a "myth" because you disagree with the results of the study

 

[AEA18]

Block that fool and keep it moving...

My guess is that he has been following this thread for a while and knows exactly what to post to get a reaction from people.

 

[rillo561]

It's a myth because there's no proof that cannabis leads to other harder drugs, that's totally up to the individual. Can it be abused? Sure, but you can also abuse food.

 

[Armada]

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/09/04/gateway-drugs-linked-to-prescription-drug-abuse/

Here is a study from Yale.

Just read it and again the point still stands like many have stated before it is not the substance that causes the later abuse of hard drugs by itself, there are more variables at play (economic status, household, mental state etc). The vices people choose to scratch that itch are not caused by other substances all that study shows is that people who have used hard substances have tried many substances to scratch that itch previously but not that everyone that uses weaker substances graduates to use of harder ones.

In the same link you posted this was stated

 “Some people believe the ‘gateway effect’ exists because early drug use primes the human brain for more drug-seeking, others argue that the friends you make using drugs as a youth are a ready source for other drugs later, and still others argue that there are factors, like impulsivity, that causes both early and later drug use,” Humphreys said. “Which camp is correct? Probably, all of them.”

Meaning that you can't say people going on to harder drugs is soley because of them using drugs like marijuana as a gateway there are way to many variables at play to put it on one thing like marijuana like you have been doing in your argument against legalization.

 

[gry60]

Your point is valid and well taken. But that argument can be used for anything that is illegal. As a result, your counter-argument that "alcohol is bad too" is not that strong. I identified the issues in regards to criminal liability for alcohol that aren't the same with regards to marijuana.

My counter argument isnt that alcohol is bad too im only pointing out that your logic is against legalization is weak. My argument is that saying because some abuse it means it shouldnt be legalized is a weak argument.

 

The core of his argument boils down to "my beliefs," which is why he straight up disregarded the little bit of evidence posted here that showed how the negatives of Mj were overstated.


Ain't nobody got time for arguing against beliefs disguising as"informed opinions"

The core of my argument boils down to my experience. A few articles showing that the issues I identified are overstated doesn't negate the issues. And, if I wanted, I could post articles that spun in my favor as well. Its not that hard. And the likely response is discrediting the source or flat out concluding it is bs.

Studies >>> your experience's man I don't know what else to tell you. Not to say your experiences dont matter but it doesnt outweigh studies done by professionals.

You cant just ignore that studies that include dozens of studies that show the issue that is the core of your argument is overstated because it doesn't fit what your experience. You just one person these studies involve 100's to 1000's when done properly to gather this data to draw these conclusions.

Hard to do when you are only focused on your navel. That's also why conservatives tend to champion GOP policies until one of them get stuck and realize they do more harm than good.

 

[Armada]

I posted a study, and as I imagined, it is a "myth" because you disagree with the results of the study

man you did the same damn thing earlier yourself. You disagreed with the results of something someone showed you.

The core of my argument boils down to my experience. A few articles showing that the issues I identified are overstated doesn't negate the issues. And, if I wanted, I could post articles that spun in my favor as well. Its not that hard. And the likely response is discrediting the source or flat out concluding it is bs.

And you went on to minimize it here

 

[harlemtothebronx]

Correlation =/= Causation.

 

[dreamer23]

Yes, please block me. That's the best way to have political discussions.

you're not talking politics. you tried to have a discussion yesterday but were too obtuse keep it going...go back to sleep...

 

[PatRiley]

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/09/04/gateway-drugs-linked-to-prescription-drug-abuse/

Here is a study from Yale.

First of all, this is not a study, they're just analyzing previous available data.

Second, the sample group was teenagers between 12-17, not adults that would theoretically be of legal age to buy medical/recreational cannnabis.

So they found that that age group was more susceptible to opiod abuse in the future if they drank or smoked....ok. Is that what we are talking about? Because I'm pretty sure you're arguing against it being legal for adults and not children?

 

[Armada]

Correlation =/= Causation.

This

 

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/09/04/gateway-drugs-linked-to-prescription-drug-abuse/

Here is a study from Yale.

First of all, this is not a study, they're just analyzing previous available data.

Second, the sample group was teenagers between 12-17, not adults that would theoretically be of legal age to buy medical/recreational cannnabis.

So they found that that age group was more susceptible to opiod abuse in the future if they drank or smoked....ok. Is that what we are talking about? Because I'm pretty sure you're arguing against it being legal for adults and not children?

Also this. that analysis didn't prove what he thinks it did.

 

[rexanglorum]

When it comes to the legality of drugs, I am full on libertarian. All drugs should be legal for adults. So for me, I don't care much about the gate way debate either way. The acceptance or rejection of the gateway hypothesis rests on the assumptions that certain recreation drugs are categorically bad and others are categorically good or at least benign.

In contemporary North American, middle class life, cannabis is often times a step towards the "hard drugs" for two reasons. One is that buying cannabis still takes place in either black market or in close proximity to a black market. Second, cannabis is usually the first recreation substance consumed that is not alcohol. Our so called drug "education" still has an abstinence only approach. When young people use cannabis and find that they are not suddenly transformed into a stereotypical junkie, the warnings about the addictive nature of other drugs lose all credibility.

Both of these factors are social and legal factors that we have chosen to create. If you traded cannabis' legal status with alcohol, then alcohol would become, for middle class North Americans, the new drug that would lead to "hard" drug use. If Alcohol were prohibited then people would use speakeasies to "network" their way to a coke or pill dealer. If our D.A.R.E classes told use that one beer would kill you, then drinking a beer would help you clear the psychological hurdle and after drinking some beers you'd be more comfortable using cocaine, heroin or other substances that D.A.R>E claimed would kill you upon contact.

So there is nothing biological or pharmacological that makes cannabis into a gateway drug but because of our laws and culture, cannabis is a commercial and psychological stepping stone into other narcotics.

 

[AEA18]

Yes, please block me. That's the best way to have political discussions.

you're not talking politics. you tried to have a discussion yesterday but were too obtuse keep it going...go back to sleep...

Recognized the trolling when he continued posting that Bill Clinton was impeached after people provided info that he was not impeached.

 

[Mark Antony]

The core of my argument boils down to my experience. A few articles showing that the issues I identified are overstated doesn't negate the issues. And, if I wanted, I could post articles that spun in my favor as well. Its not that hard. And the likely response is discrediting the source or flat out concluding it is bs.

there you go, all based on your experience. Which clearly lacks diversity, openmindness, and empathy. Peace.

Match the views to the avy that should have been a hint.

I think you guys enjoy not going anywhere though.

 

[PatRiley]

This



Also this. that analysis didn't prove what he thinks it did.

They called it a study at the end of the article...but they didn't perform any experiments or gather any data themselves. They used data from 2006-2008, which doesn't make for a large data set.

Let's say they did go out and gather more data...more years and more locations...even if you get the same correlation it is irrelevant to those who would have access to the cannabis (18+)

 

[dwalk31]

Just read it and again the point still stands like many have stated before it is not the substance that causes the later abuse of hard drugs by itself, there are more variables at play (economic status, household, mental state etc). The vices people choose to scratch that itch are not caused by other substances all that study shows is that people who have used hard substances have tried many substances to scratch that itch previously but not that everyone that uses weaker substances graduates to use of harder ones.

In the same link you posted this was stated


Meaning that you can't say people going on to harder drugs is soley because of them using drugs like marijuana as a gateway there are way to many variables at play to put it on one thing like marijuana like you have been doing in your argument against legalization.

I never used the word solely. I identified issues with the widespread legalization. I'm not making the point that marijuana is the sole cause of anything. I identified issues and posted empirical evidence. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether the issues I identified are enough to restrict the use. I personally also think cigarettes need to be restricted.

 

[dwalk31]

Recognized the trolling when he continued posting that Bill Clinton was impeached after people provided info that he was not impeached.

If after yesterday you still think Bill Clinton was not impeached something is wrong with you. The IQ of niketalkers has seemingly dwindled since I first joined

 

[sonoftony]

I love when people post studies without reading and comprehending them

 

[EddieDoyers]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-republican-party/?utm_term=.2c61aeb5b2d0

‘Morning Joe’ co-host Joe Scarborough is leaving the Republican Party


Inb4 the alt righters in here didn't know Joe was a Republican

 

[PatRiley]

I love when people post studies with reading and comprehending them

He just saw the title and went with it

 

[AEA18]

I love when people post studies with reading and comprehending them

He just saw the title and went with it

Hmm sounds like someone we all know

 

[gry60]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-republican-party/?utm_term=.2c61aeb5b2d0

‘Morning Joe’ co-host Joe Scarborough is leaving the Republican Party


Inb4 the alt righters in here didn't know Joe was a Republican

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...al-conservatives-lost-republican-trump-215259

‘Trump Is What Happens When a Political Party Abandons Ideas’
As surprising as Trump’s young presidency has been, it’s also the natural outgrowth of 30 years of Republican pandering to the lowest common denominator in American politics.

 

[dwalk31]

When it comes to the legality of drugs, I am full on libertarian. All drugs should be legal for adults. So for me, I don't care much about the gate way debate either way. The acceptance or rejection of the gateway hypothesis rests on the assumptions that certain recreation drugs are categorically bad and others are categorically good or at least benign.

In contemporary North American, middle class life, cannabis is often times a step towards the "hard drugs" for two reasons. One is that buying cannabis still takes place in either black market or in close proximity to a black market. Second, cannabis is usually the first recreation substance consumed that is not alcohol. Our so called drug "education" still has an abstinence only approach. When young people use cannabis and find that they are not suddenly transformed into a stereotypical junkie, the warnings about the addictive nature of other drugs lose all credibility.

Both of these factors are social and legal factors that we have chosen to create. If you traded cannabis' legal status with alcohol, then alcohol would become, for middle class North Americans, the new drug that would lead to "hard" drug use. If Alcohol were prohibited then people would use speakeasies to "network" their way to a coke or pill dealer. If our D.A.R.E classes told use that one beer would kill you, then drinking a beer would help you clear the psychological hurdle and after drinking some beers you'd be more comfortable using cocaine, heroin or other substances that D.A.R>E claimed would kill you upon contact.

So there is nothing biological or pharmacological that makes cannabis into a gateway drug but because of our laws and culture, cannabis is a commercial and psychological stepping stone into other narcotics.

I can respect this argument

 

[EddieDoyers]

Anyway the House did vote to impeach Bill Clinton

But the Senate chose to acquit Clinton, which did not remove him from office and halted the impeachment proceedings/trial.

You can read this in your history book, Google, wikipedia, w/e

If you gonna argue about the facts and be stubborn about it just to antagonize members because of their political affiliation, in the words of the Wind, you can kick rocks b.

 

[AEA18]

Anyway the House did vote to impeach Bill Clinton

But the Senate chose to acquit Clinton, which did not remove him from office and halted the impeachment proceedings/trial.

You can read this in your history book, Google, wikipedia, w/e

If you gonna argue about the facts and be stubborn about it just to antagonize members because of their political affiliation, in the words of the Wind, you can kick rocks b.

No need in posting this.

He will ignore it and continue his trolling. At least 3 different NT'rs explained this yesterday.

Just another gust of wind blowing through the thread.

 

[iamdef]

It's like arguing that somebody was arrested and charged to the full extent of the law when although arrested the charges were dropped.

Forcing a W on a technicality of "in a way he was impeached" is weaksauce