Comments on: Top US drug cop can't tell the difference between marijuana and heroin

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:02:00 +0000

And it continues because people like you keep defending the behavior. Change can’t happen while the world is populated by apologists for evil.

By: Darrell Frazier

Darrell Frazier — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:34:00 +0000

By virtue of the position she holds, she is obligated to give the answer she gave. Any other answer other than that would’ve resulted in a debate over what is worse than what, and what is better than what. Her job is to enforce the law, not engage in a debate over what is worse or not, or what is more addictive or not. Everyone who has half a brain knows that weed is far better for you than booze. Why do politicians have such a hard time stating the obvious? Simple, fear. Plus, if she actually had answered the question, she’d probably be out of a job.

By: Thad Boyd

Thad Boyd — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:59:00 +0000

One of Douglas Adams’s essays in The Salmon of Doubt tells a story of getting pulled over and stuck in the middle of a dangerous curve on a busy street with his pregnant wife in the car, and trying to explain to the officer that this was far more dangerous than the illegal pass he had been pulled over for in the first place. The officer repeatedly explained that what Adams had done was dangerous because it was illegal, whereas sitting in the middle of a blind curve was safe because it was legal.

By: Seriously

Seriously — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:46:00 +0000

Yes because turning this into yet ANOTHER divisive political internet flame war is what is most important here.

By: Ryan Lenethen

Ryan Lenethen — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:09:00 +0000

Meh. Its just politics and ideological idiocy. You would get the same disassemble if you asked PM Harper about tar sands and climate change, or a host of other things. They are not about to say anything contrary to their political belief no matter how obvious it is to everyone else. They just repeat the same sad old rhetoric that is accepted, this is hardly new for politics. It is even less surprising coming from someone who’s job is pretty dependent on all the money coming in to fight drugs etc… So while it is stupid, that’s politics. Happens all the time in news interviews, which I would like to see hosts being more harsher than the acceptance. If you don’t want to answer, then leave, as you aren’t being helpful to anyone. Propaganda, just repeat, repeat, repeat…

By: Cooper DiBiase

Cooper DiBiase — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:44:00 +0000

Now that you bring it up I feel like a real heel — I had the paperwork tucked under some old bank statements all this time! Thanks!

By: pKp

pKp — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:54:00 +0000

You already got Reagan.

By: James Moran

James Moran — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 07:28:00 +0000

Oh thats exactly what I was thinking of when I watched this!

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 06:52:00 +0000

Seems weird. It’s easy enough to choke on any hard candy.

By: nachoproblem

nachoproblem — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 05:07:00 +0000

Yeah, that’s the one. I can’t remember what they were properly called but a Filipino guy in my office used to bring in huge barrels of ‘em. This was c. 2001.

Oh, here we go: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/FDA-bans-import-of-jelly-candies-Binding-agent-2871002.php

By: stevesaw

stevesaw — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 04:57:00 +0000

“two plus two equals five”
I know this because I’m with the Ministry of Information.

–Orwell / “1984″

By: Duncan20903

Duncan20903 — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 04:48:00 +0000

Sputnik77, it is obvious that the truth is not a welcome visitor in your home. I’m willing to wager dollars to dirt that were the truth to knock on your front door that you would call the police and demand that it be arrested for trespassing. Stop talking about honesty and integrity unless you or someone close to you has actually accepted the truth when you are wrong, wrong, wrong. You are too dishonest to address something so foreign to your reality.

Why is it that you so hate the truth?

By: Duncan20903

Duncan20903 — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 04:42:00 +0000

Sputnik77, like I said above, the notion that cannabis causes psychosis is so easily disproved that it’s laughable that people continue to insist that it does. Quite simply, the rate of psychoses in the US did not show any statistically significant change during the 1960s while the rate of people choosing to enjoy cannabis skyrocketed in excess of 1000% (one thousand per cent).

C’mon, be for real. If the Rastafari have a rate of psychoses in line with the rest of the population someone has to be a moron to continue to insist that cannabis causes psychosis.

Insisting on a thing does not make it so. However, insisting on something so easily disproved does make one a laughing stock.

By: teapot

teapot — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:45:00 +0000

Hey Rep Polis: You can has pic of you with BB screenshot because of your awesome.

The key is to Screenshot or shoot your monitor separately to the picture of you and then shoop them into one sexy image of goodness. I adjusted your brightness because the screen made you all dark.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:25:00 +0000

The fake lychee?

By: teapot

teapot — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:21:00 +0000

#1 Knowing someone with schizophrenia or psychosis does not make you an instant expert. Science has debunked what you are claiming. Are you suggesting we ignore what real research is telling us in favour of your anecdotal perspective because somehow you feel you have better insight? Scientists spend decades studying the very thing you’re being self righteous about.. and your only claim to authority on the subject is anecdotal.

#2 Yes.. the incorrect claims your are perpetuating are reminiscent of Reefer Madness.

#3 No shit. That’s what we’re aiming for. BS claims about links to psychosis are not constructive to the debate.

#4 At least we agree about something… Though I’d say the original reasons for the change in legal status were primarily racial in nature.

By: Thinking Clearly

Thinking Clearly — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:17:00 +0000

From Wikipedia: “Cannabis with relatively high ratios of CBD:THC is less likely to induce anxiety than vice versa.

Cannabis use appears to be neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause for psychosis.

Part of a complex constellation of factors leading to psychosis.”

Marijuana is not a cause for psychosis. Lets move on. You are starting to sound like a troll.

By: teapot

teapot — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:01:00 +0000

For the 5 billionth time: Marijuana use DOES NOT CAUSE psychosis.

The latest meta-studies have concluded that it can speed up onset of psychosis in people who would’ve had a psychotic episode in their lifetime anyway. Again for clarity: It does not CAUSE psychosis – it only speeds up its onset in people who are going to get it anyway. This is why regulation is vital, as the only people who should not be smoking it are those with developing brains (teens). At present it is MUCH easier for a minor to score weed than it is to secure alcohol.

So, US Govt, by all means; continue business as usual. It’s not like your policies have been based on scientific rigor for a while, anyway.

http://www.reposter.net/2011/02/yet-another-scaremongering-anti-marijuana-article-about-a-study-with-no-new-results/

edit: Just saw this: I know from personal experience that weed can cause…

Sorry but your anecdote is worth nothing. I see your negative personal-experience anecdote and raise you my slew of positive personal-experience anecdotes.
^Do you see now why we revert to scientific studies to determine objective truths?

By: teapot

teapot — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 02:49:00 +0000

It doesn’t specifically make your “limbs fall off”.. just that its simple synthesis from codeine, iodine and red phosphorus, combined with it being 8-10 stronger than a equivalent dose of morphine makes it an appealing low-cost street drug. Problem is that the simple synthesis leaves behind a *very* contaminated product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desomorphine

By: soylent_plaid

soylent_plaid — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 02:48:00 +0000

Ah, this would be the Fuck You, Too Room. Excellent.

By: nachoproblem

nachoproblem — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:33:00 +0000

Because the attempts to outlaw it made it painfully obvious that it’s impossible to extricate from a culture where it’s been allowed since prehistory. On the other hand, you can’t drink it on public ground, they keep raising the drinking age, and there are a ton of restrictions on where you can even advertise alcohol — to say nothing of tobacco. And it’s illegal to smoke inside commercial or public buildings in my state.

Hell, they even outlawed those little Asian jello candies with a piece of fruit in the middle. Because babies choke on them. I used to love those. Jello candies, I mean. I’ve always hated babies. [obvsjoke]

But of course, being “foreign” makes any substance 100x more dangerous, as it originally did with marijuana. I’d be less surprised if they go back to prohibition of alcohol than if MJ ever gets legalized.

By: nachoproblem

nachoproblem — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:14:00 +0000

Except Bruce Lee, perhaps. But since that hypothesis is also founded on him having something disturbingly near 0% body fat, I doubt it poses much of a threat in the US.

By: Culturedropout

Culturedropout — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:10:00 +0000

This actually brings to mind something I’ve always wondered about whenever I see cops getting all emotionally invested in busting someone for committing a “crime”: Do cops _really_ have the ability to suspend their own feelings and enforce laws totally objectively? I’m not really talking about selective enforcement because I know that happens all the time. It’s more on the order of: Today, ‘x’ is illegal, and Officer Do-Right self-righteously busts those who do it. Tomorrow, ‘x’ is declared to be _legal_, and ‘y’ which has previously been legal is now ruled to be _illegal_. Does Officer D actually change his world-view with the laws, equally enthusiastically arresting those who commit ‘y’ while smiling and walking past people doing ‘x’? Do cops really get that worked up about enforcing the _law_, whatever it may be, or is it generally just that cops tend to agree with the people who _make_ the laws, and thus are simply enforcing their own personal world-view?

By: Jason Conort

Jason Conort — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:54:00 +0000

Not to be a smart ass but you do realize there has been a moment to get the law changed for a few decades?

By: Jason Conort

Jason Conort — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:53:00 +0000

Bush ….Obama….does it really matter? Both parties seldom care about real issues, and keep fighting like kids in a parking lot. There is way to much money involved in the war on drugs to let it go. But we should not be kidding ourselves by saying that its for the good of the people.

By: Sputnik77

Sputnik77 — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:46:00 +0000

Okay. There are a few things I would like to say to everyone in this discussion.

#1 Stop talking about schizophrenia and psychosis unless you or someone close to you has experienced symptoms. You are too ignorant to say anything about a subject which has nothing to do with you.

#2 “Reefer Madness?” What is this, the fifties?

#3 Any sane legalization policy for weed will involve honesty and integrity about the effects it has if we, as a culture, are going to create a safe environment for our young people, at the very least, psychologically.

#4 I think it was insane that it was made illegal in the first place and it’s just another way corporations and the federal government, in concert, are trying to eff with our lives.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:10:00 +0000

Yeah, three of your comments consisted primarily of the exact same paragraph.

By: chgoliz

chgoliz — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:07:00 +0000

If you don’t know the answer to that, then you don’t deserve to drink whiskey.

By: lafave

lafave — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:09:00 +0000

While Executive Branch agency heads require Senate confirmation prior to appointment, the agency heads can be fired at will by the President.
—
To the mod: I realize a similar reply was deleted, but this is a direct response to a question posted, and in my opinion imparts information not in my other replies.

By: Juan Navarro

Juan Navarro — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:20:00 +0000

Meh, I can see the Leonhart sticking to such ignorance, because as a Law Enforcement official, that’s how they have to look at the situation. This is bad or this is good, doesn’t matter, is it LEGAL is the only thing they need to see, and from there make the decision. Now is it dumb and ignorant? Yes, and even a bit spineless, but I can understand why.