Don't like Trump, Clinton? There's a Prohibition Party candi

Page 1 of 2 [ 24 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 591

19 Aug 2016, 2:39 pm

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/16/prohibition-party-candidate-jim-hedges/88822510/?AID=10709313&PID=4003003&SID=irxp4octe101208j00dth

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,143
Location: temperate zone

19 Aug 2016, 3:03 pm

I'll raise a glass to him!

Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

19 Aug 2016, 3:09 pm

The way US politic is today, it won't be long before accusations of financial links with Al Capone. :lol:

_________________
Down with speculators!! !

Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

19 Aug 2016, 3:44 pm

Trump doesn't drink, you know, so I think it's clear that his whole campaign is really part of a secret plan to seize the government and then turn control of it over to the Prohibition Party. :mrgreen:

_________________

There Are Four Lights!

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

19 Aug 2016, 5:06 pm

1. LSD* and Psilocybin are both harmless. In fact, it could literally be unhealthy not to take LSD or Psilocybin if you have a history of depression.

2. The most harmful aspect of marijuana is that it is illegal. Just look at the staggering death toll from the Mexican Drug War.

The second most harmful aspect of marijuana is that people tend to smoke it.

... fixed.

3. Administering free heroin (as we do in Denmark) to addicts under medical supervision...

(1) reduces risks of overdoses (illegal heroin doesn't exactly follow ISO 9000 quality standards)
(2) reduces risk of spreading illnesses (In Denmark we have almost completely eliminated hepatitis C among those enrolled in the programme)
(3) reduces crime (heroin addicts can rarely finance their addiction through legal means)

... as a result, I'm not really that impressed with Prohibition candidates...

*[EDIT - Addendum]: Wrt. LSD, It is actually quite possible that the ever-incompetent DEA have been complicit in getting quite a lot of people killed when they arrested William Leonard Pickard. The subsequent massive drop in the world's LSD supply may have encouraged people to substitute towards MDMA (ecstacy), which is a more dangerous (measured by fatalities) substance.

yelekam
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 591

20 Aug 2016, 10:27 am

GGPViper wrote:

... fixed.

3. Administering free heroin (as we do in Denmark) to addicts under medical supervision...

(1) reduces risks of overdoses (illegal heroin doesn't exactly follow ISO 9000 quality standards)
(2) reduces risk of spreading illnesses (In Denmark we have almost completely eliminated hepatitis C among those enrolled in the programme)
(3) reduces crime (heroin addicts can rarely finance their addiction through legal means)

... as a result, I'm not really that impressed with Prohibition candidates...

*[EDIT - Addendum]: Wrt. LSD, It is actually quite possible that the ever-incompetent DEA have been complicit in getting quite a lot of people killed when they arrested William Leonard Pickard. The subsequent massive drop in the world's LSD supply may have encouraged people to substitute towards MDMA (ecstacy), which is a more dangerous (measured by fatalities) substance.

Lsd, psilocybin, and Marijuana have all been scientifically proven to cause brain damage and psychosis. The hedonic psychological and pharmacological effect distort the functioning of the brain and impair reasoning and moral decision making. The real source of harm is in intoxicants themselves.
In response point two: most of the death in the Mexican drug war comes from the murder committed by criminals or in response to them. The law cannmot be blamed for those who chose to violate it. By that logic we would have blame the prevalence of theft on the government for banning people from taking other people's stuff. Legalization does not reduce criminal activity in actual terms, it gives a fake reduction on paper, when it really has given social sanction for the behavior, and opens the door for the behavior to be openly promoted and expanded.
To point three: administering free heroin would be an incredibly foolish move. Again the substance distorts the mind in a negative manner, and there is no amount of medical regulation which change the nature of its effects. This sort of action would make the heroin crisis far worse. One, it would encourage more people to use it by removing deterrents, and two it would encourage more stupid people to use it, because they will think if the government gives it for free that it would be ok to take. Thus you would expanded use of heroin, which opens up more people to potentially become addicted.
The reason we have the heroin crisis right now to begin with is because the government and medical system loosened the availability of opiates. They took medications which used to only be used for pain relating to severe injuries, and started giving it out for pain in general and with fewer restrictions. As a result many people become pill addicts, and a potion of them later become heroin addicts afterwards. If there had been more government restrictions on opiates then this heroin epidemic wouldn't have happened.

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

20 Aug 2016, 11:18 am

yelekam wrote:

LSD and psilocybin are both harmless...

Krebs & Johansen (2013 wrote:

Background
The classical serotonergic psychedelics LSD, psilocybin, mescaline are not known to cause brain damage and are regarded as non-addictive. Clinical studies do not suggest that psychedelics cause long-term mental health problems. Psychedelics have been used in the Americas for thousands of years. Over 30 million people currently living in the US have used LSD, psilocybin, or mescaline.

Objective
To evaluate the association between the lifetime use of psychedelics and current mental health in the adult population.

Method
Data drawn from years 2001 to 2004 of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health consisted of 130,152 respondents, randomly selected to be representative of the adult population in the United States. Standardized screening measures for past year mental health included serious psychological distress (K6 scale), mental health treatment (inpatient, outpatient, medication, needed but did not receive), symptoms of eight psychiatric disorders (panic disorder, major depressive episode, mania, social phobia, general anxiety disorder, agoraphobia, posttraumatic stress disorder, and non-affective psychosis), and seven specific symptoms of non-affective psychosis. We calculated weighted odds ratios by multivariate logistic regression controlling for a range of sociodemographic variables, use of illicit drugs, risk taking behavior, and exposure to traumatic events.

Results
21,967 respondents (13.4% weighted) reported lifetime psychedelic use. There were no significant associations between lifetime use of any psychedelics, lifetime use of specific psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, peyote), or past year use of LSD and increased rate of any of the mental health outcomes. Rather, in several cases psychedelic use was associated with lower rate of mental health problems.

Conclusion
We did not find use of psychedelics to be an independent risk factor for mental health problems.

(my emphasis added)

Source:
Krebs, Teri S., and Pål-Ørjan Johansen. "Psychedelics and mental health: a population study." PloS one 8.8 (2013): e63972.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0063972

Hendricks et al. (2015) wrote:

Abstract
Mental health problems are endemic across the globe, and suicide, a strong corollary of poor mental health, is a leading cause of death. Classic psychedelic use may occasion lasting improvements in mental health, but the effects of classic psychedelic use on suicidality are unknown. We evaluated the relationships of classic psychedelic use with psychological distress and suicidality among over 190,000 USA adult respondents pooled from the last five available years of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2008–2012) while controlling for a range of covariates. Lifetime classic psychedelic use was associated with a significantly reduced odds of past month psychological distress (weighted odds ratio (OR)=0.81 (0.72–0.91)), past year suicidal thinking (weighted OR=0.86 (0.78–0.94)), past year suicidal planning (weighted OR=0.71 (0.54–0.94)), and past year suicide attempt (weighted OR=0.64 (0.46–0.89)), whereas lifetime illicit use of other drugs was largely associated with an increased likelihood of these outcomes. These findings indicate that classic psychedelics may hold promise in the prevention of suicide, supporting the view that classic psychedelics’ most highly restricted legal status should be reconsidered to facilitate scientific study, and suggesting that more extensive clinical research with classic psychedelics is warranted.

(my emphasis added)

Source:
Hendricks, Peter S., et al. "Classic psychedelic use is associated with reduced psychological distress and suicidality in the United States adult population." Journal of Psychopharmacology 29.3 (2015): 280-288.
http://www.ouramazingworld.org/uploads/ ... lation.pdf

Quod Erat Demonstrandum!

yelekam wrote:

In response point two: most of the death in the Mexican drug war comes from the murder committed by criminals or in response to them. The law cannmot be blamed for those who chose to violate it. By that logic we would have blame the prevalence of theft on the government for banning people from taking other people's stuff. Legalization does not reduce criminal activity in actual terms, it gives a fake reduction on paper, when it really has given social sanction for the behavior, and opens the door for the behavior to be openly promoted and expanded.

And why shouldn't the use of marijuana be openly promoted and expanded, when it does more harm to society to keep it illegal? For an elaboration, see the last part of my post...

yelekam wrote:

To point three: administering free heroin would be an incredibly foolish move. Again the substance distorts the mind in a negative manner, and there is no amount of medical regulation which change the nature of its effects. This sort of action would make the heroin crisis far worse. One, it would encourage more people to use it by removing deterrents, and two it would encourage more stupid people to use it, because they will think if the government gives it for free that it would be ok to take. Thus you would expanded use of heroin, which opens up more people to potentially become addicted.

You don't know jack s**t about the effect of administering free heroin. I do, because not only have I personally visited a free heroin clinic less than two months ago where they presented the health effects of the programme... I helped design the programme myself when working at the Danish Ministry of Health...

I *know* how the programme works. You don't.

yelekam wrote:

The reason we have the heroin crisis right now to begin with is because the government and medical system loosened the availability of opiates. They took medications which used to only be used for pain relating to severe injuries, and started giving it out for pain in general and with fewer restrictions. As a result many people become pill addicts, and a potion of them later become heroin addicts afterwards. If there had been more government restrictions on opiates then this heroin epidemic wouldn't have happened.

... or how about: If there had been *less* government restrictions on marijuana then this heroin epidemic wouldn't have happened.

Bachhuber et al. (2014) wrote:

Abstract

Importance
Opioid analgesic overdose mortality continues to rise in the United States, driven by increases in prescribing for chronic pain. Because chronic pain is a major indication for medical cannabis, laws that establish access to medical cannabis may change overdose mortality related to opioid analgesics in states that have enacted them.

Objective
To determine the association between the presence of state medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants
A time-series analysis was conducted of medical cannabis laws and state-level death certificate data in the United States from 1999 to 2010; all 50 states were included.

Exposures
Presence of a law establishing a medical cannabis program in the state.

Main Outcomes and Measures
Age-adjusted opioid analgesic overdose death rate per 100 000 population in each state. Regression models were developed including state and year fixed effects, the presence of 3 different policies regarding opioid analgesics, and the state-specific unemployment rate.

Results
Three states (California, Oregon, and Washington) had medical cannabis laws effective prior to 1999. Ten states (Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont) enacted medical cannabis laws between 1999 and 2010. States with medical cannabis laws had a 24.8% lower mean annual opioid overdose mortality rate (95% CI, −37.5% to −9.5%; P = .003) compared with states without medical cannabis laws. Examination of the association between medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality in each year after implementation of the law showed that such laws were associated with a lower rate of overdose mortality that generally strengthened over time: year 1 (−19.9%; 95% CI, −30.6% to −7.7%; P = .002), year 2 (−25.2%; 95% CI, −40.6% to −5.9%; P = .01), year 3 (−23.6%; 95% CI, −41.1% to −1.0%; P = .04), year 4 (−20.2%; 95% CI, −33.6% to −4.0%; P = .02), year 5 (−33.7%; 95% CI, −50.9% to −10.4%; P = .008), and year 6 (−33.3%; 95% CI, −44.7% to −19.6%; P < .001). In secondary analyses, the findings remained similar.

Conclusions and Relevance
Medical cannabis laws are associated with significantly lower state-level opioid overdose mortality rates. Further investigation is required to determine how medical cannabis laws may interact with policies aimed at preventing opioid analgesic overdose.

(my emphasis added)

Source:
Bachhuber MA, Saloner B, Cunningham CO, Barry CL. Medical Cannabis Laws and Opioid Analgesic Overdose Mortality in the United States, 1999-2010. JAMA Intern Med. Published online August 25, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4005.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article ... 1314462730

In other words: Since marijuana is a lot less addictive and dangerous than legal opioids - and a substitute for for opioids wrt. pain medication - legalizing it will reduce the risk of both opioid addiction and overdoses... and reduce the risk of subsequent heroin addiction...

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Aug 2016, 1:24 pm

I am amazed there's still a Prohibition Party in existence. Next thing you know, the anti-sex Abstinence Party will be running a Presidential candidate! :lol:

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,186
Location: Portland, Oregon

20 Aug 2016, 2:10 pm

Didn't the Prohibition Party go out of existence after the end of the Great Depression? :lol:

_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

20 Aug 2016, 3:59 pm

AnonymousAnonymous wrote:

Didn't the Prohibition Party go out of existence after the end of the Great Depression? :lol:

No, they are alive and well...

Their candidate got a staggering 518 votes in the 2012 Presidential election... I'm sure Barack Obama felt the heat at the time with his narrow lead of only 65,915,277 votes...

Source: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federa ... ns2012.pdf

BitterCoffee
Blue Jay

Joined: 4 Mar 2016
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 83

20 Aug 2016, 4:00 pm

GGPViper wrote:

Results
in several cases psychedelic use was associated with lower rate of mental health problems.[/size][/u][/i]
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0063972

Lifetime classic psychedelic use was associated with a significantly reduced odds of past month psychological distress (weighted odds ratio (OR)=0.81 (0.72–0.91)), past year suicidal thinking (weighted OR=0.86 (0.78–0.94)), past year suicidal planning (weighted OR=0.71 (0.54–0.94)), and past year suicide attempt (weighted OR=0.64 (0.46–0.89)),[/u][/size] whereas lifetime illicit use of other drugs was largely associated with an increased likelihood of these outcomes. These findings indicate that classic psychedelics may hold promise in the prevention of suicide, supporting the view that classic psychedelics’ most highly restricted legal status should be reconsidered to facilitate scientific study, and suggesting that more extensive clinical research with classic psychedelics is warranted.

(my emphasis added)[/quote]

Can you explain what this weighted odds ratio means? I'm looking for a quick accurate number to put on the associations. For example psychedelic use was associated with 20% less suicide actions. Thank you.

BitterCoffee
Blue Jay

Joined: 4 Mar 2016
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 83

20 Aug 2016, 4:11 pm

yelekam wrote:

Legalization does not reduce criminal activity in actual terms, it gives a fake reduction on paper,

I hypothesize that there are several reason why legalization or other similar changes to the law would reduce non drug crime. 1) Legalization takes money away from the black sector and into the business sector. 2) Drug users no longer fear helping the police with crimes 3) Police are able to focus more on combating other crimes instead of arresting people for drugs.
Colorado legalized Marijuana afterwards there was a 2.4% fall in violent crime and a 12.1% fall in property crime[1].

yelekam wrote:

(legalization) when it really has given social sanction for the behavior, and opens the door for the behavior to be openly promoted and expanded.

Over a decade ago Portugal criminalized all drugs. Overall rates of drug use fell with hard drug use falling by 50%[2]. Other countries did not see decreases[3]. Over all the total social cost of drug use (prision, health issues, crime etc) fell by 18%[4].

People who want to maintain our laws regarding drugs need to realize that having a conviction record can and does ruin peoples lives forever. And for what? Your bans on drugs don't reduce use they don't save money the do the opposite.

To point three: administering free heroin would be an incredibly foolish move. [/quote]
I don't know if it is free heroin but it is a supervised injection site run by nurses etc. The result is a 26% fall in overdose death[5].

[1]http://www.vox.com/2014/4/3/5563134/marijuana-legalization-crime-denver-colorado
[2]http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/#2d5a1bbd5ac2
[3]http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2010/2.0_Drug_statistics_and_Trends.pdf
[4]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjU5ZHZiLvNAhUDz2MKHSpID34QFggfMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.drugpolicy.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FDPA_Fact_Sheet_Portugal_Decriminalization_Feb2015.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGymoF25oi4RU59FtCoNiizY_iI5Q&sig2=54L6cmUXXb7e5A17aLbxjQ&bvm=bv.125221236,d.cGc
[5]http://scienceblog.com/44608/deaths-from-drug-overdose-decline-35-percent-after-the-opening-of-supervised-injection-site/

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

20 Aug 2016, 4:46 pm

BitterCoffee wrote:

GGPViper wrote:

(my emphasis added)

Can you explain what this weighted odds ratio means? I'm looking for a quick accurate number to put on the associations. For example psychedelic use was associated with 20% less suicide actions. Thank you.

Well, considering odds ratios are among the most misinterpreted statistics in the scientific literature... let's see if I can succeed...

Odds: The ratio of the probability of success and the probability of failure.

Example:
Probability of success: 0.6
Probability of failure: 0.4
Odds: 0.6/0.4 = 1.5

In other words: A person in this group is 50 % more likely to succeed than fail.

Odds ratio: The ratio of odds between two groups

Group 1 odds = 1.5
Group 2 odds = 0,6667
Odds ratio = 1.5/0.667 = 2.25

In other words: A member of group A is 125 % times more likely (or 2.25 times more likely) to succeed than a member of group B. And if we turn it around, we get an Odds Ratio of approx 0.44 (0.6667/1.5).... A member of group B is 56 percent less likely to succeed than a member of group A.

As such, the odds ratio does not tell us what the risk of success is (or in this case: the risk of mental health problems), but the comparative likelihood of success between two groups.

As for the "weighted" Odds ratio... the weighting of responses is done to ensure that the sample is representative - usually because of missing and/or unreliable data. There is no single definition of the weights, as it depends on the dataset in question:

See example on page 156 here (same dataset as the article in mention, but also including 2013):
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/defaul ... ts2013.pdf

To summarize: When the above data states that lifetime classic psychedelic use was associated with a significantly reduced odds of past year suicide attempt (weighted OR=0.64 (0.46–0.89))...

... This means that people in the sample who have a life history of psychedelic use are 36 percent less likely (1 - 0.64) to have attempted suicide last year than people who *do not* have a life history of psychedelic use... and that this reduced likelihood in the population is between 11 (1-0.89) and 54 (1-0.46) percent with 95 percent confidence.

... unless I'm wrong, of course... and confused the Odds Ratio with the Relative Risk...

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

20 Aug 2016, 5:55 pm

BitterCoffee wrote:

People who want to maintain our laws regarding drugs need to realize that having a conviction record can and does ruin peoples lives forever. And for what? Your bans on drugs don't reduce use they don't save money the do the opposite.

The concern is this:
legalization ---> increased drug use
increased drug use ---> more people addicted
more addiction ---> more people suffering from the harm of addiction

It's the same argument they make against the construction of casinos.

legalization --> more gamblers
more gamblers --> more people addicted to gambling
more addiction --> more people suffering from the harm of addiction.

mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada

20 Aug 2016, 7:24 pm

It's kind of funny that this exists, because lately we've been going in kind of the opposite direction in Canada. Trudeau has promised to legalize marijuana, and over in Ontario they're allowing a limited number of grocery stores to sell beer, just to see how it'll work out. I can't wait for the day where I can walk into 7-11 and walk out with a six pack and a dimebag.

_________________
Every day is exactly the same...

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Aug 2016, 11:42 pm

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

Wait a minute.... am I to understand that you can't just buy beer at any grocery or convenience store in Canada?!?!?!?!

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Page 1 of 2 [ 24 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Jump to:

Don't like Trump, Clinton? There's a Prohibition Party candi Post Reply New Topic

Don't like Trump, Clinton? There's a Prohibition Party candi