Trudeau names ex-TO top cop Bill Blair pot head

142 posts / 0 new

Sun, 2016-01-10 05:19

NDPP

In Massive Disappointment, Bill Blair Selected to Lead Government's Marijuana Legalization Initiative

http://www.thealfalfafield.com/2016/01/in-massive-disappointment-bill-bl...

"...My relief that the rookie MP and veteran abuser of rights would be largely relegated to the back benches was, sadly, short-lived. Yesterday, the CBC reported that Blair had been tapped by Trudeau to be the the point person for the Liberal's efforts to legalize marijuana.

For folks who have tirelessly advocated for legalization over the past several years and decades, this has to be a disappointing choice..."

Issues Pages:

Politics in Canada

Sun, 2016-01-10 08:10

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

It certainly is. I foresee a very wishy washy variation of the status quo.

Sun, 2016-01-10 11:01

mark_alfred

I think it's just a PR move. I imagine Blair's involvement will amount to running to get the coffee for the lawyers within the Ministry of Justice who will be working on this.

Sun, 2016-01-10 20:19

Pondering

Alan, having Blair involved helps to legitimize the process as responsible. Blair is a point man that will be very difficult to attack as proposing something risky that will endanger youth.

They have been very smart in how they have approached the topic. I was surprised they didn't put it in the budget as something that will generate tax dollars. In hindsight I see why they didn't. It would look like an attempt to justify it or to bribe voters which is not a good reason to legalize.

He is resting his entire argument on reducing ease of access by minors while respecting the right of adults to use it if they choose to because it isn't dangerous. Blair is the perfect choice to refute any accusations of recklessness.

Sun, 2016-01-10 20:45

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

They have been very smart in how they have approached the topic.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-convictions-justin-trudeau-leg...

Their choice not to move immediately on decriminalization of simple possession defies logic. It's a stupid decision that's hurting people.

CBC article, Canadians with marijuana convictions call on Trudeau to offer pardons wrote:
Canadians with criminal records for marijuana crimes are eagerly waiting to see if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will offer pardons when pot is legalized. Tens of thousands are charged with possession every year, and if convicted face consequences that can be devastating.

Sun, 2016-01-10 20:58

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

They have been very smart in how they have approached the topic.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-convictions-justin-trudeau-leg...

Their choice not to move immediately on decriminalization of simple possession defies logic. It's a stupid decision that's hurting people.

CBC article, Canadians with marijuana convictions call on Trudeau to offer pardons wrote:
Canadians with criminal records for marijuana crimes are eagerly waiting to see if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will offer pardons when pot is legalized. Tens of thousands are charged with possession every year, and if convicted face consequences that can be devastating.

How would that achieve his goals of preventing distribution to minors and taking money out of the hands of criminals?

Sun, 2016-01-10 21:17

mark_alfred

Dealing and simple possession are two different things.

Sun, 2016-01-10 21:19

quizzical

huh? maybe they should expand their goals.

unless of course they're going to allow Bill Blair to say "can't do it" "there's no way to legalizing it without inflicting children with the "ravages of marijuana use".

i guess making a woman Justice Minister and Attorney General was a symbolic jesture as marijuana legalization is the most pressing change to our legal system in generations and they give it to the man everyone thought was going to be Justice Minister.

Mon, 2016-01-11 18:50

Sean in Ottawa

Although an ex-cop would be one to know how futile and wasteful the illegal status of pot is. If Blair supports the move then he would not be the wrong person to do it.

The real question would be the committment to the idea but I think it is too early to call them on this. Or is there a reason to suggest they are backing away?

Mon, 2016-01-11 18:59

#10

quizzical

Blair actually made a statement last week about our need to protect "children from the ravages of marijuana use".

imv anyone who uses this type of term in respect to marijuana legalization has no intent to do so.

Mon, 2016-01-11 19:17

#11

kropotkin1951

The fix is in and the stupid young people who believed Trudeau's promise of legalization because it was more libertarian than decriminalization are in for a rude surprise. I predict that this fascist pig is going to recommend that only the large corporations that Harper put in place for medical marijuauna should be licensed growers and the RCMP will continue to arrest anyone who wants to grow their own. It will not be like beer and wine it will be far more draconian and restrictive.

Liberal Tory same old story.

Mon, 2016-01-11 19:26

#12

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Blair actually made a statement last week about our need to protect "children from the ravages of marijuana use".

Was this decriminalization ever supposed to include children?

If he'd spoken of the need to protect free-thinking adults from such ravages then that would be a different story.

As a sidebar, two new dispensaries have opened up in my neighbourhood (well, two locations, same company). And at last count, I think that Kensington Market now plays home to at least seven different ones. Hard to think that the times they aren't a changin'.

Mon, 2016-01-11 19:40

#13

kropotkin1951

As a sidebar the RCMP is raiding marijuana dispensers in various locations on Vancouver Island.

The majority of teenagers have easy access to booze and all studies point to it being a drug that actually does ravage our teens. The bullshit about protecting children is a red herring and it is what will be used to harass adults. If tight controls worked then alcohol would not be a problem in the teenage community.

"In a 2008 study, 23% of 14 year-olds and 70% of 17 year-olds in Saskatchewan reported drinking 5 or more drinks within a 2-hour period at least once in the past month."

Mon, 2016-01-11 20:06

#14

quizzical

oh they're changing because of people challenging the laws.

knew Justin was lying during the election campaign the minute he said no to decrim first while working on legalizing.

Mon, 2016-01-11 21:23

#15

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
If tight controls worked then alcohol would not be a problem in the teenage community.

The government can only reasonably expect to control primary distributors. e.g. in Ontario. the LCBO.

When I was underage, I was cheerfully given hooch by my family, to various positive or negative outcomes; how shall we stop that? Mandatory minimums? Lifetime bans on the purchase of alcohol?

Tue, 2016-01-12 09:42

#16

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Blair actually made a statement last week about our need to protect "children from the ravages of marijuana use".

Was this decriminalization ever supposed to include children?

If he'd spoken of the need to protect free-thinking adults from such ravages then that would be a different story.

As a sidebar, two new dispensaries have opened up in my neighbourhood (well, two locations, same company). And at last count, I think that Kensington Market now plays home to at least seven different ones. Hard to think that the times they aren't a changin'.

Do you need a special license or something to buy pot? What's the dispensaries for?

Tue, 2016-01-12 10:05

#17

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The majority of teenagers have easy access to booze and all studies point to it being a drug that actually does ravage our teens.

That was certainly the case when I was a teen. Beer was cheap and despite that,in the world before cameras,was in many cases free.

Dépanneur workers knew we were underage so they'd make us leave with the case (s) hidden,usually under a jean jacket. (LOL)

I'd be more concerned with my kids drinking booze than smoking weed. The 'evil' street drugs we were consuming (add to the list mushrooms and acid) would make us listen to music or watch trippy cartoons,joke and laugh. The alcohol,on the under hand,made us vandalize and fist fight. This is a fact that will always slay a prohibitionist but their ideology is so tattooed to their DNA that they'll deny it to the death.

Tue, 2016-01-12 13:22

#18

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

As a sidebar the RCMP is raiding marijuana dispensers in various locations on Vancouver Island.

The majority of teenagers have easy access to booze and all studies point to it being a drug that actually does ravage our teens. The bullshit about protecting children is a red herring and it is what will be used to harass adults. If tight controls worked then alcohol would not be a problem in the teenage community.

"In a 2008 study, 23% of 14 year-olds and 70% of 17 year-olds in Saskatchewan reported drinking 5 or more drinks within a 2-hour period at least once in the past month."

While I am in favour of legalization as a practical necessity I do not go as far as some here do. A lifetime of working with youth has exposed me to seeing lives damaged by either alcohol and marijuana. I am not sanguine about legalization as I see use going up. And that is supported by data. I can't believe that a nation with even more recreational drug users being better off in any area, education, health, employment, safety, you name it. You can be in favour oflegalization while very much regretting the need for this measure.n

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marijuana-pot-poll-survey-1.3312151

Tue, 2016-01-12 16:53

#19

Paladin1

jjuares wrote:

In 37 years I've never tried pot even once so I don't have much experience on the subject. I've seen a number of arguments online for it's harmless use, it's use in other countries and all these fantastic healing properties it's supposed to have. The people I know in real life, who like you have experience working with youth, say the same thing. They've seen it (along with alcohol and other drugs of course) destroy a number of lives.

Tue, 2016-01-12 17:16

#20

kropotkin1951

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If tight controls worked then alcohol would not be a problem in the teenage community.

The government can only reasonably expect to control primary distributors. e.g. in Ontario. the LCBO.

When I was underage, I was cheerfully given hooch by my family, to various positive or negative outcomes; how shall we stop that? Mandatory minimums? Lifetime bans on the purchase of alcohol?

As usual you missed the point.

Tue, 2016-01-12 17:35

#21

kropotkin1951

Paladin1 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

While I am in favour of legalization as a practical necessity I do not go as far as some here do. A lifetime of working with youth has exposed me to seeing lives damaged by either alcohol and marijuana. I am not sanguine about legalization as I see use going up. And that is supported by data. I can't believe that a nation with even more recreational drug users being better off in any area, education, health, employment, safety, you name it. You can be in favour oflegalization while very much regretting the need for this measure.n http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marijuana-pot-poll-survey-1.3312151

In 37 years I've never tried pot even once so I don't have much experience on the subject. I've seen a number of arguments online for it's harmless use, it's use in other countries and all these fantastic healing properties it's supposed to have. The people I know in real life, who like you have experience working with youth, say the same thing. They've seen it (along with alcohol and other drugs of course) destroy a number of lives.

Yup and that is why it needs to be a health issue and not a criminal issue. I'm 65 and tried it first when I was 16 the same year I tried alcohol. Getting a criminal record is devastating to young people as well and that happens no matter whether they are having health issues.

I think that family abuse either mental, physical or sexual of young people is far more likely to lead to mental health issues and I would bet that the people JJ has seen with problems most often have that in their background as well not just pot smoking. Strangely no one wants to regulate parenting and it is a far greater indicator of mental health issues than pot use.

Those problems do not get solved by criminal law prohibitions but it does give the police an easy way of targeting marginalized youth. Of course the nice white middle class kids don't get the same treatment as the poor kids with dark complexions. That is the reality of it being illegal. No matter what kind of rules you put in place young people will still get their hands on it. I know this because it is illegal now and available. Jailing them or anyone else solves nothing especially any health issues.

Tue, 2016-01-12 18:49

#22

Sean in Ottawa

I have not seen evidence to suggest that legalization and control would increase use. Does anyone have such evidence?

Tue, 2016-01-12 19:17

#23

jjuares

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I have not seen evidence to suggest that legalization and control would increase use. Does anyone have such evidence?

Post #17 See link

Tue, 2016-01-12 19:18

#24

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Do you need a special license or something to buy pot? What's the dispensaries for?

You need a prescription.

A new dispensary opened up in my neighbourhood about a month ago, in what used to be a shoe store on the main drag. The sign went up first -- "Weeds Glass and Gifts" with the word "Weeds" spelled out in pot leaves. Based on the name, I was expecting a head shop, and thought it kind of funny to open up a head shop about three doors down from an existing head shop, but whatevs.

Then one day I was walking past and looked in the window. The store still looked bare, but I could see on top of a glass display case, what looked like either a refrigerator such as you might see slices of pie in at a diner, or else a heating unit such as you might see Jamaican patties in. As I was looking in (and assuming they weren't yet open) a dude from inside came to the door and beckoned me in. I told him I was just curious what was going to be opening up, and he told me that they were already open, and that they're a medical marijuana dispensary. Then he told me to c'mon in and he'd give me the tour.

The "tour" itself wasn't much -- the store was basically empty, except for a couple of glass display cases, a table with a computer on it, and the fridge/heater thing. In the cases were containers of various strains of weed, derivatives like oil and hash, some THC pills and extracts, and a few acoutrements for smoking/making/using. The fridge was full of "edibles" -- cookies and cakey things, I guess.

He explained to me that if you have a prescription for medical marijuana then you just need to bring it in, get entered into their system, and then you can make a purchase. I told him that I wasn't expecting to get such prescription any time soon, and he told me that I could bring in ANY prescription -- their philosophy being that if you have, say, a scrip for Tylenol 3 for your toothache, you should be able to treat that with weed if you wish.

I thanked him for the tour and went on my way, but not before telling him that I simply could never, ever have imagined a place like that when I was younger.

As a sidebar, there's yet ANOTHER dispensary in Kensington Market now. I think that makes either 6 or 7. Welcome to 2016.

Tue, 2016-01-12 19:25

#25

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

While I am in favour of legalization as a practical necessity I do not go as far as some here do. A lifetime of working with youth has exposed me to seeing lives damaged by either alcohol and marijuana. I am not sanguine about legalization as I see use going up. And that is supported by data. I can't believe that a nation with even more recreational drug users being better off in any area, education, health, employment, safety, you name it. You can be in favour oflegalization while very much regretting the need for this measure.n http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marijuana-pot-poll-survey-1.3312151

In 37 years I've never tried pot even once so I don't have much experience on the subject. I've seen a number of arguments online for it's harmless use, it's use in other countries and all these fantastic healing properties it's supposed to have. The people I know in real life, who like you have experience working with youth, say the same thing. They've seen it (along with alcohol and other drugs of course) destroy a number of lives.

Yup and that is why it needs to be a health issue and not a criminal issue. I'm 65 and tried it first when I was 16 the same year I tried alcohol. Getting a criminal record is devastating to young people as well and that happens no matter whether they are having health issues.

I think that family abuse either mental, physical or sexual of young people is far more likely to lead to mental health issues and I would bet that the people JJ has seen with problems most often have that in their background as well not just pot smoking. Strangely no one wants to regulate parenting and it is a far greater indicator of mental health issues than pot use.

Those problems do not get solved by criminal law prohibitions but it does give the police an easy way of targeting marginalized youth. Of course the nice white middle class kids don't get the same treatment as the poor kids with dark complexions. That is the reality of it being illegal. No matter what kind of rules you put in place young people will still get their hands on it. I know this because it is illegal now and available. Jailing them or anyone else solves nothing especially any health issues.

For many of the youth I worked with other problems seem to be at the core. However, in virtually every case marijuana added to the problems and in not one of them did I see it of any benefit to at risk youth. I don't disagree at all with removing it from the criminal justice system. I just refuse to pretend that it is harmless substance and I recognize the possibility that making it legal will have both positive AND negative consequences.

Tue, 2016-01-12 19:30

#26

Unionist

Wow.

Tue, 2016-01-12 19:36

#27

jjuares

Paladin1 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

While I am in favour of legalization as a practical necessity I do not go as far as some here do. A lifetime of working with youth has exposed me to seeing lives damaged by either alcohol and marijuana. I am not sanguine about legalization as I see use going up. And that is supported by data. I can't believe that a nation with even more recreational drug users being better off in any area, education, health, employment, safety, you name it. You can be in favour oflegalization while very much regretting the need for this measure.n http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marijuana-pot-poll-survey-1.3312151[/quote]

In 37 years I've never tried pot even once so I don't have much experience on the subject. I've seen a number of arguments online for it's harmless use, it's use in other countries and all these fantastic healing properties it's supposed to have. The people I know in real life, who like you have experience working with youth, say the same thing. They've seen it (along with alcohol and other drugs of course) destroy a number of lives.

[/quote]
Yes. Billy might not be able to find a job to support him and may have to live in his parents basement. But I will gurantee you that spending his time sitting in that basement smoking dope makes no positive contribution to his challenges.

Tue, 2016-01-12 19:50

#28

kropotkin1951

I guess JJ when you only see the youth with the most problems that might be the impression you would get. I was an at risk youth and so were most of my teenage friends. I saw the devastation from a different angle. Making it illegal has had major consequences over the last hundred years. It is less dangerous than alcohol and frankly the pharmaceuticals that are pushed on at risk youth scare the crap out of me. At risk youth who are given "happy pills" have no better outcomes than the ones that self medicate with street drugs. Both groups can easily fall apart because it isn't the drugs it is the other mental health problems and the lack of proper social services that are the triggers.

How many suicides have you seen from kids that were given anti-depressants? The research shows a significant risk compared to all kids. Rightly that is mainly said to be because of the higher potential rate for the at risk group that is prescribed them. Similarily if you deal with at risk street youth you would see higher than normal rates of many things because that is the group dynamics of your clients.

Quote:

Overall, the child and teen suicide rate after initiation of antidepressant use among participants in the study was five times higher than the rate reported among all teens aged 13 to 17 in British Columbia, which researchers say reflects the higher suicide risks among the depressed.

http://www.webmd.com/depression/news/20100412/teen-suicide-risk-similar-...

Tue, 2016-01-12 19:58

#29

kropotkin1951

jjuares wrote:

Yes. Billy might not be able to find a job to support him and may have to live in his parents basement. But I will gurantee you that spending his time sitting in that basement smoking dope makes no positive contribution to his challenges.

I gurantee that being arrested for smoking weed will also have no positive contribution to his challenges either. Without a job he can sit in the basement and listen to Bob Marley or he can get depressed while playing first-person shooter games on his Xbox. Because he has no future. Its not the pot that is the problem in your scenario its the lack of jobs and social services for youth.

If he lived in his parents basement and had a job then according to you he/she should still not drink or smoke pot. Any other moralistic prescriptions for our at risk youth? How about not having sex becasue of the risk of STD's? Would that not also be less risky behaviour? Maybe restict the sales of gaming systems as well since that is a major cause of problems with lots of teenagers these days.

Tue, 2016-01-12 20:08

#30

Unionist

Thank you, kropotkin. I would have risked being banned if I said what I thought.

Tue, 2016-01-12 20:37

#31

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

Yes. Billy might not be able to find a job to support him and may have to live in his parents basement. But I will gurantee you that spending his time sitting in that basement smoking dope makes no positive contribution to his challenges.

I gurantee that being arrested for smoking weed will also have no positive contribution to his challenges either. Without a job he can sit in the basement and listen to Bob Marley or he can get depressed while playing first-person shooter games on his Xbox. Because he has no future. Its not the pot that is the problem in your scenario its the lack of jobs and social services for youth.

If he lived in his parents basement and had a job then according to you he/she should still not drink or smoke pot. Any other moralistic prescriptions for our at risk youth? How about not having sex becasue of the risk of STD's? Would that not also be less risky behaviour? Maybe restict the sales of gaming systems as well since that is a major cause of problems with lots of teenagers these days.

Well I did say I was in favour of legalization. And yes, I have not seen any positive outcomes from the justice system's intervention for at risk youth with substance abuse problems. I always hate it when people cherry pick from your posts. You did notice that I did mention his lousy employment prospects. So, yes, that is crucial obviously. Since I did not say marijuana should be restricted and in fact said the opposite That should be kept in mind. As for your discussion about games and alcohol you seem to be establishing a false equivalency here. Simply because I point out a basic truth that everyone should acknowledge, marijuana is not always a benign substance that brings every single user to some sort of personal nirvana does not mean I want it to be illegal. I don't argue that tobacco should be illegal and yet the evidence is pretty clear that it does nothing but harm to people's lives. Sorry, I refuse to dismiss 36 years of professional observation and pretend that Marijuana is ALWAYS beneficial to the people I served. The comparison many people make is to alcohol. I agree with that. The effects alcohol has upon people cover a large spectrum from live destroying to virtually nothing. Why do marijuana advocates not show any acceptance that this drug too may have a variety of effects on people's lives?

Tue, 2016-01-12 20:40

#32

jjuares

Unionist wrote:
Thank you, kropotkin. I would have risked being banned if I said what I thought.

Oh, come on. Who are you kidding? Anyone who has read your posts know you don't get banned no matter what you post.

Tue, 2016-01-12 20:57

#33

kropotkin1951

I too hate it when people cherry pick from your posts. I never said it was beneficial to at risk youth. You raised that angle of the discussion and seemed to be trying to convince me of the obvious. I understand that it is a psychoactive drug but I believe the war on drugs has caused way more harm than legalizing it will. I merely pointed out the pig they hired is the wrong man for the job because he thinks it ravages youth and the reality is that alcohol and other substances are similar. I have seen people fail and succeed who smoke pot. I have seen people fail and succeed who dink alcohol. I have seen people fail and succeed who don't do any drugs or alcohol. It is totally irrelevant to the discussion of who Trudeau named to be the point on the subject. He has a bias and it going to mean that little will change and at risk youth will still be harassed by the police and that is worse for most of them than smoking pot.

So apparently we agree on most things just not the way to present our views. Your posts remind me of people who say they think abortion is wrong but they are in favour of legalized abortions. That type of argument is moralistic and feds into the arguments of people who are opposed to a woman's right to chose what to do with her body.

Tue, 2016-01-12 21:23

#34

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I too hate it when people cherry pick from your posts. I never said it was beneficial to at risk youth. You raised that angle of the discussion and seemed to be trying to convince me of the obvious. I understand that it is a psychoactive drug but I believe the war on drugs has caused way more harm than legalizing it will. I merely pointed out the pig they hired is the wrong man for the job because he thinks it ravages youth and the reality is that alcohol and other substances are similar. I have seen people fail and succeed who smoke pot. I have seen people fail and succeed who dink alcohol. I have seen people fail and succeed who don't do any drugs or alcohol. It is totally irrelevant to the discussion of who Trudeau named to be the point on the subject. He has a bias and it going to mean that little will change and at risk youth will still be harassed by the police and that is worse for most of them than smoking pot.

So apparently we agree on most things just not the way to present our views. Your posts remind me of people who say they think abortion is wrong but they are in favour of legalized abortions. That type of argument is moralistic and feds into the arguments of people who are opposed to a woman's right to chose what to do with her body.

He obviously picked Blair to cover his right flank. Only Nixon could go to China. I will reserve judgement day until I see the legislation. As for the abortion comparison I think that is unfair. I simply made the point in a thread (that had already drifted from the the topic )that you can be in favour of legalizing something but be also willing to acknowledge that this substance does harm as well as good. It was nothing more than a simple call for honesty and integrity in a debate from both sides. Those who endorse the status quo have demonstrated little integrity but does that mean advocates for legalization have to be a mirror image of their tactics?

Tue, 2016-01-12 22:30

#35

kropotkin1951

Nobody here was doing what you are complaining about so your point was actually a thread drift of its own into the very arguments that people who endorse the status quo often use.

Tue, 2016-01-12 22:49

#36

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Nobody here was doing what you are complaining about so your point was actually a thread drift of its own into the very arguments that people who endorse the status quo often use.

Bullshit. Check out post 16 ( the one before my first post). It talked about the positives of pot and the evils of "drink" and also represented thread drift. So you are wrong on both counts. But hey don't let the evidence deter you from throwing out these accusations.

Tue, 2016-01-12 23:31

#37

quizzical

jjuares meanwhile i guess you're okay they put kids on Ritalin? spare me the bs. let' give them methamphetamines to protect them from the ravages of marijuana ffs. yup let's give them a meth addiction before they're 13 and then wonder why kids stay addicted later.

Quote:
Do not use Ritalin if you have used an MAO inhibitor in the past 14 days. A dangerous drug interaction could occur. MAO inhibitors include isocarboxazid, linezolid, methylene blue injection, phenelzine, rasagiline, selegiline, tranylcypromine, and others.

You should not use Ritalin if you are allergic to it, or if you have:

glaucoma;

a personal or family history of tics (muscle twitches) or Tourette's syndrome; or

severe anxiety, tension, or agitation (stimulant medicine can make these symptoms worse).

Some stimulants have caused sudden death in certain people. Tell your doctor if you have:

heart problems or a congenital heart defect;

high blood pressure; or

a family history of heart disease or sudden death.

To make sure Ritalin is safe for you, tell your doctor if you or anyone in your family has ever had:

depression, mental illness, bipolar disorder, psychosis, or suicidal thoughts or actions;

motor tics (muscle twitches) or Tourette's syndrome;

blood circulation problems in the hands or feet;

seizures or epilepsy;

an abnormal brain wave test (EEG); or

a history of drug or alcohol addiction.

It is not known whether Ritalin will harm an unborn baby. Tell your doctor if you are pregnant or plan to become pregnant.

have a look a the side effects of anti-seizure medication too.

you're and people like you are part of the problem here.

Tue, 2016-01-12 23:45

#38

jjuares

quizzical wrote:

jjuares meanwhile i guess you're okay they put kids on Ritalin? spare me the bs. let' give them methamphetamines to protect them from the ravages of marijuana ffs. yup let's give them a meth addiction before they're 13 and then wonder why kids stay addicted later.

Quote:
Do not use Ritalin if you have used an MAO inhibitor in the past 14 days. A dangerous drug interaction could occur. MAO inhibitors include isocarboxazid, linezolid, methylene blue injection, phenelzine, rasagiline, selegiline, tranylcypromine, and others.

You should not use Ritalin if you are allergic to it, or if you have:

glaucoma;

a personal or family history of tics (muscle twitches) or Tourette's syndrome; or

severe anxiety, tension, or agitation (stimulant medicine can make these symptoms worse).

Some stimulants have caused sudden death in certain people. Tell your doctor if you have:

heart problems or a congenital heart defect;

high blood pressure; or

a family history of heart disease or sudden death.

To make sure Ritalin is safe for you, tell your doctor if you or anyone in your family has ever had:

depression, mental illness, bipolar disorder, psychosis, or suicidal thoughts or actions;

motor tics (muscle twitches) or Tourette's syndrome;

blood circulation problems in the hands or feet;

seizures or epilepsy;

an abnormal brain wave test (EEG); or

a history of drug or alcohol addiction.

It is not known whether Ritalin will harm an unborn baby. Tell your doctor if you are pregnant or plan to become pregnant.

have a look a the side effects of anti-seizure medication too.

you're and people like you are part of the problem here.

Really? I am part of the problem? I don't remember writing anything pro-meth or pro- ritalin. In factI have never discussed any of those drugs ever.

Wed, 2016-01-13 00:01

#39

kropotkin1951

jjuares wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Nobody here was doing what you are complaining about so your point was actually a thread drift of its own into the very arguments that people who endorse the status quo often use.

Bullshit. Check out post 16 ( the one before my first post). It talked about the positives of pot and the evils of "drink" and also represented thread drift. So you are wrong on both counts. But hey don't let the evidence deter you from throwing out these accusations.

I don't read post 16 as anything more than a statement of fact. It is you who took it as some kind of universal statement. Alcohol is more dangerous than pot and for the vast majority of people, and I mean almost everybody, pot has no detrimental effects. You want to repeat the right wing memes about pot and mental health then fill your boots but don't expect that we will listen to your pious holier than thou bullshit unchallenged.

To riff off of post #16 I don't think Elton was not talking about pot smokers.

Quote:

A couple of the sounds that I really like
Are the sounds of a switchblade and a motorbike
I'm a juvenile product of the working class
Whose best friend floats in the bottom of a glass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EadIvDAWkf8

Wed, 2016-01-13 00:06

#40

quizzical

someone died today from herion use, from methamphetamine use, cocaine use, prescription drug use, alcohol use. no one died from marijuana use.

Wed, 2016-01-13 00:16

#41

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Nobody here was doing what you are complaining about so your point was actually a thread drift of its own into the very arguments that people who endorse the status quo often use.

Bullshit. Check out post 16 ( the one before my first post). It talked about the positives of pot and the evils of "drink" and also represented thread drift. So you are wrong on both counts. But hey don't let the evidence deter you from throwing out these accusations.

I don't read post 16 as anything more than a statement of fact. It is you who took it as some kind of universal statement. Alcohol is more dangerous than pot and for the vast majority of people, and I mean almost everybody, pot has no detrimental effects. You want to repeat the right wing memes about pot and mental health then fill your boots but don't expect that we will listen to your pious holier than thou bullshit unchallenged.

To riff off of post #16 I don't think Elton was not talking about pot smokers.

Quote:

A couple of the sounds that I really like
Are the sounds of a switchblade and a motorbike
I'm a juvenile product of the working class
Whose best friend floats in the bottom of a glass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EadIvDAWkf8

Maybe post 16 is simply a statement of fact and maybe it isn't. However, your accusations against me are pure bullshit. I notice you just tried to change the channel and didn't even try to respond when I caught you lying about me. You said I was responsible for thread drift and there is the proof of your mendacity slapping in your face.No you just responded with a personal attack. But what else could you do? How fitting that you quoted a song about being at the bottom.

Wed, 2016-01-13 00:25

#42

kropotkin1951

jjuares wrote:

Maybe post 16 is simply a statement of fact and maybe it isn't. However, your accusations against me are pure bullshit. I notice you just tried to change the channel and didn't even try to respond when I caught you lying about me. You said I was responsible for thread drift and there is the proof of your mendacity slapping in your face.No you just responded with a personal attack. But what else could you do? How fitting that you quoted a song about being at the bottom.

You are quite the piece of work. Martyr complex?

Wed, 2016-01-13 00:43

#43

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

Maybe post 16 is simply a statement of fact and maybe it isn't. However, your accusations against me are pure bullshit. I notice you just tried to change the channel and didn't even try to respond when I caught you lying about me. You said I was responsible for thread drift and there is the proof of your mendacity slapping in your face.No you just responded with a personal attack. But what else could you do? How fitting that you quoted a song about being at the bottom.

You are quite the piece of work. Martyr complex?

That's it, stay classy.

Wed, 2016-01-13 02:00

#44

Pondering

It would be great if people could be critical of each others ideas without the ridicule, personal attacks and accusations of ill-will.

Wed, 2016-01-13 02:56

#45

quizzical

jjuares wrote:
quizzical wrote:
Really? I am part of the problem? I don't remember writing anything pro-meth or pro- ritalin. In factI have never discussed any of those drugs ever.

maybe not directly. but you are expressing mainstream at risk youth support bs. and they're all for doping 10 year olds. i glad you're not if you actually aren't.

youth are more at risk now than when i was one 20 years ago.

35 year old belief systems aren't working too well.

Wed, 2016-01-13 03:07

#46

jjuares

quizzical wrote:

jjuares wrote:
quizzical wrote:
Really? I am part of the problem? I don't remember writing anything pro-meth or pro- ritalin. In factI have never discussed any of those drugs ever.

maybe not directly. but you are expressing mainstream at risk youth support bs. and they're all for doping 10 year olds. i glad you're not if you actually aren't.

youth are more at risk now than when i was one 20 years ago.

35 year old belief systems aren't working too well.

Guilt by association. Well actually, guilt by fantasy is more accurate.

Wed, 2016-01-13 11:12

#47

kropotkin1951

Quote:

A couple of the sounds that I really like
Are the sounds of a switchblade and a motorbike
I'm a juvenile product of the working class
Whose best friend floats in the bottom of a glass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EadIvDAWkf8

jjuares wrote:

... How fitting that you quoted a song about being at the bottom.

It is very fitting and that pithy comment tells me you judge the youth you claim to work with. I could have sworn you used the term loser before an edit but maybe not.

Besides seeing at risk youth as "at the bottom" what other sterotypes do you see in your clients. That line says it all about your moralistic judgemental attitude and that attitude is what ticked me off last night. This morning I am actually just sad for the youth that have to go to you for any services especially if they involve substance abuse.

Wed, 2016-01-13 11:56

#48

jjuares

Here is the last two lines from post 40. ".No you just responded with a personal attack. But what else could you do? How fitting that you quoted a song about being at the bottom." The only reference to the bottom refers to your dishonesty. And your claim that I used the word " loser" in reference to the people I worked for. That is a fucking lie. I would never use the word loser to describe the heroic people who I worked with and for and who overcame more challenges by age 6 than most people will see in a lifetime. They also have a level of honesty that someone like you could never begin to comprehend. The way in which you conduct yourself when disagreeing with someone is beneath contempt. Again, maybe you could offer some proof, any proof for one of your libellous fucking lies.

Wed, 2016-01-13 13:42

#49

kropotkin1951

jjuares wrote:

Here is the last two lines from post 40. ".No you just responded with a personal attack. But what else could you do? How fitting that you quoted a song about being at the bottom." The only reference to the bottom refers to your dishonesty. And your claim that I used the word " loser" in reference to the people I worked for. That is a fucking lie. I would never use the word loser to describe the heroic people who I worked with and for and who overcame more challenges by age 6 than most people will see in a lifetime. They also have a level of honesty that someone like you could never begin to comprehend. The way in which you conduct yourself when disagreeing with someone is beneath contempt. Again, maybe you could offer some proof, any proof for one of your libellous fucking lies.

You claim to work with people and have that kind of attitude. Like I said I feel sorry for anyone that has to deal with you. I don't need proof of anything because your hateful posts about at risk youth are on display. By the way your view that people who are at risk are "heroic" is just the other side of your moralistic mindset.

As someone who was abused as an adolescent and went through my teenage years with many periods of living on the streets I have met many self rightious do-gooders like you. That is why you rub me the wrong way. At risk youth are people who need compassion and help not heroes or villians depending on where they fit into your world view.

Wed, 2016-01-13 14:12

#50

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

Here is the last two lines from post 40. ".No you just responded with a personal attack. But what else could you do? How fitting that you quoted a song about being at the bottom." The only reference to the bottom refers to your dishonesty. And your claim that I used the word " loser" in reference to the people I worked for. That is a fucking lie. I would never use the word loser to describe the heroic people who I worked with and for and who overcame more challenges by age 6 than most people will see in a lifetime. They also have a level of honesty that someone like you could never begin to comprehend. The way in which you conduct yourself when disagreeing with someone is beneath contempt. Again, maybe you could offer some proof, any proof for one of your libellous fucking lies.

You claim to work with people and have that kind of attitude. Like I said I feel sorry for anyone that has to deal with you. I don't need proof of anything because your hateful posts about at risk youth are on display. By the way your view that people who are at risk are "heroic" is just the other side of your moralistic mindset.

As someone who was abused as an adolescent and went through my teenage years with many periods of living on the streets I have met many self rightious do-gooders like you. That is why you rub me the wrong way. At risk youth are people who need compassion and help not heroes or villians depending on where they fit into your world view.

You don't know a thing about my background or life's work.
The only villain in this piece is you because you told a fucking demonstrable libelous lie about me. Whatever my numerous faults may be I don't engage in dishonest smears just because someone might " rub me the wrong way". Sadly, you can make no such claim.

Wed, 2016-01-13 15:00

#51

kropotkin1951

jjuares wrote:

You don't know a thing about my background or life's work. The only villain in this piece is you because you told a fucking demonstrable libelous lie about me. Whatever my numerous faults may be I don't engage in dishonest smears just because someone might " rub me the wrong way". Sadly, you can make no such claim.

Smears? Do you mean I keep saying you are a self righteous moralizer? Whether that is a smear depends on how one reads your posts. I draw my conclusions from your words since you are correct that I don't know you personally. You on the other hand keep calling me a liar because I don't like your opinions and am willing to engage you on them. Go figure a moralizer with a double standard, how unusual.

So tell me what exactly have I said that you consider to be a libelous lie. Be exact because that is what is required when you throw around legal terms like that. By the way libel suits are some of the hardest suits to win in a court of law. The courts generally want to see more than just insults before they make a legal ruling that someone has been libeled. So please lets hear your legal argument, hell it couldn't be any more misguided than your views on drug laws.