January 26, 2012

"This is what your brain on drugs really looks like."

Fascinating!
Psychedelics are thought of as ‘mind-expanding' drugs, so it has commonly been assumed that they work by increasing brain activity," explained [neuropsychopharmacologist David] Nutt in an interview with Nature's Mo Costandi. "Surprisingly, we found that psilocybin actually caused activity to decrease in areas that have the densest connections with other areas."...

Decreased activity within and between the brain's hubs, conclude Nutt and his colleagues, allows for "an unconstrained style of cognition."

60 comments:

shiloh said...

Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream ...

Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies.
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly,
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes.

Dan in Philly said...

Who here hadn't already realized that drugs slow down and limit your brain, not vice versa? That's why stoners seem to see cosmic things in ordinary observations.

"Man, what if "Dog" were spelled 'C-A-T?"

"Ponderous, dude!"

edutcher said...

Yes, by all means, let's legalize what isn't legal yet and turn those people strung out on it loose on the highways, etc.

Yeah, dat's da ticket.

Newt's idea about a Draconic solution looks better all the time.

And I'm not even a Newtrino...

Scott M said...

Decreased activity within and between the brain's hubs, conclude Nutt and his colleagues, allows for "an unconstrained style of cognition."

Yes, but does it allow you to learn most of Portuguese in a single night, spin sunglasses, break large mirrors and crack secret military codes just for fun?

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Now that is a bad link. Or maybe I'm just tripping out.

wv: vergesse-- It's German, but I forget what for.

traditionalguy said...

That confirms the control techniques which rely upon altering the mind's way of perceiving which amounts to causing a death to the existing inner reality censors, followed by a re-birth experience.

The controllers are only interested in inserting the new realty censors to make a monster.

Ain't drugs grand. Tune in, turn on and then lose your existing reality censors...Timothy Leary awaits your newly compliant state upon re-birth.

Tank said...

Roons.

Wow.

Haven't thought about Roons in a long time.

Wow.

Good vibes and memories.

Man.

Wow.

Tank said...

Ed

Psilocybin is not really conducive to driving, or wanting to drive, or wanting to do anything.

Meanwhile, "those" people on illegals are already out there, along with those floating along on prescription legals.

Cool man.

chickenlittle said...

I just knew that whole mind expansion thing was projection!

Revenant said...

Who here hadn't already realized that drugs slow down and limit your brain, not vice versa?

Suppressing brain activity in part of the brain is NOT the same thing as "slowing down and limiting your brain". If it was, we would be happy for schizophrenics and epileptics, with their energetic, highly-active brains.

Revenant said...

Newt's idea about a Draconic solution looks better all the time.

The funny thing is that you're so pro-Newt when he's the only pothead in the Republican race.

If drugs worry you so much, vote for a Mormon. :)

traditionalguy said...

Is Newt now a known Pot Head? What a day for him.

Actually Newt pre-dates the drug swarms of the mid to late 1960s.

He's an old timer that kept his mind for himself.

And Newt is not a Boomer. He is a crusty Traditionalist.

Rabel said...

"In Nutt's study, however, the psychedelic compound was administered intravenously..."

That's hardcore, man. Hardcore.

More importantly, my WV is "crack" unless that's a hallucination.

Rabel said...

Next WV - "grase'

Bloggers effin with my mind!!!

Rusty said...

OK. Now I know where the eighties went. Now if I could just find out what I did.

Revenant said...

Is Newt now a known Pot Head?

"Is" he? He admitted it back in the 90s during his last unfortunate foray into the national spotlight.

Actually Newt pre-dates the drug swarms of the mid to late 1960s.

Newt was in college through 1971, and used the ubiquity of college pot smoking as an excuse for his own indulgence of it.

Paddy O said...

"used the ubiquity as an excuse for his own indulgence of it".

This pretty much encapsulates my opinion of Newt's ethics on just about every topic.

edutcher said...

Revenant said...

Newt's idea about a Draconic solution looks better all the time.

The funny thing is that you're so pro-Newt when he's the only pothead in the Republican race.

If drugs worry you so much, vote for a Mormon. :)


Love to know when I said I was "so pro-Newt".

I said I liked Herman and Perry. I said I could live with Newt, but I always pointed out there was a down side as well as an up side.

And, as for the Mormon, the more I hear about what exactly he did with Bain Capital, the more I think I could live with him sooner than Newt.

Granted, as I've said before, I'd go into the voting booth with fingers crossed and saying marathon Hail Marys as I pulled the lever.

But Revenant knows all that. He just can't stand somebody recognizing the drug culture for the cancer it is.

PS I don't know if the blog has that kind of search capability, but, if it does, Revenant's welcome to dig through the past 4 or 5 months and see exactly what I said.

Bet he knows already.

Lem said...

Ok, maybe one more last time..

Wally Kalbacken said...

Dave? Dave's not here, man.

Lem said...

..allows for "an unconstrained style of cognition."

Thats our Newt ;)

Chuck66 said...

The idea of gettign a good feeling by restricting oxygen to the brain never really sounded like a good idea.

Chuck66 said...

edutcher...a lot of libertarians think legalizing drugs will solve many of the worlds problems.

Ask someone who has battle drugs much of their life what they think about making it even easier yet to get controlled substances.

Revenant said...

[Revenant] just can't stand somebody recognizing the drug culture for the cancer it is.

Quite the opposite; I recognize that people like you created that cancerous culture through prohibition. There was no "drug culture" to speak of before the government started banning the substances in question.

Fortunately, things do seem to be turning around. Most Americans now support decriminalization of marijuana, and slightly under half support full legalization. "Kill people who are caught with too much weed" is such a fringe opinion these days that Newt's supporters are forced to distance themselves from it and label it a "smear".

And small wonder; our last three Presidents were users, as is the current Republican front-runner. Odds are the next three Presidents will be as well. People fear the crime associated with the black market; they're not afraid of drug users themselves, so long as the use stays private.

Revenant said...

Ask someone who has battle drugs much of their life what they think about making it even easier yet to get controlled substances.

What does "battle drugs" mean? If the person's a recovering addict I imagine he would react negatively to drugs being easier to get. I've heard AA members argue that booze should be illegal, too, which sounds to me like trying to inflict public punishment for personal failure.

If, on the other hand, "battle drugs" means "in the law enforcement or treatment industries" I would expect much the same result you see when proposing school vouchers to public school employees: their financial well-being depends on keeping the current system in place. I forget who said it first, but you will never make someone understand when their self-interest depends on them not understanding.

edutcher said...

Revenant said...

[Revenant] just can't stand somebody recognizing the drug culture for the cancer it is.

Quite the opposite; I recognize that people like you created that cancerous culture through prohibition.


Try again, muchacho.

Marijuana and everything else of that sort was illegal for at least a half-century before the hippie dippy revolution of the 60s.

It was confined to a very small demimonde, mostly of musicians and some people in the inner city. The only drug in use in the larger population was the one which had been acculturated for centuries - alcohol (which BTW you can ingest without intending to become intoxicated - one drink won't make you drunk).

Only after the "Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out" nonsense was pushed on the Baby Boomers by the Leftists in this country as this swell way of rebelling did it become widespread.

I know the Libertarians (some) like to reshape reality so they can have their little dream world where nothing inconveniences them, but this is pretty well-documented history

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Fascinating, how some people choose various things to demonize. IMHO, alcohol (a drug) is worse than many 'drugs' that are currently 'illegal', but because it is 'socially acceptable' and big business/taxed, the ruination of families and the carnage on the roads continues.

No, I am not so libertarian to believe ALL drugs/substances should be legal. Nor do I think they should all be banned because some people can't handle it/themselves.

But I also recognize that gasoline, baseball bats and hammers in the wrong hands can be deadly too.

One thing I've observed about drugs in general - there are certain people that have trouble moderating/regulating themselves.

These people are what I call the 'all or nothing' types. Can't just have a few beers, but have to drink the whole 12 pack. Or the drug user that can't get high enough or has to escalate and try something a bit more 'dangerous'.

I don't care if Clinton, Bush or Newt smoked weed. I'd care more about theft, infidelity or murder for example, things I weight more heavily in terms of character.

And it certainly is interesting how a candidate was even brought up in response to this study.

edutcher said...

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Fascinating, how some people choose various things to demonize. IMHO, alcohol (a drug) is worse than many 'drugs' that are currently 'illegal', but because it is 'socially acceptable' and big business/taxed, the ruination of families and the carnage on the roads continues.

As I've mentioned here before, my dad was a drunk, so I have no affection for Demon Rum, but, if we're going to look at the pros and cons, a lot of people don't drink to get drunk, but that's what separates it from the others - them you take specifically to get high.

If alcohol disappeared tomorrow (or tonight (sorry, Meadhouse)), it would be fine with me.

Rockport Conservative said...

On a neuroscience bent today, my granddaughter who is studying for a degree in neuroscience at USC just posted this link on Facebook http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/
Interesting, spooky and scary but mainly interesting.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

edutcher

I hear you sir. I like my strong ales (never have more than 2 or 3 at a sitting) and the wife and I like our wines, but we never drink to get drunk. We both have been blessed with that built-in stop sign, the one that if ignored gets you a date with the porcelain god.

Alcoholism tends to run in families so I understand why you would eschew.

John Burgess said...

I have to laugh! 'I don't drink to get drunk'. Oh, really?

You just mean that you don't drink until you're unable to function or walk into walls or pay obeisance to the porcelain throne.

The alcohol in those two or three beers or other drinks is affecting your CNS, so don't kid yourself.

You're just talking about the degree of affect.

Similarly, those who use other drugs may or may not stop at a level beyond which they become seriously impaired. They're impaired, all right, but perhaps not at the falling down and doing stupid things like driving level of impairment.

Different drugs impair differently. Pot isn't great for driving. It doesn't lead to useful conversations with non-stoned people much either. But as an internal activity? Likely as good as prayer for many.

mariner said...

edutcher,
He just can't stand somebody recognizing the drug culture for the cancer it is.

And the War on Drugs is the "cure" that kills the patient.

Grandma Bee said...

My cousin, let's refer to her here as "Flora", used LSD as a teenager, and it garbled up her logic circuits. This makes for some serious muddles in family life.

E Dutcher said: "Marijuana and everything else of that sort was illegal for at least a half-century before the hippie dippy revolution of the 60s."

True. And then the big push came to decriminalize marijuana and "go after the pushers". Asinine decision. Decriminalizing weed made the market for the stuff skyrocket, made the trade more profitable, making life hell in many parts of the world for people who suddenly found drug cartels on their doorsteps, taking family members hostage to force farmers to grow drugs. A friend was the target of specific threats, from gangsters trying to induce his dad to use his company as a front for delivery. Mexico is going up in smoke because of drug cartels, and people in many other countries suffer rape and murder and terror.

Legalization will open the market further for the cartels, making life even more hellish for people in the cartels' path. So put that in your next joint and smoke it.

toby said...

Gee edutcher, you must be a lot of fun!!! Unfortunately ignorant, uninformed dipshits like you are allowed to vote and procreate, if you can get it up.

shiloh said...

"Gee edutcher, you must be a lot of fun!!! Unfortunately ignorant, uninformed dipshits like you are allowed to vote and procreate, if you can get it up."

toby wins the thread! :D

What a longgg strange trip it's been ...

Revenant said...

Marijuana and everything else of that sort was illegal for at least a half-century before the hippie dippy revolution of the 60s.

Um, no. The federal ban on sales of marijuana dates back to 1937, and "pot culture" started around 20 years later with the beatniks. Regardless, you've conceded my point -- the government campaign preceded it being any sort of "problem".

Only after the "Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out" nonsense [blah blah] did it become widespread.

The "Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out nonsense", as you refer to it, was about LSD, not marijuana -- and its popularity didn't skyrocket until the government began its campaign against LSD in '65.

Revenant said...

making life hell in many parts of the world for people who suddenly found drug cartels on their doorsteps

When's the last time you heard of a third-world drug cartel showing up on somebody's doorstep to set up a bootleg liquor distillery?

I'm guessing "never". Because while Americans were at one point dumb enough to create an incredibly lucrative black market in alcohol, we were (eventually) smart enough to eliminate that black market. Not through law enforcement (which did nothing but empower the government, corrupt law enforcement, and get a lot of people killed), but through repeal. And contrary to the predictions of Prohibition supporters, Americans did not immediate run out and drink themselves into a coma. In fact we managed to go on to accomplish some pretty amazing things.

So now we have drug prohibtion, which has managed to empower government, corrupt law enforcement, and get a lot of people killed, but which (like alcohol prohibition before it) has made absolutely no headway towards discouraging drug use. Guess what? Once again Americans are, slowly, wising up -- we are, slowly, coming to realize that spending tens of billions of dollars a year to turn our urban centers into shooting ranges is not the smartest thing we ever did with our money. :)

edutcher said...

toby said...

Gee edutcher, you must be a lot of fun!!! Unfortunately ignorant, uninformed dipshits like you are allowed to vote and procreate, if you can get it up.

Funny, I thought druggies like toby had all the performance problems.

And, of course, it's the enlightened Lefties, who believe in all kinds of rights, that want to deny the vote to anyone who disagrees with them.

And let's not forget, though toby says I'm "ignorant and uninformed", he has no intelligent rebuttal to what I say, so I must be correct.

And, yes, The Blonde and a lot of other people I know say I'm tons of fun, largely because I don't have to get stoned out of my mind to enjoy life. Unlike toby, who spends his life trolling on blogs like this because he's mad at the world and hasn't got a life.

Revenant said...

Marijuana and everything else of that sort was illegal for at least a half-century before the hippie dippy revolution of the 60s.

Um, no. The federal ban on sales of marijuana dates back to 1937, and "pot culture" started around 20 years later with the beatniks. Regardless, you've conceded my point -- the government campaign preceded it being any sort of "problem".


Um, yes.

Marijana was first outlawed in this country in 1906.

The Marijuana Transfer Tax Act only prohibited the production of hemp in addition to marijuana.

And, obviously, there was a problem or it wouldn't have been outlawed. Up to the end of the 19th Century, a good many proscribed drugs were legal, but clearly people noticed a problem and they were outlawed.

Which did not result in a drug culture. That came a half century later.

You lose.

But, as I say, some Libertarians and a lot of Lefties try so very hard to rearrange things to fit their own little dream world.

But, if you have to lie, like shiloh, it really kills the point.

Revenant said...

Marijana was first outlawed in this country in 1906.

That's an awfully dishonest way of saying "in 1906 marijuana use in the District of Columbia was restricted to require a doctor's prescription".

And, obviously, there was a problem or it wouldn't have been outlawed.

I think I'll have to remember that statement for the next time I see you claiming to be a conservative, ed. It is particularly amusing considering how many *other* things the federal government outlawed during the early 20th century -- things like "setting your own working hours" and "growing too much wheat".

One final note -- you persist in equating "drug culture" with "60s hippies". But the drug culture of the 60s ended in the mid-70s; neither it nor anything like it exists today. The drug culture of today is primarily found in urban areas and is centered around control of the black markets in drug distribution. That is the "cancer on society". Hippy culture wasn't a "cancer" -- more like a temporary case of the sniffles. :)

edutcher said...

Revenant said...

I think I'll have to remember that statement for the next time I see you claiming to be a conservative

You must be mccullough in drag. That's his line.

And proscribed is proscribed.

But, if we want to get picky, there's always the Harrison Act of 1914, which regulated opiates, which had been previously legal - laudanum (tincture of opium), coca (cola). The reason was linkage to crime.

So I'd say I proved my point.

One final note -- you persist in equating "drug culture" with "60s hippies". But the drug culture of the 60s ended in the mid-70s; neither it nor anything like it exists today.

Of course not. That's why we have people like Peter Lewis lobbying for marijuana legalization. That's why one of The Blonde's friends gave her husband a bag of marijuana as a Christmas present.

And somebody tell the bathtub swabbie if he thinks toby won the thread, his standards are as low as his IQ.

Chuck66 said...

My point about talking to someone who "has battle drugs". I meant if you ever talk to someone who started using drugs, and then couldn't stop. They talk about the cravings and how they would do anything to get a controlled substance (don't mean booze or pot).

By legalizing these substances, the problem doesn't go away, it just makes it easier for the addicts to get going.

I love booze and certainly don't want to see it illegal, but just look at the problems it causes.
Same with gambling. As someone who has spent some time as an auditor, I can tell you that legalized gambling has been a boon for my profession. All those middle aged ladies who spend their days as clerks in a small business, non-profit, or as a care giver for a disabled person, then go to the casino every night.

These are people who wouldn't call a bookie otherwise, but will gamble if they can walk into a legal casino.

Revenant said...

And proscribed is proscribed.

Sure, but your claim is that "proscribed" is the same as "proscribed for a good reason". To which I offer a three word response: "incandescent light bulbs".

if we want to get picky, there's always the Harrison Act of 1914

Changing the subject from marijuana, are we? You're getting closer, but that still wasn't a ban -- *use* of opiates and cocaine remained legal, as did production and distribution by licensed companies.

The reason was linkage to crime.

That's a euphemistic way of describing what happened. Government officials and journalists blamed cocaine for an nonexistent "epidemic" of black-on-white rape and opium for a similarly mythical surge in Chinese criminal activity.

So I'd say I proved my point.

I'm confident you'll keep saying that; you wouldn't be you if you didn't. I'll just add "the government said it was necessary ergo it was" to the list of claims I'll remind you about the next time EPA Global Warming regulations are under discussion.

That's why we have people like Peter Lewis lobbying for marijuana legalization

Your example of a hippie who turned on, tuned in, and dropped out is a billionaire insurance executive born in 1933?

It is certainly true that support for legalization is more common on the left than the right; 50% of Americans support legalization, but only 34% of conservatives. That 34% includes people like Grover Norquist, Glen Beck, the infamous Koch Brothers, and (before their undoubtedly drug-related deaths) Bill Buckley and Milton Friedman.

It is, to put it mildly, a lot easier to find pro-legalization conservatives than it is to find conservatives who share your "if the government banned something it must have been a problem" mindset. After all, 34% of conservatives favor legalization, but almost none think the government never passes bad laws for dumb reasons. :)

reformed trucker said...

"(Which BTW you can ingest without intending to become intoxicated - one drink won't make you drunk)." - edutcher

Right, just like doing a few hits of weed won't turn you into a zombie. You sound like a victim of too many "Reefer Madness" propaganda films. Let me guess... you've never tried drugs, but you like to pontificate. Or you did , but can't self-regulate.

Since you're OCD, don't even sniff a beer cap; you might start raping women and drive your car into a tree.

reformed trucker said...

"Funny, I thought druggies...blah, blah blah." - edutcher

Since you had a beer, you're an alcoholic; and the alcoholic wants to lecture us on what?

How's that for a return strawman argument?

reformed trucker said...

"So I'd say I proved my point." - edutcher

Where? Hyperbole proves nothing.

I assume you never studied logic...

edutcher said...

Revenant said...

And proscribed is proscribed.

Sure, but your claim is that "proscribed" is the same as "proscribed for a good reason". To which I offer a three word response: "incandescent light bulbs".


I understand why you want to weasel. So the laws were still there, but they're only valid if you say so.

Cute.

if we want to get picky, there's always the Harrison Act of 1914

Changing the subject from marijuana, are we? You're getting closer, but that still wasn't a ban -- *use* of opiates and cocaine remained legal, as did production and distribution by licensed companies.


More weaseling. I said marijuana and drugs of that sort. I also said illegal, but you wanted to limit it to federal laws. There were plenty of state laws.

But, if we're going that route, let's see, there was the Pure Food and Drug Act, the Smoking Opium Exclusion Act, the Heroin Act,
the Narcotic Drug Import and Export Act, and on and on.

Because Peter Lewis was a business success, he wasn't part of the drug culture. Gee, it must be nice to rearrange every argument the second you start to lose. But, if we're going by age and station in life, how old was Timothy Leary in '67?

Another Revenant/Seven Machos excursion into Libertarian incoherence.

And I'm not sure what reformed_trucker was talking about, but neither is he, in all probability.

Revenant said...

My point about talking to someone who "has battle drugs". I meant if you ever talk to someone who started using drugs, and then couldn't stop.

Why would you think I haven't? It is just that "drugs should be illegal" doesn't follow from "drug addiction is terrible for addicts and those around them".

Ed keeps snarking off against libertarianism, but you don't even need to reach the libertarian argument to conclude that the war on drugs is dumb. The conservative argument against it is good enough, and is the same as the conservative argument against unlimited welfare and unemployment benefits: it is very, very expensive and makes the problem it is supposed to solve, worse.

reformed trucker said...

"And I'm not sure what reformed_trucker is talking about, but neither is he, in all probability."

OK, you've demonstrated that you've never studied the laws of logic or mathematical probability. I'll put it in terms you can understand.

You're talking out your ass. You might want to wipe first, so it won't taste too bad.

Understand, simpleton?

Revenant said...

I understand why you want to weasel. So the laws were still there, but they're only valid if you say so.

Oh, is that what "proscribed is proscribed" was supposed to mean? No, I wasn't conceding that America banned pot in 1906 (since "requires a prescription in the District of Columbia" is obviously not the same as "banned in the USA"). Possession and personal use of marijuana was legal under United States law until 1937.

I said marijuana and drugs of that sort.

Setting aside the fact that opium and cocaine have nothing in common with marijuana, there's still the inconvenient fact that the Harrison Act didn't ban the possession or use of opiates and cocaine. So even if cocaine and opium were of the same "sort" of drug as marijuana, your claim that they were banned 50 years prior to the 60s drug scene would still be wrong.

let's see, there was the Pure Food and Drug Act,

Which required that marijuana products be properly labelled, but which did not ban the drug.

the Smoking Opium Exclusion Act

Which banned the use of opium for smoking, but not the drug itself or other forms of the drug.

the Heroin Act

Hey, the first ACTUAL drug ban. Congrats! Passed in 1924, immediately led to gang warfare for control of the heroin trade. By 1948 heroin culture was widespread enough that the Mafia got involved and took over the black market.

Narcotic Drug Import and Export Act

Regulated the import and export of narcotics, as one might guess from the name. Contained no bans on drug use. So, again, failure on your part.

But do go on, I enjoy deflating these little trial balloons of yours.

Because Peter Lewis was a business success, he wasn't part of the drug culture.

Oh, I'm open to hearing your explanation of how Lewis "turned on, tuned in, and dropped out". It is just that you haven't offered one yet.

I'm not sure what reformed_trucker was talking about

He's mocking your "MY drug use isn't a problem because I keep it under control" schtick. Glad I could clear that up for you.

reformed trucker said...

OK, now I understand. edutcher is a sociocon with a low IQ.

Had I known, I wouldn't waste my breath(so to speak).

And Seven Machos would shred you in a debate, Mr. Logical Fallacies. Stay out of your league.

And no, it's not an ad hominem if it's true.

I'm a conservative Libertarian, and people like you piss me off when they pretend to be "conservative".

Did you mean "Facist"?

reformed trucker said...

Shit, I've never even got to my original comment on the topic because of edutcher's asinine, illogical rabbit trails. Now it's bedtime... I have to drive from Hartland to Verona tomorrow to work at Epic. I'll have to comment tomorrow night (if I don't have to snow plow).

Thanks for fucking up my original train of thought, Mr. Fallacy.

Palladian said...

edutcher doesn't like us queers out there sucking cock either.

I'm a strange case. I actually hate marijuana and I generally hate being around potheads. I don't generally like being around any drugged-up people, though I make an exception for drunk people if I'm drunk too, because it's easier to score some cock to suck in those situations...

Anyway, despite the fact that I don't like hanging around druggies, I've come to realize that, regardless of my feelings, it's immoral and counterproductive to a free, liberty-loving society for me to advocate the use of State power to sanction people for engaging in consensual activities, however self-destructive they may be. It's totally legitimate for churches and other social organizations and individuals to discourage activities that they have decided are morally or socially damaging, of course. But to use, or advocate the use of, the coercive power of the State to proscribe and punish runs counter to my understanding of the ideal of American liberty.

In all things, natural Rights trump personal moral inclinations.

Nora said...

If you gallucinate without drugs you are a nutcase, but if you halucinate on drugs you are expanding your mind?

Revenant said...

If you gallucinate without drugs you are a nutcase, but if you halucinate on drugs you are expanding your mind?

I wouldn't recommend gallucinating under any circumstances. It sounds unsanitary.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Somebody tell the trucker if you have to call names, you've already lost.

All I saw was a lot of invective, no argument.

And I've gotten the better of Seven on several occasions, thank you.

As for logic, Bachelor's in Computer Science from the University of Akron.

And, if "sociocon" is social Conservative, I am. I hate to tell the Libertarians they aren't the arbiters of what's Conservative, although it seems they like to fantasize they are.

And tell Revenant marijuana was covered under state poison laws at the turn of the last century.

He still loses.

Jaske said...

Knight?
Oops.
Knight?

oops,L space

Confusion isn't thinking.

purplepenquin said...

When edutcher said that there was a good reason why the marijuana laws were first enacted do you think he actually knew what that reason was?

"The primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races" was what HJ Anslinger (Director of the recently-formed Bureau of Narcotics) told Congress when the ban was first being considered. He also went on to say that "Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men" and "Marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others." Other people testified about how black men would look white men in the eyes and even dare to step on their shadow!

Is that really a good reason to ban anything?



(What is really interesting is that the first law in America regarding this plant wasn't a ban but rather a requirement. Colonists in Jamestown were ordered, by law, to grow it)

Mike said...

Maybe you can't drive on psilocybin but I can. Whooooo hooooo! Psychedelics have made me want to go and do stuff. Haven't you ever heard of hippies doing shrooms and wandering in the forest?

Revenant said...

And tell Revenant marijuana was covered under state poison laws at the turn of the last century.

Lost the nerve to speak to me directly, eh?

If you want to change your story from "marijuana was illegal" to "marijuana was regulated", I'll be happy to agree. But like I've pointed out to you several times, it was legal to use until the 30s.

Anyway, you appear to have been reduced to petulant complaints about people who disagree with you, so I think we're done here. :)