General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkSteel View Post
Why would gangsters still want to sell weed if it will be available everywhere for cheap? You increase the supply and the demand goes away. The market will be flooded with weed.

For the same reason they do it today with other things. The man wants it's money, so you buy it cheaper from well, not the man. Not to mention the social stigma in it ...do you think guys with suits will take the elevator down, and go get a joint from the marijuana vending machine in between meetings?
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 12-12-2006, 07:30 AM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#511  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
Well, I dunno how often people are robbing a Mcd's to get money for weed but that's not really what we are talking about. We're talking about the supply side here. Customers and what they do to get money to afford their next fix is more of a discussion for harder drugs. With marijuana the problem is far more that the profits from its sales are funding organized crime and international cartels which in turn funds more crime and rounding up non-violent marijuana users takes money and man hours away from solving more serious crimes.
Well, pretty much everything black market does.
Quote:
Legalizing marijuana would free up the money and man hours we are currently wasting on arresting marijuana users and taxes on it could provide a revenue stream to further combat crime and addiction. Also, it would remove marijuana as a revenue stream from criminals. It is win-win-win all around. Legalizing theft or rape or murder would not have the same benefits and would result in more victimization, not less. Legalizing and regulating prostitution would be more comparable to legalizing and regulating marijuana.
Ah but now you're not really talking about the sole legal implications. Which is what I have been talking about.
Quote:
And yes, organized crime does currently dip into legal stuff as well like alcohol and cigarettes, because they have the money to bribe law enforcement and the money to pay people to give them information on supply routes and the money to pay people to steal trucks and they have the distribution channels to move the stolen goods so then they can go and sell legal merchandise that they have stolen for nearly 100% profit. Money from drugs funds more crime just like this. Alcohol prohibition is what gave organized crime its big start and power in this nation and our current prohibitions on "vice" help perpetuate that legacy both here and abroad.
I was rather thinking of untaxed foreign/distilled alcohol and cigarettes myself, but I guess that's a geographic thing.
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 12-12-2006, 07:34 AM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#512  

Junkie Mod
totensiebush
shit the needle broke off in my ass cheek
 
Junkie Mod's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straw Man View Post
For the same reason they do it today with other things. The man wants it's money, so you buy it cheaper from well, not the man. Not to mention the social stigma in it ...do you think guys with suits will take the elevator down, and go get a joint from the marijuana vending machine in between meetings?
so are there a lot of people selling illegal alcohol? maybe some, but nowhere near as many as sell legal alcohol.
Old 12-13-2006, 04:19 PM Junkie Mod is offline  
Reply With Quote
#513  

uprising4a
 
In terms of the article: http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v05/n1106/a09.htm


First of all, this is a case-controlled study which is a really weak form of study. These type of retrospective studies are limited in the fact that 1.) you have recall bias, that is, people are recalling past behavior is often times flawed, 2.) selecting a control group is hard and is based on the researchers judgement (which in fact, seems to already be biased on his relations), 3.) these studies CANNOT determine rates or the risk of the disease in exposed and non-exposed people and most importantly, 4.) they cannot prove cause-effect relationships.

On top of that, using odds ratio cannot determine the risk of contracting a disease because the proportion of people in the study who do have disease is determined by the researcher's and not by the actual proportion in the population. (odds ratio = (odds that a case was exposed to the risk factor) / (odds that a control was exposed to the risk factor).

Anyways, just from the fact that this was a case-controlled study, without looking at anything else, I would disregard his claims...this study at best warrants further research.

And my credentials include a BS in biology from UCLA, a MS in physiology at Georgetown, and MD candidate at Saint Louis University.

HOLLA!

edit: I'm actually a proponent of legalizing marijuana...but at the same time I'm kind of wary of the fact that marijuana is a 'gateway' drug.
__________________
i is cool

Last edited by uprising4a; 12-14-2006 at 04:15 PM..
Old 12-14-2006, 03:31 PM uprising4a is offline  
Reply With Quote
#514  

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkie Mod View Post
so are there a lot of people selling illegal alcohol? maybe some, but nowhere near as many as sell legal alcohol.

In here, yes. Yes there are, probably plenty of more than people who go around selling weed
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 12-14-2006, 04:31 PM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#515  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Tashkin is a respected researcher who believed he would find a dose related response and was surprised by his own findings. He has been doing research into marijuana's effects on lungs for at least a decade now, probably longer. His work is often cited by the government in claims of various harms though he often has to correct their interpretations of his data.

Quote:
1.) you have recall bias,
And how much of a confounder would that be in this instance? People forgot how much weed they smoked so they might be in a different group?

Quote:
2.) selecting a control group is hard
How so? Non-smokers wouldn't satisfy the requirements for a control here?

Quote:
3.) these studies CANNOT determine rates or the risk of the disease in exposed and non-exposed people and most importantly
Perhaps not to an exact degree but I don't think that is the purpose.

Quote:
4.) they cannot prove cause-effect relationships.
I don't think they are supposed to. They find trends not absolutes. A hypothesis attempts to explain the trend and further testing and studying and data refines the hypothesis.

The trend identified in the study seemed to be a negative correlation between smoking marijuana and cancer as opposed to the expected positive one.


Also, the "gateway" theory has been debunked numerous times in numerous ways, links to several debunkings are in this thread. There is a debunking article several posts above.

Here's a look at some of the numbers: http://www.stats.org/stories/2003/re...y_jan30_03.htm
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 12-14-2006, 04:57 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#516  

uprising4a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
And how much of a confounder would that be in this instance? People forgot how much weed they smoked so they might be in a different group?


How so? Non-smokers wouldn't satisfy the requirements for a control here?


Perhaps not to an exact degree but I don't think that is the purpose.


I don't think they are supposed to. They find trends not absolutes. A hypothesis attempts to explain the trend and further testing and studying and data refines the hypothesis.

The trend identified in the study seemed to be a negative correlation between smoking marijuana and cancer as opposed to the expected positive one.


Also, the "gateway" theory has been debunked numerous times in numerous ways, links to several debunkings are in this thread. There is a debunking article several posts above.

Here's a look at some of the numbers: http://www.stats.org/stories/2003/re...y_jan30_03.htm

Here's the thing about researchers - they all want to find exciting new results so that they can continue to get funding. Now I'm not saying he's a bad researcher...but he has a motive in publishing his results and getting attention to it. How do I know? Because I've worked in quite a few labs. Hence, researcher bias is often very high in case-control studies because its almost impossible to blind the researcher.

First, lets look at what the calculated odds ratio is: its [(have cancer/smoked) x (no cancer/no smoking)] / [(no cancer/smoked) x (cancer/no smoking)]

1 - Often times in these types of studies, subjects exaggerate or under report their responses, especially when it comes to drug, alcohol, or tobacco use (and I would assume a greater bias in this study because of the nature of the drug). For example, if most of the people under reported their usage of marijuana, then more people of the 1209 with cancer should be put in a higher joint-years group. The more people in higher joint year groups could give a higher odds ratio (because the numerator in the odds ratio is people who have cancer and who have smoked) for their particular group and hence, a higher odds ratio. Now we all know, as it is with tobacco use, the longer you smoke, the higher chance of getting cancer. This is just an example of recall bias and again, its known that in these types of recalls involving usage, bias can be quite high. In addition, another bias that just popped into my head is the sample taken, that being from Los Angeles and not a nationwide sample (an example of why this could affect results could be people in Los Angeles are more health conscious and have lower rates of certain types of cancer).


2 - So the first and main criteria in the control group would be that they don't have cancer. THATS the criteria and not if they smoked marijuana or not. But how would the researcher pick a random sample from the population? There are so many variables in picking the control that I could give you a million reasons why it would be flawed. Most likely he would have taken a random sample of people people without cancer and took a history. Taking random samples in itself has a ton of flaws associated with it. A quick example is that he happened to survey college students (college students are poor, willing to get $5 to take a survey). Of course with college students you'll have a higher percentage than the regular population who have smoked marijuana but because they are young, they wouldn't have cancer...this would give a very large denominator and hence, a small odds ratio. The problems in the determining the control group is one of the main reasons why case-control studies are so limited...because its so hard to account for the variables in the control.

3 - Youre wrong in where you say 'not to an exact degree'. Case control studies don't, period.

4 - You're right - they find trends. But my problem with this article is that it doesn't really state that case control studies find trends...it more or less states that marijuana use and cancer are not related which is not proven. Also, the other problem I have is that the findings can be so biased and prone to error that the articles value (as well as the research paper) is very very limited, as are MOST CASE CONTROL STUDIES> Another thing, correlation and odds ratio are very different things...this does NOT show negative correlation though I know what you're trying to say.
__________________
i is cool
Old 12-14-2006, 06:22 PM uprising4a is offline  
Reply With Quote
#517  

Dyno
Come hither Sancho Panza, I have need of my Lance
 
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines

Marijuana is thought to be one of the biggest crops in the US now.
Old 12-18-2006, 09:52 AM Dyno is offline  
Reply With Quote
#518  

Madalynn
Inno887
 
 
Weed is pretty crazy for a first timer if you smoke alot through a bong.
__________________
totensiebush's adopted n00b

._--_|\
/........\
\_.--.Sydney
.......v
Old 12-18-2006, 06:10 PM Madalynn is offline  
Reply With Quote
#519  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uprising4a View Post
Here's the thing about researchers - they all want to find exciting new results so that they can continue to get funding. Now I'm not saying he's a bad researcher...but he has a motive in publishing his results and getting attention to it. How do I know? Because I've worked in quite a few labs. Hence, researcher bias is often very high in case-control studies because its almost impossible to blind the researcher.

In order to continue to receive finding for further marijuana studies from the government it is usually preferred if your findings cast marijuana in a negative and dangerous light. I don't see how saying that marijuana doesn't seem to have a dose related response to cancer is going to get him more funding or do much for his career from their point of view. Now, if he said smoking even one joint could give you cancer and could back it up in any meaningful way they'd probably be falling over themselves to throw money at him. I think the reason they funded him in the first place is because he is the one who discovered that marijuana smoke can produce pre-cancerous anomalies and also that he believed that he would find a dose related response. I don't see why he would deliberately slant his findings against what he expected to find and against what his likely future funding depended upon. Hopefully they will continue to do research in this area but if the studies don't find what the right people want then they may not receive further funds. When it comes to marijuana and funding from the government: harm = funds, no harm = no funds. They don't want to waste their money being proven wrong, it has happened to them too many times in the past.


Quote:
1 - Often times in these types of studies, subjects exaggerate or under report their responses, especially when it comes to drug, alcohol, or tobacco use (and I would assume a greater bias in this study because of the nature of the drug). For example, if most of the people under reported their usage of marijuana, then more people of the 1209 with cancer should be put in a higher joint-years group. The more people in higher joint year groups could give a higher odds ratio (because the numerator in the odds ratio is people who have cancer and who have smoked) for their particular group and hence, a higher odds ratio. Now we all know, as it is with tobacco use, the longer you smoke, the higher chance of getting cancer.
I understand but what I'm saying is wouldn't that kind of recall bias slant the study in the direction of making marijuana seem more dangerous, not less? If people report less than they had actually used and are then placed in a lower use +cancer group based upon their false recall, shouldn't that make marijuana seem more dangerous? Meaning it would seem as though it took less smoking to produce cancer...

Or if people didn't have cancer and smoked more than they remembered, that too would seem to change the apparent safety margin, although less so than the first instance. Of course it could go the other way too but I dunno, how far off do you think that is really going to throw the findings? Are people going to completely lie about their marijuana use and somehow hide that they have cancer? I guess that is possible too but there should still be at least some statistical correlation one way or another, even with slightly skewed values.

my personal opinion is that the lack of cancer probably has something to do with the fact that although many or most of the constituents of the smoke between cigarettes and marijuana are similar not all of them are, specifically the active ingredients in the smoke. This is because they are different plants and are generally produced by different agricultural means. But the biggest difference is probably that people generally smoke far less marijuana than tobacco. You'd have to smoke 2/3rds of an ounce of weed every day just to compete with a pack a day smoker in terms of plant material smoked. Very very few people ever consume that amount of marijuana and even those that do manage to do not do it on a daily basis for years on end. That level of tobacco consumption is far more common however.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyno View Post
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines

Marijuana is thought to be one of the biggest crops in the US now.
Federal Data: http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs11/18862/marijuan.htm

There might be problems though:
Quote:
Using data on the number of pounds eradicated by police around the U.S., Gettman produced estimates of the likely size and value of the cannabis crop in each state.
Unfortunately:
Quote:
Nearly 98 percent of the marijuana seized under the DEA's "Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program" is feral hemp - a non-psychoactive variety of marijuana, according to figures published in latest edition of the US Bureau of Justice Statistics Source book.
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4354

I'm not sure if those are the same data sets though.

Quote:
Tom Riley, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, cited examples of foreign countries that have struggled with big crops used to produce cocaine and heroin. "Coca is Colombia's largest cash crop and that hasn't worked out for them, and opium poppies are Afghanistan's largest crop, and that has worked out disastrously for them," Riley said. "I don't know why we would venture down that road."
Columbia is in trouble because the drug cartels rival the government in power thanks to the profits they rake in and those profits are specifically because of our policies. Yay prohibition. Now if Columbia was recognizing the benefits of taxes from a legitimate cocaine trade and wasn't trying to compete with rival armies within its own borders they'd probably be a lot better off. http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=10180

Once again any problems in Afghanistan are a result of our policies. The poppies wouldn't be nearly as profitable if not for us and the international war on drugs. Once again our own policies are hurting us. The funds realized from profitable poppy sales are funding the taliban and other anti-US groups. http://www.slate.com/id/2110987/ And the really sad part is there is a legitimate market out there for needed opiate drugs that could be made from those poppies in a legal market. Drug prohibition, it doesn't really stop drugs and it allows criminals and terrorists to profit, but hey, what else are you gonna do? Allow people to get high legally? !!

All you'd need to do is legalize marijuana and that ~$35 billion dollar annual value would turn into maybe ~$3.5 billion in one year. The only reason that marijuana is valued at between $1600 -$4000 (government and study numbers) now is because of prohibition. Organic fruit should cost more than legal marijuana because it is more expensive and difficult to grow and is more perishable as well but it costs several dollars per pound at your local market, not hundreds or thousands of dollars.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Last edited by pyramid; 12-19-2006 at 06:09 PM..
Old 12-18-2006, 07:52 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#520  

nD[ - Slayer
 
Hay guys, what's going on in this thread?
Old 01-05-2007, 01:52 PM nD[ - Slayer is offline  
Reply With Quote
#521  

Escaped Gorilla Genitals
Jim Morrison
Hey, Jim <3 ules, You didn't deserve this because you can't guess numbers but anyways BREAK ON TH
 
Escaped Gorilla Genitals's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madalynn View Post
Weed is pretty crazy for a first timer if you smoke alot through a bong.

I only had a little bit through an old pipe my first time and it freaked me the fuck out.
Old 01-05-2007, 04:13 PM Escaped Gorilla Genitals is offline  
Reply With Quote
#522  

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
I smoked some pot last month
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 01-05-2007, 04:32 PM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#523  

Suid-Afrika
 
Marijuana makes me anti-social at parties but when I combine to with alcohol we're good to go.
Old 01-14-2007, 12:47 PM Suid-Afrika is offline  
Reply With Quote
#524  

Melvin
 
should be states rights.
Old 01-15-2007, 05:35 PM Melvin is offline  
Reply With Quote
#525  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:58 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.