Author Topic: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules  (Read 8666 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« on: February 27, 2017, 12:49:23 PM »
So I was reading the CBS piece on fears that the Trump admin may step up enforcement of the Federal rules making pot illegal, and I was really struck by one particular statistic.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-threat-recreational-marijuana-industry-colorado/

Quote
But a poll this month showed 71 percent do not want the government enforcing federal laws against marijuana in states that have already legalized medical or recreational marijuana.

That led me to ask myself, why is that 71% would be in favor of not enforcing the law, when 71% is more than enough to change the law?  Is it just bad polling, or do we have a problem even understanding how our government and laws ought to work.  Why are we not fixing the law if its not what we want the law to be?

As an aside, on the media bias issue, this is being covered in a very pro pot manner, with the potential negative economic impact (to the illegal pot industry) emphasized above the economic harms that it creates, emphasis on the impact of bringing it out of the shadows (for safety and reduction of gate way use) but nothing on any negative impacts on motivation and health. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2017, 01:51:42 PM »
In this instance I think the correct answer is that yes, we do have a problem understanding how our government and laws ought to work. Or perhaps this conclusion can be clarified into stating that even if people do understand it to some extent, they don't understand exactly why the government and laws don't work as intended.

In the case of recreational drugs (especially pot) there is are powerful external elements impeding on the matter being settled based on the desires of any given populace. Several parties that can be hard to identify - but no doubt include big pharma and the DEA - have a vested interest in squashing any move towards normalizing pot use in the U.S. The for-profit prison system and perhaps a few racist groups are also keen to keep drug-related arrests rolling in. I'm sure it's more complex than what I just said, but all of these forces have done all they could for as long as they could to maintain their war on drugs.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2017, 02:47:49 PM »
We don't want it prosecuted but we don't want it advertised, and SCOTUS wont let us make it legal without bloody advertising it to our kids like they pretend they aren't doing with lichor commercials

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2017, 02:58:14 PM »
First, it is probably not an explosion of interest in state's rights.

Second, people often vote for candidates who do not support their every view. Would they withdraw support on this one issue alone? There are bills regularly introduced to put marijuana on the same legal footing as alcohol federally, but they never make it to a hearing. Partly, this is due to Republican control of the house. Paul Ryan might be able to get away with it, but maybe not.

I don't think that this is very different from past precedent. There's been a lot of question as to how aggressively to enforce various laws.

It is important to note that a smaller majority supports legalization in the same poll. Which means they are afraid of what might happen if it is legalized everywhere? Or what might happen if Feds start stomping around? Or, they don't want it legal in their state but could care less if Coloradans have it.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2017, 03:13:33 PM »
It is important to note that a smaller majority supports legalization in the same poll. Which means they are afraid of what might happen if it is legalized everywhere? Or what might happen if Feds start stomping around? Or, they don't want it legal in their state but could care less if Coloradans have it.

I think it is this one. They don't care if other states legalize it, just as long as it doesn't happen in theirs. Which would also explain the 71% polling number.

So I guess the solution here would be the Federal Government, or more accurately, Congress, to pass legislation that puts a timer on the end to the Federal Prohibitions, but is worded in such a way as to devolve control of the issue to the respective states, while possibly retaining a Federal ability to intervene in the event of "unauthorized(by the involved state(s)) inter-state commerce."

I'm not sure what such a bill would even look like, but whatever.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2017, 03:55:37 PM »
It's not that complicated, just remove the Federal mandate on illegality and it automatically devolves to the states.  There are counties that have made alcohol sales illegal, notwithstanding that prohibition was repealed. 

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2017, 06:52:57 PM »
It's not that complicated, just remove the Federal mandate on illegality and it automatically devolves to the states.  There are counties that have made alcohol sales illegal, notwithstanding that prohibition was repealed.
I'd be surprised if Congress could get even something that simple passed. It's not just the vested interests in keeping drugs illegal but also the need for partisan grandstanding (from both sides). There's just not enough gloating rights associated with it.

There's also the question of whether or not that 71% wants Congress to spend time on this. They've volunteered themselves for a pretty significant challenge in repairing/repealing/replacing the ACA and a lot of people would probably prefer they be about that rather than reigning in the DEA. The executive telling the cops to be reasonable seems like a good stop-gap while Congress deals with a bigger problem.

The other thing is that just because a large majority doesn't want the federal law enforced it doesn't mean they agree with how the Feds should go about it. Some would protest quite strongly at my suggestion above; others would be unhappy with anything less than total repeal of the drug laws and see any attempt at compromise as an unacceptable obstacle to that. Crafting a solution that has majority support might not be as easy as it seems from the survey.

Canada's Liberal Party recently backed down from a promise to reform our electoral system using just such a reason. A majority of people want the system to change but there's no consensus among them on what it should change to. Though there seems to be some dispute about how valid the Liberals' polls are. So maybe there is a majority for reforming to a specific system just not the one the Liberals wanted, so they sabotaged the attempt. That's politics.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2017, 07:27:51 PM »
Seriati,

there is an extremely powerful minority voting block (religious conservatives) who oppose marijuana decriminalization and there are a number of well monied lobbyists (pharmaceuticals, alcohol, prisons) who oppose decriminalization.

Since decriminalization isn't a priority for the vast majority of the non vocal majority, and those that are strong on the issue aren't well funded, then a political system that allows corporate donations will serve the interests of the corporations.

So it isn't the public that misunderstands democracy, it is simply that we aren't a democracy and the behaviour of our 'representatives' demonstrates this fact.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2017, 02:32:21 PM »
It's not that complicated, just remove the Federal mandate on illegality and it automatically devolves to the states.  There are counties that have made alcohol sales illegal, notwithstanding that prohibition was repealed.

Advertising alcohol remains legal in counties where alcohol sales are illegal. So no, it's not that simple.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2017, 02:34:19 PM »
Quote
there is an extremely powerful minority voting block (religious conservatives) who oppose marijuana decriminalization

I would contest both that they re mail extremely powerful, and that they Unitededly care about mj

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2017, 03:59:52 PM »
Pete, there are restrictions placed on cigarette advertisements so there is precedent to restrict advertising of certain harmful substances.

From wikipedia:
Quote
"Passed in 1997, the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement bans outdoor, billboard, and public transportation advertising of cigarettes in 46 states. It also prohibits tobacco advertising that targets young people, the usage of cartoons (such as the Marlboro Man or Joe Camel) in particular.[65] In the states which have not signed the agreement, billboards are a major venue of cigarette advertising (10% of Michigan billboards advertised alcohol and tobacco, according to the Detroit Free Press[66]).

In 2010, the Tobacco Control Act became active and placed new restrictions on tobacco marketing, including extensive constraints concerning the circulation of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to minors. Newly effective with this act, "audio advertisements are not permitted to contain any music or sound effects, while video advertisements are limited to static black text on a white background. Any audio soundtrack accompanying a video advertisement is limited to words only, with no music or sound effects."[67]"


Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2017, 11:19:01 PM »
Pete, there are restrictions placed on cigarette advertisements so there is precedent to restrict advertising of certain harmful substances.

From wikipedia:
Quote
"Passed in 1997, the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement bans outdoor, billboard, and public transportation advertising of cigarettes in 46 states. It also prohibits tobacco advertising that targets young people, the usage of cartoons (such as the Marlboro Man or Joe Camel) in particular.[65] In the states which have not signed the agreement, billboards are a major venue of cigarette advertising (10% of Michigan billboards advertised alcohol and tobacco, according to the Detroit Free Press[66]).

In 2010, the Tobacco Control Act became active and placed new restrictions on tobacco marketing, including extensive constraints concerning the circulation of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to minors. Newly effective with this act, "audio advertisements are not permitted to contain any music or sound effects, while video advertisements are limited to static black text on a white background. Any audio soundtrack accompanying a video advertisement is limited to words only, with no music or sound effects."[67]"

And yet the alcohol continues to get pushed.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2017, 11:57:37 PM »
And yet the alcohol continues to get pushed.

Unlike tobacco, alcohol is not necessarily inherently harmful. It's been long accepted that drinking a glass of wine is very good for you, and although I can't speak to the potential health benefits of each type of spirits in turn it certainly cannot be said en masse that alcohol is bad for you as it can with cigarettes. Let's face it; cigarettes are legalized poison, and it's a small wonder that those who knew this and tried to bury the fact haven't faced sentencing for capital crimes. That is in a totally different category from alcohol, which is potentially good for you and potentially dangerous depending on the manner in which it's consumed. I rather expect that the same is true for pot, which no doubt has some medical uses that are excellent and also the potential to be abused as a vice. Banning potential vices should not be the government's job, for instance the attempted 'soda ban' in New York City for which they had to back down in a big hurry. I'm not sure where I'd put gambling in this calculus, since it has no benefits whatsoever and yet potentially is only dangerous when done to excess.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2017, 12:30:10 AM »
If you had a choice for your children that they could either use alcohol, tobacco, and / or marijuana or they would live their lives not using any of them which would be best?

If you're a parent who would like your children not to use any of them, then what gives them the best chance for that outcome?

It seems like legalizing marijuana makes it much more likely that kids will try it. Already they are very likely, and now many more of those who wouldn't otherwise do it when it's illegal now will because it's legal. There are probably none who would have used it even though it's illegal and will now choose not to use it because it's legal, arguments about the forbidden fruit effect notwithstanding.

Though people may not like lives being ruined because by the law enforcement aspects of relatively harmless marijuana use, they also don't want to encourage children to use it by legalizing it completely. Making it legal with an age requirement of 21 can be expected to work about as well as it does with alcohol, which is to say not at all.

I understand the arguments about the effects of law enforcement on families and children being worse than the effects of the use of marijuana itself, but that's a slightly separate issue from not wanting not only children not to use it, but not wanting your own children to use it as they grow up. You can teach them whatever you want, but when society says it's not a big deal that's going to have a lot of sway too, often more than the persuasive power of parents.

To answer the question, people want it both ways because while on the one hand they don't want lives ruined because of the laws against marijuana they also would prefer their kids not become drug users, not as children and not even later on as adults.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2017, 01:08:17 AM »
If you had a choice for your children that they could either use alcohol, tobacco, and / or marijuana or they would live their lives not using any of them which would be best?

If you're a parent who would like your children not to use any of them, then what gives them the best chance for that outcome?

Legalization.
1) It makes it less of a "rebel" item if it is legal. (Note: This always shall remain part of the appeal for Teens to use age restricted substances/items as well, I remember being  a teen, and I remember plenty of peers who thought they were cool/"more adult" for partaking in activities that only adults could legally do)
2) It brings many of the users "out of the shadows."
3) There would be no shortage of users who make "wonderful poster children" I could point to in order to demonstrate why usage is a bad idea.

Quote
It seems like legalizing marijuana makes it much more likely that kids will try it. Already they are very likely, and now many more of those who wouldn't otherwise do it when it's illegal now will because it's legal. There are probably none who would have used it even though it's illegal and will now choose not to use it because it's legal, arguments about the forbidden fruit effect notwithstanding.

A lot of them are going to try it upon it being legalized because of the "forbidden fruit" aspect of it, if only to see what the big deal was all about. I'd be dubious as their continued usage of it after that however.

Quote
I understand the arguments about the effects of law enforcement on families and children being worse than the effects of the use of marijuana itself, but that's a slightly separate issue from not wanting not only children not to use it, but not wanting your own children to use it as they grow up. You can teach them whatever you want, but when society says it's not a big deal that's going to have a lot of sway too, often more than the persuasive power of parents.

I think the problem here is you're running into crossed-purposes here, and that likely is part of how you have a polling number like 71% support non-enforcement, but there doesn't seem to be support for outright repeal. The devil is in the details, as it were.

"It is not that big a deal" in the context that there are many legitimate usages of Marijuana/hemp that SHOULD be legal, many of which have nothing to do with the drug itself. (Hemp was a preferred source material for ropes used on Naval Ships for centuries for example. It also has other uses within the textile industry. So it isn't all about the people who want to eat or smoke it.) So in that respect, it shouldn't be outright criminal like it is under Federal Law/rulings/policies.

Which isn't to say Marijuana use should be unrestricted and unconstrained. As it gets studied further going forward, certain aspects of its use, by different demographic groups, will start to make it a big deal for using or not using as the case may be. But IIRC, the preliminary data regarding Pot and Teens isn't good for the teens, so it's something they should be staying away from unless they want to stunt their own mental development--going above and beyond simply killing brain cells.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2017, 03:11:42 AM »
If you had a choice for your children that they could either use alcohol, tobacco, and / or marijuana or they would live their lives not using any of them which would be best?

In my view, there is no excuse to use tobacco and therefore I don't even consider this to be any more a relevant question to parenting as "would you like your children to eat arsenic?". As for marijuana, I wouldn't be happy if my children of a young age used it, but since you didn't specify that I assume this could mean children of any age, in which case past a certain point I'd hope I could trust their judgement. As a recreational drug I'd agree that there should be a minimum legal age for use. Alcohol is a completely different matter, and I assure you that I would be very pleased for teenage children to develop a taste for wine (as I'm a wine lover). I'm not 100% sure I believe in a minimum age for alcohol, mind you, but I'm against advertising products that can harm children with them as the target audience.

Quote
It seems like legalizing marijuana makes it much more likely that kids will try it. Already they are very likely, and now many more of those who wouldn't otherwise do it when it's illegal now will because it's legal. There are probably none who would have used it even though it's illegal and will now choose not to use it because it's legal, arguments about the forbidden fruit effect notwithstanding.

You've got to be kidding, right? More likely? I'd say it's entirely likely they'll try it even despite the outright ban of it; probably in part because of it, as TheDeamon pointed out. Everything I've read suggests that underage use is worse in places that try to restrict access. Responsible (and truthful) education about pot while taking away the taboo would likely do more to reduce underage consumption than any amount of banning and arrests ever would. Telling kids that drugs are evil and illegal, when they know full well that their friends use it and have a good time with no apparent repercussions, makes them conclude they're being lied to and will therefore ignore whatever else they're told about it that's negative.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2017, 03:15:50 AM »
And yet the alcohol continues to get pushed.

Unlike tobacco, alcohol is not necessarily inherently harmful. It's been long accepted that drinking a glass of wine is very good for you

No; red wine specifically.  Which means that it's not the alcohol in the wine that provides the benefit.  Furthermore, Red Wine isn't the type of alcohol being advertised to children.  And our society has a consensus that alcohol is necessarily harmful to children.  There are states where the law technically forbids children even from communion wine according to their religion.  There's far more evidence to suggest that alcohol is inherently harmful to children than marijuana.  Therefore there's nothing in your argument to say that mj would not be advertised if federally legal.

Quote
If you had a choice for your children that they could either use alcohol, tobacco, and / or marijuana or they would live their lives not using any of them which would be best?

Tobacco.  Hands down. 


Quote
Everything I've read suggests that underage use is worse in places that try to restrict access.

I was raised in Mexico City where alcohol was fully available, and have never ever in my life seen such rampant abuse of alcohol by teens anywhere else.


Quote
In my view, there is no excuse to use tobacco

Weight loss and reduction of tooth pain.  Much more of an excuse than alcohol.

Quote
cigarettes are legalized poison, and it's a small wonder that those who knew this and tried to bury the fact haven't faced sentencing for capital crimes. That is in a totally different category from alcohol, which is potentially good for you and potentially dangerous depending on the manner in which it's consumed.

That's false.  Alcohol is never good for you.  Red Wine in moderation may be good for you, and I've shown the obvious deficiency in those studies in previous posts.  Only comparing 1-2 glass a day drinkers versus total nondrinkers is nothing more than a mechanism for screening out addictive personalities who are more likely to have their life shortened by some addiction or another.  All the study shows ultimately is that drinking one to two glasses a day of red wine (but not of any other type of alcoholic beverage) is less harmful than the possibility of addictiveness in the general population.

Do the math:  3% of humans are alcoholics.

10% of alcoholics commit suicide.

so if you take 1000 moderate drinkers of red wine, you've screened out those who are unable to drink moderately.  That means you've removed 30 suicides from the 1000 sample.  That will account for your lifespan difference right there.

Statisticians are generally stupid about that sort of thing.

Take the whole African American IQ thing.  That whole difference can be reconciled by two factors: that African Americans are 40% LESS likely to breastfeed (which increases IQ by 4 points) and more likely to spank their kids (which has been proven to reduce IQ.  But the right wing stat-heads want to argue racist theories while the left-wing stat heads want to argue that the IQ test is "racist."  Duh.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 03:29:51 AM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2017, 03:33:44 AM »
Oh, and to finish up on the alcohol stats?  The fact that the "benefit" only occurs with Red Wine (which contains less sugar which in my own experience has a nasty synergistic effect with alcohol) suggests that drinking white wine or hard lichor in moderation, i.e. 1-2 glasses a day, causes more damage to the consumer than the 0.3% chance of suicide that we removed by screening out addictive personalities.

Oh, but you might ask, aren't the 0.3% removed from the other side of the equation by virtue of being compared to nondrinkers?  Nope.  Because addiction-prone people can fall into other addictive habits.  Compulsive gamblers also commit suicide at 10%.  Suicide numbers are also high  for other addictions.


Finally, even if you take the study conclusions as gospel, the study never suggests that "alcohol" can be good for you, only Red Wine, which is at most 12% alcohol, and usually less.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 03:37:35 AM by Pete at Home »

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2017, 08:06:51 AM »
Pete the bottom line is that there is a safe level of alcohol consumption and lots of adults are able to drink in moderation. I know of no evidence that says that drinking 1-2 glasses of whatever a day (or a few beers) is dangerous unless you count beer belly, which is just a variation on obesity from any high calorie drink like soda.

While I imagine that there may be a safe level of cigarette consumption, my admittedly anecdotal experience has been that it's very very rare to encounter someone who does so. The x factor seems to be tbe addictive properties of nicotine. Nicotine seems to be highly addictive for the vast proportion of the population whereas alcohol is only addictive for a minority.

I am not discounting the harm that alcohol does to society mind you (and that harm is vast) and I will agree it is better to abuse cigarettes than be an alcoholic. But the vast majority of alcohol users are not alcoholics whereas the vast majority of cigarette users are addicted at a harmful level.

So between my child being a smoker versus being an alcoholic, sure I'd choose the smoking. But if it is the choice between typical alcohol consumption versus typical smoking - not even up for debate, smoking is the greater evil.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2017, 10:06:07 AM »
Take the whole African American IQ thing.  That whole difference can be reconciled by two factors: that African Americans are 40% LESS likely to breastfeed (which increases IQ by 4 points) and more likely to spank their kids (which has been proven to reduce IQ.  But the right wing stat-heads want to argue racist theories while the left-wing stat heads want to argue that the IQ test is "racist."  Duh.

I think I want to see the citation on the spanking study, this is the first I've even heard of such a claim, and it's one I'm highly dubious of for numerous reasons. Chief one being it makes zero physiological sense as to how a spanking can lead to IQ loss. At least most of the other claims involved chemical substances being introduced into the body externally. Claiming the human pain response can permanently lower IQ is highly... Odd.

As to IQ testing deficiencies, a lot of that can often be blamed on the test being used more than anything else. The tests are designed based on certain preconceived preconditions. So it will only give "valid results" when used to test people for some those preconditions apply. Anyone else will tend towards either abnormally high or low scores respectively, with the inherent bias trending strongly towards lower scores.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2017, 10:11:03 AM »
I don't have proper data but a new article on Cracked said spanking results in trauma just like other forms of physical abuse. I would not be surprised if trauma results in a noticeable loss of IQ.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2017, 10:20:23 AM »
I don't have proper data but a new article on Cracked said spanking results in trauma just like other forms of physical abuse. I would not be surprised if trauma results in a noticeable loss of IQ.

Not buying, outside of potentially highly abusive scenarios. Which are likely to be ones most available for study. Even then, it isn't the spanking, its the high level of abuse.

For a present day study, I could see all kinds of reasons for them to come up with such a correlation, but that doesn't mean causation. Which is a big part of why I'm interested in this alleged study, I want to look at the methodology used, it seems highly suspect to me.

The other aspect is if physical abuse results in loss of IQ, how did all of those stereotyped Nerds who were (allegedly) ongoing victims of bullying for decades escape with their IQ intact? Unless they're claiming physical bullying is somehow different from spanking?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2017, 11:22:49 AM »
For obvious reasons they can't do a double blind or even controlled study of spanking, and therefore any study done on it will have questionable results. However this doesn't mean its results are invalidated either, just that they shouldn't be placed under the rubric of "science."

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2017, 11:27:12 AM »
I was going to comment on it, but TheDeamon beat me to it.  I too would like to see this spanking study, because I seriously doubt it's done more than establish correlation (if that).

If I had to pick one of those drugs for the kids to be a heavy user, it'd be marijuana, if it's a light user it'd be alcohol.  But honestly, heavy use of any of them has really bad potential.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2017, 11:49:19 AM »
Ok.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20090924/kids-who-get-spanked-may-have-lower-iqs#1

First off:
Quote
In the other study, national average IQ scores were found to be lower in countries where spanking is common.

First item here is that they only demonstrate a correlation, no causation for this study in particular.

As to the other one:
Quote
The research was led by University of New Hampshire sociologist Murray A. Straus, PhD, who has studied the impact of corporal punishment on child development for decades. He is a vocal opponent of the practice.

Clearly his studies are going to completely unbiased based on that alone. (It seems he was the author of the initial two studies WebMD cites)

But getting into the other(first) study (mentioned by WebMD):
Quote
In one study, researchers analyzed the intelligence scores of roughly 1,500 children in the U.S. who took part in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. They found that these scores were slightly lower among children whose mothers reported using spanking as a form of discipline.

I will say the Longitudinal study is more compelling, but they're still simply correlating, there isn't any indication on causation. Although I am finding something interesting in the WebMD writeup, something which doesn't seem to be getting much attention beyond "Spanking == Bad."

Quote
In the U.S. investigation, Straus and colleague Mallie J. Paschall, PhD, of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation analyzed data from 806 children who were 2 to 4 years old at enrollment and 704 children between the ages of 5 and 9.

The children were tested for intelligence when they entered the trials and again four years later.

Even after accounting for factors that could influence IQ scores, such as parental education and socioeconomic status, spanking appeared to have a negative impact on intelligence.

The IQs of the younger children who were spanked were 5 points lower on average four years later than those of children of the same age who were not spanked. Scores among the older children were an average of 2.8 points lower among spanked children than children who were not spanked.

Ok, taking this at face value, even though Strauss is involved, it seems to slow IQ growth/development, but they seem to (nearly) "catch up" at some point? Continuing:

Quote
But earlier this month, Duke University research scientist Lisa J. Berlin, PhD, and colleagues also linked early spanking to reduced intelligence in one of the most rigorously designed studies to ever address the issue.

. . .

They found that children who were spanked at age 1 were more aggressive than those who weren't by age 2 and they scored lower on tests to assess mental development at age 3.

"The research as a whole really paints a picture of the detrimental long-term effects of physical punishment," Berlin tells WebMD. "The message to parents is find other ways to discipline your children."

Except with Berlin we also encounter:

Quote
But critics say that research is highly suspect because it has largely been conducted by investigators like Straus, Berlin, and Gershoff who strongly oppose the practice.

Although I will note the argument that spanking very young children/toddlers/infants could present a compelling child developmental basis for what is going on. The physiological side of it remains completely unknown however, as they're not looking at the how/why. They're just reporting on correlations. Correlations that I have to say are somewhat suspect themselves given the open bias of the researchers involved.

I also find it interesting that their own data suggests that waiting until the child is older to begin using spanking as a means of punishment also seems to reduce the negative impacts that they're tracking.

Although I also have to wonder at the parents who would spank a 1 year old. I'm still inclined to suspect that there is something else going on here, and it isn't the spanking that is the cause of what they're noticing.

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #25 on: March 06, 2017, 12:01:53 PM »
None of this is very convincing. I also highly doubt breastfeeding has any impact on iq, by the way - but if someone has convincing science in the matter I'd be curious to know. Trying to untangle correlation from causation seems virtually impossible, a fool's game.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2017, 12:34:05 PM »
There's more than two studies referenced in that article TheDeamon.  The "National Longitudinal Survey of Youth" starts with 12-17 year old kids, not the toddlers.  The information on there's too broad for me to sure what if anything that study reported about corporal punishment. 

Even though the article implied that it was the same study with it's reference to the "US study" in fact, the one with the toddlers was a different study.  The confusion stems from their decision to use girls that participated in the prior study, as their group of mothers and to study those that had children in the age range they were looking for at that time.  This means all the mothers were in a narrow age range, and had been long term participants in a research study.  That seems like a potential defect when looking at randomization.  The racial weighting in the study certainly doesn't reflect the racial weighting of the US population, and less than one in five had greater than a high school education.  40% did not have the father living with the mother.

It only followed the kids for a four year period, in other words it gave them an IQ test when they were 2-4 and finished with them with they were between 6-8, and different group 5-9 and then 9-13.  It claims that something 95-99% of parents use corporal punishment with toddlers.  They also state that where parents don't use CP, they spend more time explaining things to kids (which increased verbal communication is positively correlated to intelligence).

I have to go, but I'll try to read their actual results and add more later.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #27 on: March 06, 2017, 12:58:40 PM »
There's more than two studies referenced in that article TheDeamon.  The "National Longitudinal Survey of Youth" starts with 12-17 year old kids, not the toddlers.  The information on there's too broad for me to sure what if anything that study reported about corporal punishment.

They indirectly referenced some "60 studies"(even going so far as to cite that number) with comparable conclusions.

Quote
It only followed the kids for a four year period, in other words it gave them an IQ test when they were 2-4 and finished with them with they were between 6-8, and different group 5-9 and then 9-13.  It claims that something 95-99% of parents use corporal punishment with toddlers.

So not the same kids, no surprising. Although the study doesn't seem to address when the cohort of 5 to 9 year olds started receiving corporal punishment? Which would tend to be a glaring methodological flaw in their work IMO.

Quote
They also state that where parents don't use CP, they spend more time explaining things to kids (which increased verbal communication is positively correlated to intelligence).

Which also doesn't mean the CP was a "bad thing" it just indicates that CP without adequately explaining WHY it is being done is a bad thing. Which is something I would certainly agree with, and would certainly also account for their other knock-on effects they report regarding heightened aggression/"behavioral issues" among the CP children, among other things. If they do something wrong, and get spanked for it with only a very cursory explanation for the why, that's going to become a behavioral lesson for them.

It would also logically follow they'd be more inclined towards "eye for an eye" and trying to take "disciplinary actions" into their own hands. Someone "does something wrong" and they go about "punishing" the offending party with the only tool they have: by hurting them.

Which makes a compelling behavioral argument for not using CP until they're "old enough to know the difference," and because the non-CP method doesn't seem to be working sufficiently. But all that indicates is that CP is a last resort, something you reserve for older children, rather than that it is a universal bad.

edit: Of course, the other issue is, that IIRC, there still is a lot of questions about the validity of IQ testing when it come to young children in particular. Which isn't even getting into the questions regarding the (adult) population at large.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 01:05:17 PM by TheDeamon »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #28 on: March 06, 2017, 02:38:07 PM »
Pete the bottom line is that there is a safe level of alcohol consumption and lots of adults are able to drink in moderation. I know of no evidence that says that drinking 1-2 glasses of whatever a day (or a few beers) is dangerous unless you count beer belly, which is just a variation on obesity from any high calorie drink like soda.

While I imagine that there may be a safe level of cigarette consumption, my admittedly anecdotal experience has been that it's very very rare to encounter someone who does so.

Jason, it screws with the input by comparing "cigarettes" (one form of tobacco) to "alcohol" which includes all forms of the neurotoxin?  (Nicotine and alcohol are both neurotoxins).  If we narrowed down alcohol use to people who take vodka enemas I suspect we'd end up with a rather high-alcoholic sample.

Cigarettes are a form of tobacco which was carefully designed to enhance addictivity.  It's the only form where people suck the crap into their lungs.  (Hence my comparison to vodka enemas). I wager you know a huge number of occasional cigar smokers.  I'll hit a cigar myself if someone asks me to try one.  And I have a long-stemmed pipe I break out about once every three to six months.  The only side effect has been butt-ugly teeth, but that's a match for beer belly, neh?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #29 on: March 06, 2017, 02:42:47 PM »
Take the whole African American IQ thing.  That whole difference can be reconciled by two factors: that African Americans are 40% LESS likely to breastfeed (which increases IQ by 4 points) and more likely to spank their kids (which has been proven to reduce IQ.  But the right wing stat-heads want to argue racist theories while the left-wing stat heads want to argue that the IQ test is "racist."  Duh.

I think I want to see the citation on the spanking study, this is the first I've even heard of such a claim, and it's one I'm highly dubious of for numerous reasons. Chief one being it makes zero physiological sense as to how a spanking can lead to IQ loss. At least most of the other claims involved chemical substances being introduced into the body externally. Claiming the human pain response can permanently lower IQ is highly... Odd.

Who said anything about pain?  What about the trauma getting humiliated and punished by someone you trust for something you don't even understand?  You don't see how that would discourage a kid from trying to make sense of a world that makes no bloody sense?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #30 on: March 06, 2017, 02:49:20 PM »

If you're a parent who would like your children not to use any of them, then what gives them the best chance for that outcome?

Legalization.
1) It makes it less of a "rebel" item if it is legal. (Note: This always shall remain part of the appeal for Teens to use age restricted substances/items as well, I remember being  a teen, and I remember plenty of peers who thought they were cool/"more adult" for partaking in activities that only adults could legally do)


While true, this mistakenly assumes that the "rebel" appeal for teens is as strong an appeal as ubiquitous availability.  I've never seen kids use alcohol as much as I did among my peers in Mexico City where anyone could go down to the store and pick up a two liter bottle of Brandy or whatever in "Tamano familiar" (Family Size).

Quote
(Hemp was a preferred source material for ropes used on Naval Ships for centuries for example. It also has other uses within the textile industry.

The US Constitution is printed on Hemp paper.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #31 on: March 06, 2017, 02:53:18 PM »
Jason, it screws with the input by comparing "cigarettes" (one form of tobacco) to "alcohol" which includes all forms of the neurotoxin?  (Nicotine and alcohol are both neurotoxins).  If we narrowed down alcohol use to people who take vodka enemas I suspect we'd end up with a rather high-alcoholic sample.

This is why 'alcohol' as an umbrella term brooks no comparison with cigarettes in particular. In terms of what should be banned, if anything, I think a ban on poison being inhaled by teenagers is quite reasonable, while a ban on a teenager having a glass of wine isn't. With cigarettes there is no amount to smoke that is 'fine' or not damaging, and any amount might get you hooked for life. That is not so with any type of alcohol, even putting aside wine's health benefits. So then it's all about moderation, right? And I don't think the government should be enforcing moderation on something that is otherwise fine to imbibe, else they should outlaw ice cream and candy too. You may cite to stats about life problems associated with alcoholism, but what about obesity? What about heart disease? Diabetes? I guarantee you these cost more in medical care and in human suffering than alcohol ever could; probably more than drugs, alcohol and tobacco combined. And yet no one would tolerate a 'candy ban' or age limit. The reality is that the fascination with alcohol is based in moral judgement rather than practical considerations. It's sin-legislation.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #32 on: March 06, 2017, 02:57:44 PM »
Quote
Which also doesn't mean the CP was a "bad thing" it just indicates that CP without adequately explaining WHY it is being done is a bad thing. Which is something I would certainly agree with, and would certainly also account for their other knock-on effects they report regarding heightened aggression/"behavioral issues" among the CP children, among other things. If they do something wrong, and get spanked for it with only a very cursory explanation for the why, that's going to become a behavioral lesson for them.

It would also logically follow they'd be more inclined towards "eye for an eye" and trying to take "disciplinary actions" into their own hands. Someone "does something wrong" and they go about "punishing" the offending party with the only tool they have: by hurting them.

Which makes a compelling behavioral argument for not using CP until they're "old enough to know the difference," and because the non-CP method doesn't seem to be working sufficiently. But all that indicates is that CP is a last resort, something you reserve for older children, rather than that it is a universal bad.

Sure, I agree absolutely.  Just as there are non-toxic non-abusive uses of alcohol, tobacco, or marihuana. (Pick up a few cigarillos and mouth swish tobacco smoke because you have to wait 3 days to see your dentist, and that's going to be a benign useful tobacco experience).  Note that doesn't change at all what I said about spanking being more likely a factor than skin color as affecting IQ.  Because CP is most likely to be used in a damaging way, where the child doesn't understand what they are being punished for.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #33 on: March 06, 2017, 03:03:02 PM »
Jason, it screws with the input by comparing "cigarettes" (one form of tobacco) to "alcohol" which includes all forms of the neurotoxin?  (Nicotine and alcohol are both neurotoxins).  If we narrowed down alcohol use to people who take vodka enemas I suspect we'd end up with a rather high-alcoholic sample.

This is why 'alcohol' as an umbrella term brooks no comparison with cigarettes in particular. In terms of what should be banned, if anything, I think a ban on poison being inhaled by teenagers is quite reasonable, while a ban on a teenager having a glass of wine isn't.

The rule prohibits all tobacco and all alcohol use by teenagers, and both are reasonable.  Since a teenager with a pipe is more likely to stupidly inhale the smoke, and the teenager with a bottle of wine is likely to drink more than the one glass. At least my peers and I did!

I'm OK saying that teens can have a glass of wine with their parents' supervision or in church, just as I'm OK with a 9 year old shooting a rifle with parents' hands-on supervision.  What I'm not OK with is what I've seen with European parents putting vodka into a baby's milk bottle to put her to sleep.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #34 on: March 06, 2017, 03:06:01 PM »
Quote
The reality is that the fascination with alcohol is based in moral judgment rather than practical considerations. It's sin-legislation.

That's ludicrous.  There are more deaths attributable to alcohol than to any other drug.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #35 on: March 06, 2017, 03:17:37 PM »
Quote
The reality is that the fascination with alcohol is based in moral judgment rather than practical considerations. It's sin-legislation.

That's ludicrous.  There are more deaths attributable to alcohol than to any other drug.

I will also point out that alcohol is an outlet for many people to relax, or to help them stabilize after a lot of stress. To be fair, so is pot, but that's not as pervasively accepted culturally. When considering the tendency towards overuse of alcohol and trying to control alcohol use as a "drug" you may want to consider the environment in which that may happen. For instance if poverty was a strong indicator of the likelihood of someone turning to drink, my advice would be to address poverty rather than to take away the sometimes misused balm. I'm sure some people can become alcoholic as well with no 'external factor'; for instance a genetic predisposition, or family situation, or what have you. I just don't see the point of grouping alcohol along with cigarettes and cocaine unless it's just being categorized as sinful. On a pure 'health concern' level I wonder why you don't include donuts in there then, too, since they are far worse for you than a glass of wine.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #36 on: March 06, 2017, 03:31:57 PM »
Quote
The reality is that the fascination with alcohol is based in moral judgment rather than practical considerations. It's sin-legislation.

That's ludicrous.  There are more deaths attributable to alcohol than to any other drug.

I will also point out that alcohol is an outlet for many people to relax, or to help them stabilize after a lot of stress. To be fair, so is pot, but that's not as pervasively accepted culturally. When considering the tendency towards overuse of alcohol and trying to control alcohol use as a "drug" you may want to consider the environment in which that may happen. For instance if poverty was a strong indicator of the likelihood of someone turning to drink, my advice would be to address poverty rather than to take away the sometimes misused balm. I'm sure some people can become alcoholic as well with no 'external factor'; for instance a genetic predisposition, or family situation, or what have you. I just don't see the point of grouping alcohol along with cigarettes and cocaine unless it's just being categorized as sinful. On a pure 'health concern' level I wonder why you don't include donuts in there then, too, since they are far worse for you than a glass of wine.

Since you just grouped cigarettes with cocaine, you've clearly left Planet Reason on another one of your wild Rides.  When you get back, please contemplate that I never argued for stronger bans on the use of alcohol than what's currently in place, and that I actually argued for a relaxation of the alcohol use law in Illinois and a few other states.  The fact that alcohol is socially accepted is a problem perpetuated by ubiquitous alcohol advertising.  I don't think I should see beer commercials on Youtube when I view a teen entertainment program.   And until we resolve this stupidity where advertisers are allowed to push alcohol on minors, I think we should maintain the formal hypocrisy of having marijuana federally illegal but unenforced in states where it is legal or regulated.

Quote
On a pure 'health concern' level I wonder why you don't include donuts in there then, too, since they are far worse for you than a glass of wine.
Obviously.  I haven't mentioned donuts because I am unaware of any study claiming that donuts in moderation are good for your health.

But I'll bet that if we did a study of people who never ate donuts, versus people who ate exactly half a donut a day and stopped there and ate no other sweets, that the latter would be more healthy because the test screens for people with extreme willpower. 

You also don't have vulnerable adolescents being systematically brainwashed by a media and entertainment complex to teach them that alcohol is the way that grown ups get the confidence to ask that pretty girl to dance.  Exploitation and enslavement, Fenring.  Get rid of that brainwashing,  and have kids confident that they can have fun without dependence on alcohol, and then having it available to kids wouldn't be such a problem.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 03:44:02 PM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #37 on: March 06, 2017, 03:46:25 PM »
Your supposition that I don't think that donuts or donut advertising are unhealthy because I haven't mentioned them, is a ludicrous leap of logic.  Shall we posit that you think that PCP is safe and healthy because you haven't mentioned PCP in this conversation?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #38 on: March 06, 2017, 05:09:54 PM »
And yet no one would tolerate a 'candy ban' or age limit. The reality is that the fascination with alcohol is based in moral judgement rather than practical considerations. It's sin-legislation.

My understanding is it had more to do with "layabout drunks" and domestic abuse(violent drunks), often being one and the same, that lead to it being a "women's issue" back at the tail end of the 19th Century, culminating in prohibition in the early 20th right after women's suffrage became the law of the land.

That alcohol also went hand in hand with the saloons and brothels of the era just further fueled it as a "women's issue" to wage war against. I guess the theory was sober up the men, they'd be less inclined to stray and partake in dalliances with "strange women." Which in turn would put an end to prostitution. The 1920's firmly put the lid on the coffin for that theory in part, as the men never really sobered up.  8)

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #39 on: March 06, 2017, 05:34:35 PM »
You may cite to stats about life problems associated with alcoholism, but what about obesity? What about heart disease? Diabetes? I guarantee you these cost more in medical care and in human suffering than alcohol ever could; probably more than drugs, alcohol and tobacco combined. A

Alcohol is a small factor in obesity and a very large factor in diabetes.  My grandfather never ate candy and to his doctors' surprise, the alcohol-aggravated diabetes killed him before his cirrhosis of the liver finished him off.  And he was self-medicating with the alcohol, using it to dull the physical and emotional trauma from being run over by a tank during an unnamed military conflict.

Quote
For instance if poverty was a strong indicator of the likelihood of someone turning to drink, my advice would be to address poverty rather than to take away the sometimes misused balm.

Poverty and drink are interactive and synergistic.  Don't take away the balm, but stop those death dealing pimps from putting alcohol and gambling crap so prominently in all the places the poor are likely to frequent.  In Vegas, in the specific parts of the grocery store where the poor go to pay bills with cash, and that's where they put all the alcohol and gambling machines.

I've never said take alcohol away.  I've said stop pushing it on people.  Restrict predatory marketing to children and to the poor. 


Quote
nd yet no one would tolerate a 'candy ban' or age limit.

No one would?  Think again. 

Maine Wants To Ban People From Buying Soda And Candy With Food ...
www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/02/23/maine-soda-candy-food-stamps
Feb 23, 2017 - The state of Maine has asked the federal government to allow the state to ban the purchase of soft drinks and candy with food stamps.

Tweets with replies by Ban Candy (@BanCandy) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/bancandy?lang=en
The latest Tweets and replies from Ban Candy (@BanCandy). Infinity Ward Online Security for MW3; send reports to report@infinityward.com cheaters, hackers, ...

Maine and Florida Lobbying to Ban Candy and Soda for Foodstamp ...
www.infowars.com/maine-and-florida-lobbying-to-ban-candy-and-soda-for-foodsta...
Feb 22, 2017 - Both Maine and Florida have previously attempted to restrict the kinds of food that can be purchased with SNAP benefits, but both are at it again ...

Arkansas Bill to Ban Buying Candy and Soda with Food Stamps » Alex ...
www.infowars.com/arkansas-bill-to-ban-buying-candy-and-soda-with-food-stamps/
Dec 13, 2016 - The question of whether those who use food stamps and government assistance programs should be able to purchase junk food and other ...

Should states ban junk food in schools? | Scholastic.com
www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=10853
That's why New Jersey is the first state to adopt a comprehensive school nutrition policy that bans candy, soda, and other junk food. If you go to school in New ...

Mom starts petition to ban candy, junk food from Meijer checkout ...
blogs.babycenter.com/.../mom-starts-petition-to-ban-junk-food-from-meijer-checkout...
Jan 4, 2017 - It's not often that I brave the grocery store alone with my three young children. But when I do, the checkout lane is the bane of my existence.

That last one is analogous to peddling alcohol and gambling to the poor.  Putting candy up at the counter where kids in carts will scream for it and parents feel coerced to pacify them.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 05:38:31 PM by Pete at Home »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #40 on: March 06, 2017, 05:36:17 PM »
Just as a follow up, on the study showing "causation," Corporal Punishment by Mothers and Development of Children's Cognitive Ability: A Longitudinal Study of Two Nationally
Representative Age Cohorts
, by Murray A. Straus & Mallie J. Paschall:

Quote
Low cognitive ability (i.e., a “slow” child) could lead parents to use more CP because of frustration in dealing with such children or out of disappointment and resentment. If so, the correlations showing that the CP is associated with lower cognitive ability leave unanswered the question of which is the cause and which is the effect. We believe there is a bidirectional relationship.

It was a correlation study, and while interesting it did have a number of unresolved confounders.  It didn't try to distinguish the severity  of the CP, so 3 small taps, is evaluated in a "worse" group than one large beating, it only measured reported conduct for the prior two weeks, which may or may not have been typical, among others.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #41 on: March 06, 2017, 05:44:13 PM »
Just as a follow up, on the study showing "causation," Corporal Punishment by Mothers and Development of Children's Cognitive Ability: A Longitudinal Study of Two Nationally
Representative Age Cohorts
, by Murray A. Straus & Mallie J. Paschall:

Quote
Low cognitive ability (i.e., a “slow” child) could lead parents to use more CP because of frustration in dealing with such children or out of disappointment and resentment. If so, the correlations showing that the CP is associated with lower cognitive ability leave unanswered the question of which is the cause and which is the effect. We believe there is a bidirectional relationship.

It was a correlation study, and while interesting it did have a number of unresolved confounders.  It didn't try to distinguish the severity of the CP, so 3 small taps, is evaluated in a "worse" group than one large beating, it only measured reported conduct for the prior two weeks, which may or may not have been typical, among others.

 Certainly we had a lot of people telling us to beat Thing Two to teach him impulse control, even though the x ray showed he lacked any functioning limbic capacity to learn impulse control.  Kid would be crying because he knew oil would burn him but he still would, if allowed, stick his hands into boiling oil to grab yummy smelling food.  But even your article doesn't posit a pure causation of dumbness to getting physically abused, it says it's "bidirectional" which works with my thesis.  And I don't think anyone's going to say that mothers are just less likely to breastfeed stupid babies.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #42 on: March 06, 2017, 06:07:57 PM »
Certainly we had a lot of people telling us to beat Thing Two to teach him impulse control, even though the x ray showed he lacked any functioning limbic capacity to learn impulse control.  Kid would be crying because he knew oil would burn him but he still would, if allowed, stick his hands into boiling oil to grab yummy smelling food.

Sorry to hear that, I agree other people recommend ineffective discipline, and discipline that they wouldn't actually use on their own kids.

Quote
But even your article doesn't posit a pure causation of dumbness to getting physically abused, it says it's "bidirectional" which works with my thesis.  And I don't think anyone's going to say that mothers are just less likely to breastfeed stupid babies.

The "bidirectional" claim is their opinion, its not anything supported by their actual study.  They clearly have an opinion on causation, and they overwrote what their study showed.  Correlation, simply put does not justify the assumption that either correlated factor is the cause of the other, not even bidirectionally.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #43 on: March 06, 2017, 06:13:09 PM »
And yet no one would tolerate a 'candy ban' or age limit. The reality is that the fascination with alcohol is based in moral judgement rather than practical considerations. It's sin-legislation.

My understanding is it had more to do with "layabout drunks" and domestic abuse(violent drunks), often being one and the same, that lead to it being a "women's issue" back at the tail end of the 19th Century, culminating in prohibition in the early 20th right after women's suffrage became the law of the land.

That alcohol also went hand in hand with the saloons and brothels of the era just further fueled it as a "women's issue" to wage war against. I guess the theory was sober up the men, they'd be less inclined to stray and partake in dalliances with "strange women." Which in turn would put an end to prostitution. The 1920's firmly put the lid on the coffin for that theory in part, as the men never really sobered up.  8)

Yes, but from what I've seen, the moral stigma attached to alcohol remained, as Fenring points out (although he grossly exaggerates when he argues that moral judgment is the sole reason to have concerns about alcohol use).  One relic of prohibition is the legal and cultural notion that being drunk is no excuse for criminal behavior.  Most other countries do see drunkeness as a legitimate excuse, and in that, America remains different.  Americans do sometimes take it too far, as in the colleges I referred to several months ago where two students get drunk and screw, and the college feels obligated to pick one and charge him with rape, since paradoxically in the evil little mechanical brains of college admins, drunkeness waives consent but not criminal intent.  Duh.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #44 on: March 06, 2017, 06:22:01 PM »
Certainly we had a lot of people telling us to beat Thing Two to teach him impulse control, even though the x ray showed he lacked any functioning limbic capacity to learn impulse control.  Kid would be crying because he knew oil would burn him but he still would, if allowed, stick his hands into boiling oil to grab yummy smelling food.

Sorry to hear that, I agree other people recommend ineffective discipline, and discipline that they wouldn't actually use on their own kids.


I certainly hope the dumbasses wouldn't use that sort of discipline they recommend on their own kids.  Take this video now circulating facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/ultimatebrown.2/videos/1371016912948374/

Here are reactions.  This is all from yesterday.  It's a group that's 90% atheist and mostly European and Australian, so I thought they'd have a more reasonable view of CP.

"That kid is a savage!!"

" I'll give this a pass because the kid is like maybe 2 or 3 and his parent immediately shook the *censored* out of him and probably busted his butt afterwards."

"I have a bird just like that, I'd smack the little demon in the head"

"Kid wand a bloody good slap"

"I'm not for hitting kids, but I would make an exception for him...lol"

"Peter C. Nuttall No, child abuse is not a cure for animal abuse. You shouldn't give a kid that age a tiny living thing. No kid knows better at that age, and hurting the kid isn't going to make him nicer. What the *censored*. You guys all yell violence against a 2-3 year old child, while the adult is the one behind the camera putting both the child and the bird at risk. The bird could have lost a wing, and the child could have lost an eye, easily.


[Response from female:] And if the kid had lost an eye..
He would have learned a valuable lesson ;)

Peter C. Nuttall No, just an eye. Humans retain no memories of that age. No *censored*ing lessons whatsoever. Just fear and pain and loss

Most of the respondents are female.

Note that most serial rapists and serial killers are white males that were horribly abused by their mothers.

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #45 on: March 06, 2017, 07:28:59 PM »
Pete tobacco is basically synonymous with cigarettes. I don't even have to see any stats to know that non cigarette tobacco use is a trivial portion of the pie. I feel totally comfortable equating tobacco with cigarettes. By contrast, as Fenring correctly states, alcohol is a huge umbrella that includes everything from wine and beer to hard liquor and all in between.

I'm with Fenring - cigarettes are poison, period full stop. If someone introduced such a product today it would be more than civil liability - it would be a criminal act and anyone who sold such a product would go to jail.

With alcohol I'll concede there's no easy analog - it is kind of sui generis. But I'd say there'd at least be an argument that it should be legal.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #46 on: March 06, 2017, 08:13:12 PM »
Pete tobacco is basically synonymous with cigarettes. I don't even have to see any stats to know that non cigarette tobacco use is a trivial portion of the pie. I feel totally comfortable equating tobacco with cigarettes.

Your feelings and comfort level are irrelevant; tobacco regulations cover chew, snuff, pipes, and cigars.  Chew and cigars are available at gas stations and convenience stores.  The fact that the *quantities* consumed are trivial compared to quantities of tobacco consumed makes my point: that non-cigarette tobacco use has a large base of casual non-addicted users.  Otherwise these products would not be so widely available.

The fact that the users aren't in your circle of acquaintances and that you're willing to write the many users off as non-existence underscores my other point that the users of such products are often using these products in a benign way because they cannot afford dental care that most of us would regard as urgent.

Quote
I'm with Fenring - cigarettes are poison, period full stop. If someone introduced such a product today it would be more than civil liability - it would be a criminal act and anyone who sold such a product would go to jail.

With alcohol I'll concede there's no easy analog - it is kind of sui generis. But I'd say there'd at least be an argument that it should be legal.
That's your cultural imperialism talking.  You speak entirely from what people you consider decent people, consider acceptable.  Objectively, alcohol and nicotine are neurotoxins.  Period.  Full Stop.  If someone were to introduce a new drug like alcohol or like tobacco, they would go to jail.  Unless they were a powerful drug company (cough cough Fenanyl Cough).
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 08:17:12 PM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #47 on: March 06, 2017, 08:25:18 PM »
Quote
With alcohol I'll concede there's no easy analog - it is kind of sui generis.

If you mean chemically or pharmacologically, or in terms of ease of production, you are wrong.  Diethyl ether is only slightly less toxic than alcohol, has a similar recreational effect and was produced cheaply and consumed recreationally from the 1300s until the early 20th century.  It's banned, and today only used by Lemkos in the Carpathian Mountains in the the Ukraine region.

Quote
But I'd say there'd at least be an argument that it should be legal.

The arguments are the same argument by which Tobacco products are legal. 1.  Cultural recognition and arguable theraputic effect for Pipes, cigars, and chew.  2. Because big corporations have us by the balls, for cigarettes.  Both arguments apply to alcohol.  We shouldn't prohibit because of culture and arguable benefit, and we can't prohibit because of corporations and other mobsters.

« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 08:33:49 PM by Pete at Home »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #48 on: March 06, 2017, 08:53:12 PM »
And yet no one would tolerate a 'candy ban' or age limit. The reality is that the fascination with alcohol is based in moral judgement rather than practical considerations. It's sin-legislation.

My understanding is it had more to do with "layabout drunks" and domestic abuse(violent drunks), often being one and the same, that lead to it being a "women's issue" back at the tail end of the 19th Century, culminating in prohibition in the early 20th right after women's suffrage became the law of the land.

That alcohol also went hand in hand with the saloons and brothels of the era just further fueled it as a "women's issue" to wage war against. I guess the theory was sober up the men, they'd be less inclined to stray and partake in dalliances with "strange women." Which in turn would put an end to prostitution. The 1920's firmly put the lid on the coffin for that theory in part, as the men never really sobered up.  8)

You're no doubt correct about the past reasons why they wanted to ban alcohol, and we should remember that this type of thinking was contemporary with prominent figures promoting eugenics by forced sterilization. In England the eugenics fantasies remained just that, but in America they were actually enacted. The claim was that it was for the public good, but in reality it seems to be to have represented a kind of aristocratic sense of having the right to eliminate any aspects of life they didn't like, whether that was undesirable people or undesirable practices. I called it a "sin" legislation but perhaps I should more properly have said aesthetic legislation - the removal of offensive things (and I'll let that word sit in regards to the politics of today).

In the present there are many vestiges in America of the old sense of stopping "wrong" things, that I think are often couched in practical explanations or technical jargon. Here's a minor but telling example: for years many states, and also places in Canada, had rather low speed limits, the argument always being that it was for public safety and that speeding was a public ill. The secret life of such speed laws was more likely that a low speed limit created greater soil for giving speeding tickets, but in any case the public morality of such laws was public safety. It turns out that actual study of speed patterns has usurped the aesthetic 'feeling' that speeding kills, and in fact many places have been slowly raising their state speed limits over the last 10-15 years, and many would like to increase them even more. I remember back when Maine had a state limit of 55 on the turnpike (which sucked), and being pleasantly surprised one day to see it had gone up to 65. It may even be the case that having higher speed limits might save lives, as it would prevent situations where a person who wants to speed is stuck behind people going much slower than he is. All this to say, many laws to this day appear to be governed by a sense of stopping 'bad feeling' practices whether or not those laws are really based on reality. In the case of alcohol, while there are practical considerations in play as well (such as not wanting alcoholic 5 year olds) at the same time I think an equal measure of aesthetic reasoning still goes into treating alcohol as an umbrella term as a vice. It can be one, but it can also be a boon, just as food can be or medicine.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ethical question in non-enforcement of Pot Rules
« Reply #49 on: March 06, 2017, 09:56:14 PM »
The fact that the *quantities* consumed are trivial compared to quantities of tobacco consumed makes my point: that non-cigarette tobacco use has a large base of casual non-addicted users.  Otherwise these products would not be so widely available.

Having known multiple people addicted to smokeless tobacco, chewing tobacco and even pipe tobacco, including relatives, not sure what your point is.  Plenty of mouth and throat cancer, damage to teeth and gums, and general all around grossness of spit bottles getting carried around everywhere.

You kind of remind me of my grandma, who swore cigarettes couldn't cause cancer because she'd being chain smoking unfiltered ones since she was a girl and didn't have it (meanwhile several of her kids developed early cancer, and others had bizarre allergy and respitory conditions).