Bluegrime on 10/1/2011 at 19:55
Quote Posted by fett
Hold the fucking phone. Is this true?:
I think it has more to do with people who are already crazy self medicating with soft drugs, even if their on the proper medications. Doubly so if they aren't. In my totally unscientific study of the people I'm sitting with right now (two of whom are avid pot smokers) we've collectively concluded that correlation =/= causation in this case. I've never known a person who "went crazy" because they smoked pot, while we've (the people in the room) known several between us who started that way and got worse because of it.
Its very much like the idea of pot being a gateway drug. Since a staggering proportion of people who are into hard drugs smoke or smoked the ganja it would seem like theres an obvious path between the two. But the inverse isn't true. Relative to how many people do/have been stoners the number of people who graduate to hard drugs is small, and I believe the same would pan out for "pot makes you nutjob" theory. Certain people have a disposition towards psychosis and other nastiness and pot is contributing factor to those becoming worse rather then a cause.
Thats just the collective opinion of my livingroom though, so don't take it as a scientific theory. ( I would very much like to see the hard numbers behind Fett's quote though, especially how the data was collected )
the_grip on 10/1/2011 at 20:20
Definitely agree. There are studies that show pot actually reduces the effects of clinical depression and that it can help with bipolar disorders as well.
The big problem, however, is that people think they can use pot and lighten up on the prescribed drugs. Not so. I'm still waiting for some further studies that compare apples to apples... it seems that naysaying pot studies don't indicate if the subjects actually quit taking their prescribed meds in favor of the green candy. That's a recipe for disaster. It's like making a crazed person drunk... lower their inhibitions on their frail grasp of reality.
However, from what I can tell (not from firsthand experience) is that pot can help as a supplement to meds in the same way alcohol can help, too, provided one doesn't go overboard. But a nice chillout buzz can really ease the mental stress and help sleep - both of which are huge in terms of helping mental disorders. In other words, when used responsibly, pot can be a benefit.
At the very least, I don't see how pot = mental disorder or even making one more susceptible to it. Things like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia don't typically show up until the late 20s to late 30s, so linking the two can be very arbitrary. When good old Johnny leaves home to go to college, smokes some pot, graduates, goes off into the real world, smokes more pot, then goes bananas, it is not because of pot. It is the incubation time so to speak for mental illness. If Johnny gets treated and has some meds, then stay on the meds FFS.
From the article:
Quote:
Among the things we should be discussing in the aftermath of this horror is the accumulating evidence of those drugs' potential contribution to making some dangerous people even more dangerous than they might otherwise have been.
What a bunch of bullshit. What about the availability of alcohol? What about guns and the access to crowded areas? Should those be restricted, too, because they make "some dangerous people even more dangerous" blah blah bullshit? We should also do away with Tom & Jerry, violent video games, and any kind of loud angry music because surely those make people do things that they wouldn't have done otherwise. This whole thing is a ripe tank of rotten sewage.
The fix is really that the author should smoke some pot.
SD on 10/1/2011 at 20:26
Oh yeah, if you want to ignore all the facts that point towards him being a teaparty lunatic - the fact he was a registered Republican, the fact he had a paranoid hatred of government, the fact he supported a return to the gold standard, the fact he just
loved his guns - in favour of the vague recollections of somoene who knew him 4 years ago, then I guess the notion that he was a left-wing pothead would be persuasive.
Renault on 10/1/2011 at 23:57
There's evidence that he was both far right and far left, but it's kind of ridiculous to argue that the shooting had anything to do with politics at all. The guy was nuts, unstable, and possibly schizophrenic. It was as much about republican/democrat as it was about his grocery list or maybe his tv guide. The guy is sick.
So strange that democrats want to say the shooting was politically motivated as if "oh, he was a right winger, now it all makes perfect sense!" :rolleyes:
Scots Taffer on 10/1/2011 at 23:58
Drugs, Gun control, Politics... how can we shoehorn Abortion and Religion in here?
Bluegrime on 11/1/2011 at 00:03
Well if his mother would've had an abortion this wouldn't have happened.
And it was probably all those fucking xtians that stopped her. NICE GOING. :mad:
CCCToad on 11/1/2011 at 01:08
I still have a hard time buying the idea that if it wasn't for Sarah Palin, that this wouldn't have happened. Granted that Sarah Palin loves to generate hype for herself by auditioning for the Jeff Foxworthy show, but its more symptomatic of the "proud to be a redneck" mentality that permeates the far right and it still pales in comparison to the calls to assassinate Bush and an NPR producer stating that she would "Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch [Limbaugh's] eyes bug out” should he have a heart attack.
Ultimately, saying that this is all the fault of whatever Right or Left wing politician you hate the most is a shallow and simpleminded way of looking at things. And much easier to deal with. The reality is that the causes are in issues that have no simple solution: increased rates of mental illness in America, misuse of weapons, possible upbringing, and a political culture that has degenerated into being , polarized, emotional and hysterical. Every so often these conditions coalesce into a single point of violence.
Am I saying that we should just fix our issues and we will be in nirvana? You'd be an idiot to assume I mean that. My point is simply that America's cultural deterioration creates conditions more likely to result such acts.
edit: another article : (
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136895-dem-planning-bill-that-would-outlaw-threatening-lawmakers)
Not really sure what the point of this bill (as advertised) is. Threatening somebody or inciting violence is already interpreted as having no First amendment protections.
jtr7 on 11/1/2011 at 03:30
The real message to Palin (as a figurehead, not The One), is that she's not helping with all her cute shit, she is not representative of "real Americans", just a segment of Americans who happen to be real people.
Rug Burn Junky on 11/1/2011 at 04:49
Quote Posted by CCCToad
I still have a hard time buying the idea that if it wasn't for Sarah Palin, that this wouldn't have happened.
That's because nobody's saying that, you stupid fuck.
CCCToad on 11/1/2011 at 04:51
Some of the local left wing talkers did.
Or to be more specific, one caller dialed in livid and claiming that Sarah Palin bears responsibility. The host agreed and said that "you can't deny that her rhetoric contributed to making this happen"
