A police officer should never be able to arrest or detain anyone without probable cause. That’s the problem. That’s why there’s a strong anti-police bias. Because that’s not just the real world as in cops doing things that they aren’t supposed to, it’s people like Mayor Bloomberg and lawbrows who dance around the 4th amendment.
1 Like
Cop: You’re under arrest
Suspect: For what?
Cop: Resisting arrest
The McGovern campaign was a complete shitshow and was in trouble early on, but got finally derailed by a VP issue - Ted Kennedy played this stupid “I’m in, I’m out” in terms of whether or not he would join the ticket as VP, and finally bowed out - possibly because he didn’t think McGovern was a strong bet as prez, which would have hurt his long term chances for the spot. In a panic, the McGovern campaign needed someone right the fuck now to get on the ticket and picked a guy named Tom Eagleton, an essentially unknown US Senator from Missouri - after pretty much every other vaguely possible dem turned the VP spot down. Shortly afterwards, it came out that Eagleton had been hospitalized for severe depresssion including multiple episodes treated with electroshock therapy. Not surprisingly, this didn’t help McGovern’s campaign, although I honestly dunno by that point it made much of a difference - McGovern, who by all account was an honestly great person, was a disaster once he won the nomination for a bunch of reasons and Nixon cruised to victory (and for anyone who cares about politics, Hunter Thompson’s “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail” is beyond great.)
As for whether or not the Clinton-wing of the Dem’s expressed concerns about the viability of Bernie being based in the Dem’s getting rolled by the GOP like Nixon/McGovern vs fear about their cushy jobs - I’d guess both are in play, and both are possible - I mean, Bernie could do the equivalent McGovern move of choosing his running mate who announces two weeks ago that he’s going back to inpatient rehab for a nasty crack habit he just can’t shake. But I think there are a significant number of the “elite” Dem establishment that will view Bernie as worse than Trump for their own selfish reasons, professional and financial
MM MD
2 Likes
Also primaried Carter.
That shit that Jman was talking about: making observations, getting incriminating statements IS how an officer goes about getting probable cause. If your point is that pigs lie and an officer’s observations/word is unreliable and insufficient to gain probable cause, well a prosecutor and a left-libertarian are.never going to agree about that.
I don’t call cops pigs, but I will call you an idiot.
3 Likes
This is the key. Is marijuana preferable to other drugs. This is where Hobbes is really the only person that can opine with any merit here. Or other MDs, medical researchers, etc.
Out on a hike, so a delayed answer.
- There is a subset of patients that get cyclic vomiting, a miserable presentation where you puke your guts out, get bad crampy belly pain and often get dehydrated enough to need labs/IV fluids/+/- a day or two in the hospital. A day in the hospital is 10K or so, just seeing my smiling face for a couple of liters of fluids and some IV zofran is probably 3K or so. ER docs groan picking up the chart, because the patient will be adamant that the vomiting episodes have NOTHING due to their marijuana usage, and I’ll see them again in a week, rinse and repeat. Which leads to…
- We have NO idea about marijuana usage, especially chronic - although, like the cyclic vomiting stuff, we are hazy on the acute stuff. My best guess is that there are a lot of moving parts - the ditch weed that was around when I was in my early 20’s and the commercial product now being turned out are essentially unrelated to each other. Likewise, we know nothing about smoking vs. edibles (I’ve seen a couple articles suggesting the vomiting problems are less likely, but we don’t know because
- Research was (and pretty much still is) close to impossible by the feds - and until we do, it’s guessing, not knowing, but I’d guess that
- The right answer is that it will be “it depends” like almost all this stuff. Some people should be able to use THC/marijuana with minimal issues, some like the people with the vomiting stuff should look into edibles or stay away, and some people shouldn’t be fucking around with the stuff for any reason - and I’d argue that it’s not the drug, it’s the patient, or more properly the patient’s psychiatric makeup. I have a HIDEOUS family history family of alcohol problems. I can have a couple of beers a day, a mixed drink maybe 3-4 times a year, with no problems. OTOH I can name several close family members who fucked up their lives/jobs/relationships due to alcohol. They shouldn’t be drinking ever. Some people shouldn’t be using THC/smoking marijuana ever - a cursory look around the NFL/NBA would suggest that some people just are missing the switch in your head for controlling the stuff.
- I’m fairly certain that a decent number of patients will (eventually) be shown to benefit for a number of various conditions that can be used for treatment with marijuana - especially since I view benzos as the devil. I’m also certain that a number of those patients are benefiting from a placebo effect - that’s also to be expected. Some people have improvement on seizure control - and some of the seizure meds are fairly nasty (although keppra anecdotally seems to be pretty good) Again, more research is needed.
- New poster “surf” (nice to see another doc) left a good post, IMHO, and it’s pretty much where I’m coming down on the topic - but we need more research, and I doubt the feds are going to be spending $$$ on the subject any time soon. Just because the amount of alcohol sloshing around in society causes less problems than, say, marijuana, doesn’t mean that the primary reason for that is just the numbers involved.
Again…it’s complicated.
MM MD
6 Likes
I’m going to value the opinions of doctors on this subject more than everyday smokers. Anyone who gives more weight to the latter shows the same intellectual capacity as your typical anti-vaxxer.
1 Like
You act like he agreed with any of the nonsense you posted lol.
Definitely disagree here. Recreational pot means more people try it. People are idiots, and people on pot are bigger idiots, ergo more people who try pot means more people will think they can drive while on pot.
Seems like it’s more that “doctors know much more about what they don’t know” than a recreational user/advocate about marijuana. It’s obvious that bias affects the recreational user‘s assessment more than Hobbes’.
Sensing that this derail is gonna be split into a new thread sooner rather than later.
Speculation that’s not supported (not really refuted either) by empirical study. The effect of legalization on usage rates is certainly not clear. (because it’s small)
The New Yorker:
“ Eleanor Randolph’s vivid biography of Bloomberg traces the impact of his Bloomberg terminals on the stock market, his much copied innovative management, the spread of his smoke-free restaurants, his early environmental and parks innovations, his fierce championing of education reform, his once lonely assault on the NRA, the deployment of his fortune to help elect a Democratic Congress in 2018, and his generous and targeted worldwide philanthropy. Bloomberg is no saint, as Randolph makes clear. His vanity can be Trumpian. But nothing about Michael Bloomberg is fake.”
The part about his helping Ds pick up seats in 2018 seems the most interesting point to me. I haven’t heard about that, and it hints at how he might govern as President.
Except Hobbes’ conclusion will be much more valuable because circumspect than Chong’s.
Well, depends on what part of my conclusion you’re referencing. I’m completely comfortable having an opinion about cyclic vomiting in marijuana smokers - it’s well described, reasonably well understood, the treatment works pretty well. I probably a lot more about cyclic vomiting than I do about the current status of Coronavirus or HIV vaccinations (mainly because neither works, sadly) - but vaccine theory is robust because the basic science has been hammered out for decades.
I’d trust Tommy on a whole bunch of stuff, but he doesn’t know anything more than me about the basic science aspect of the stuff, because there isn’t any data available to Tommy or me, or anyone, because the basic research hasn’t been done at all. Not to say that Tommy could give people all sorts of helpful information that I couldn’t - and it’s entirely that Tommy is more up to date about some clinical stuff about dementia/glaucoma and some other stuff - but a lot of the clinical stuff coming out (mostly from Isreal, for some reason) seems to be disappointing. I’m not (or was) not dialed in on chronic medical complaints, due to my specialty.
And “Up in Smoke” was the best moment of Stacey Keach’s acting career.
MM MD
2 Likes
Fair enough. The analogy could be much more precise. Vaccines are ~solved; marijuana is an open question.
I’ll still maintain that Marijuana advocates have ~no credibility vis a vis medical researchers and dispassionate medical professionals. They tend to sound like anti-vaxxers when they say things like NO ONE HAS DIED FROM OD SO THEYRE HARMLESS and ignore the litany of literature that says we need to study things a lot more before we can conclude anything.
Being on the opposite side from you is never a bad bet so I’m satisfied.
1 Like
Generally, I’d prefer more research before changing the status quo. And I’m not going to back a libertarian argument for anything, although I might be persuaded by a non-libertarian argument.
Welp you’re voting against Bernie then.