Utterly Amazing - Pot Use NOT a Fundamental Human Right?

[DrGreenthumb]

I agree that this is a common effect of alcohol---loss of inhibition. And having smoked pot in days gone by, I am well aware that a high person is generally more capable in motor skills than one who is drunk. Nonetheless, that does not change the fact that I fully believe pot does have some degree of impairment, and I fully respect that many employers do not want people high at work (nor do they want them drunk for that matter).

this is not about a guy being high at work, he was high on his own time, there is no blood test that can tell if someone is currently high, only for presence of THC in their system. You can fail a drug test even if it has been a month since your last toke. Again what is needed is an actual "impairment" test. If the employee can pass the test then he or she is not impaired. This should be about actual job performance not an excuse to fire people because you don't like how they spend their free time. In Canada we are supposed to hire employees, not purchase slaves, who are accountable to their "masters" even when they are not at work.

[BubberMiley]

It's a myth.

Non-Moonbean citation?

[jefferiah]

Non-Moonbean citation?

No actually you did not really adequately answer, M Dancer. What you said was that it would have been impossible for Louis Armstrong to have played better, and that he invented modern music. None of that is established scientific fact. The idea that he invented modern music is simply opinion. I am sure there would be many people who would disagree.

Musical virtuosos existed long before pot gained popularity among the jazz crowd.

Edited January 19, 2008 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

In Canada we are supposed to hire employees, not purchase slaves, who are accountable to their "masters" even when they are not at work.

It seems you do not understand the definition of slavery. A slave is a person you own. That means that they are always accountable to their masters. In this case the fellow entered into a employment under a set of terms that he was aware of. If this fellow wants to smoke pot he does not have to apply for a job that does testing. No one is forcing him to do anything. He knew going into the job that they did regular drug tests. He entered into the employment on those terms, thought he would get away with it, and now that he is caught he has decided that he does not like the terms he agreed to. He can leave the job if he does not like the rules. A slave cant. He must be freed.

Edited January 19, 2008 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

deleted

Edited January 19, 2008 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Personally I'd say the fellow who composed the Brandenburg Concertos kicks Louis Armstrongs ass all over the place when it comes to music.

Edited January 19, 2008 by jefferiah

[BubberMiley]

No actually you did not really adequately answer, M Dancer. What you said was that it would have been impossible for Louis Armstrong to have played better, and that he invented modern music. None of that is established scientific fact. The idea that he invented modern music is simply opinion. I am sure there would be many people who would disagree.

Musical virtuosos existed long before pot gained popularity among the jazz crowd.

No one who has a complete understanding of the history of modern American music would disagree that Armstrong was a primary innovator in its development. Musical history is not based on personal opinion. True, he was a musical virtuoso and a great composer, but that wasn't his major contribution. He was the first to sing in a "conversational style," which was an innovation that required electric recording technology (which was a new invention at the time). Bing Crosby cited Armstrong as his primary influence, and popular music was subsequently changed forever. Listen to singers before and after Armstrong and the scientific evidence you demand is unquestionable.

This is not to say that weed made him who he was. It didn't. But he believed it made him perform better because of its well known effect of accentuating one's sense of hearing and time.

[BubberMiley]

Personally I'd say the fellow who composed the Brandenburg Concertos kicks Louis Armstrongs ass all over the place when it comes to music.

Now that is an example of personal opinion. I'm glad I could help you decipher the difference.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges though.

[jefferiah]

Now that is an example of personal opinion. I'm glad I could help you decipher the difference.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges though.

No it is a prime example of the same thing you did.

[jefferiah]

Listen to singers before and after Armstrong and the scientific evidence you demand is unquestionable.

No it isnt.

One could basically point to any musician in any time period and say he was part of a chain reaction of events bigger than himself and played a part in the development of what we have today. To say he invented modern music is highly subjective.

And the fact that his singing style was different does nothing to suggest that pot does not impair, while the majority of authorities to this day still say that marijuana does indeed slow reaction time. Some people might say that Kurt Cobain changed music as well, does nothing for the heroin lobby or the stick guns in your mouth lobby.

Edited January 19, 2008 by jefferiah

[BubberMiley]

No it is a prime example of the same thing you did.

Actually, no, it's not. I could say the Mona Lisa was a crappy painting and doesn't compare to Andy Warhol's work. That would be an opinion, and since it is not scientifically verifiable that the Mona Lisa is a great painting, my opinion holds up, even though it may be based on my complete and total ignorance of art.

My opinion that Leonardo had no influence on the work of subsequent artists does not, however, hold up in the same way. There is clear evidence and overwhelming agreement that he did, in fact, have a considerable influence.

Simply put, influence is scientifically verifiable; artistic greatness is not, even when that genius is clearly obvious to even the most detached layperson.

[jefferiah]

Actually, no, it's not. I could say the Mona Lisa was a crappy painting and doesn't compare to Andy Warhol's work. That would be an opinion, and since it is not scientifically verifiable that the Mona Lisa is a great painting, my opinion holds up, even though it may be based on my complete and total ignorance of art.

My opinion that Leonardo had no influence on the work of subsequent artists does not, however, hold up in the same way. There is clear evidence and overwhelming agreement that he did, in fact, have a considerable influence.

Simply put, influence is scientifically verifiable; artistic greatness is not, even when that genius is clearly obvious to even the most detached layperson.

Saying that Louis Armstrong had an influence, I will most definitely agree with that. You said he practically invented modern music. Sorry, if you dont see the difference there, you are impaired right now. Once again though influence has nothing to do with motor skill impairment.

Edgar Allan Poe had an influence on future writers. That does not mean he invented modern lit, and it certainly doesnt mean that his alcoholism had no effect on his motor skills.

Edited January 19, 2008 by jefferiah

[BubberMiley]

Saying that Louis Armstrong had an influence, I will most definitely agree with that. You said he practically invented modern music. Sorry, if you dont see the difference there, you are impaired right now. Once again though influence has nothing to do with motor skill impairment.

As I said, Armstrong invented the conversational style of singing, which is a fundamental component of American popular music to this day. If you consider this vocal style to be one of the things that defines this music (which many musicologists do), then Armstrong practically invented it.

And it would be bizarre to say that Armstrong's motor skills were impaired, considering they were so incredibly refined. One can't compare Armstrong-on-weed with Armstrong-not-on-weed because Armstrong-not-on-weed never existed, but he's a pretty good argument that weed doesn't actually impair motor skills among habitual users.

[BubberMiley]

Edgar Allan Poe had an influence on future writers. That does not mean he invented modern lit, and it certainly doesnt mean that his alcoholism had no effect on his motor skills.

To make an adequate comparison, you would have to provide an example of someone who came up with a new form or genre that hadn't been invented yet. For example, many say that Daniel Defoe invented the novel with his book Robinson Crusoe. This is more difficult to ascertain, however, than American popular music because we don't have complete information about what was done 300 years ago. Armstrong's invention of the conversational style, however, is (as far as I have read) undisputed.

[DrGreenthumb]

No it isnt.

One could basically point to any musician in any time period and say he was part of a chain reaction of events bigger than himself and played a part in the development of what we have today. To say he invented modern music is highly subjective.

And the fact that his singing style was different does nothing to suggest that pot does not impair, while the majority of authorities to this day still say that marijuana does indeed slow reaction time. Some people might say that Kurt Cobain changed music as well, does nothing for the heroin lobby or the stick guns in your mouth lobby.

To take the word of the "authorities" who are paid to hunt down people for using this plant, is pretty moronic. Of course the "authorities" are going to say whatever they can to demonize weed and the people who use it. After all, they would look like a real bunch of assholes if people knew how harmless pot really was. Oh yeah 80% of Canadians DO already know. I guess that's why the cops get about as much respect as they deserve these days.

[jbg]

Personally I'd say the fellow who composed the Brandenburg Concertos kicks Louis Armstrongs ass all over the place when it comes to music.

Both were utterly excellent in their own way.

[buffycat]

DrGreenthumb,

did you happen to catch CBC Sunday (I don't usually watch it but was eating a late breakie and flipping channels around). Anyways... they did a bit on Emery's Extradition (I think the verdict is coming tomorrow?). It wasn't too bad.

I gotta say, though not overly thrilled with Marc on a personal level, my hat goes off to him in his dedication to standing up for what he believes in and keeping true to his libertarian principles. IMO the DEA's prosecution of him is clearly motivated by political means - of this there is no doubt. The actions of our own administrations (both the Liberals and current Conservatives) is truly deplorable on many levels. It raises the question of the ability of our elected officials to exercise soveriegnty over our own people - let's face it he would NOT be being sent to what could amount to a life sentence in Canada for selling his seeds - thus there is certainly enough legal basis for withholding extradition under the current legal arrangements. This exposes our Justice department as being VERY weak willed with respect to standing up to the US on her rabid drug policies.

I wish Marc luck - and if he is sent it will be a black day for Canadians. (Granted the media has been quite silent on this issue as well). This the charge is NON violent , has NO terror connections - no 'booga booga' - it is victimless and our gov has intervened for far worse offenders. If he's sent it a shame on all of us who believe in individual liberty and freedoms.

[jefferiah]

To make an adequate comparison, you would have to provide an example of someone who came up with a new form or genre that hadn't been invented yet. For example, many say that Daniel Defoe invented the novel with his book Robinson Crusoe.

Fair enough.

So does this mean that when Mr. Dafoe had a few swigs of the ole fire water he didnt get drunk?

[BubberMiley]

So does this mean that when Mr. Dafoe had a few swigs of the ole fire water he didnt get drunk?

No, but if he always had a few drinks before writing, claimed that those few drinks helped him write better, wrote better than anyone else before or since, and if there was contradictory and therefore inconclusive scientific evidence that drinking causes bad prose, then I would say those few drinks probably didn’t hurt his writing.

[Community Advocate]

It was a bit more complex than that.

FTA

Thanks for the clarity on that. I agree, the complexities are missed when we look at things from the paradigm of having an agenda to follow.

Learning takes a back seat to self-expression sometimes.

dumb question: fta - full time articling?

[Community Advocate]

Pot is bad.

To encourage pot use - you will create a new generation of those that suffer from stunted developement.

Teens are already hardwired for risky behaviour without drug use:

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/200704...-risky-behavior

and they're getting into trouble with police:

http://www.bcfedpolice.com/Portals/9/docs/...ends%202007.pdf

Here is how mj affects the teen brain:

http://theantidrug.com/drug_info/mjmh_intr...on_to_brain.asp

and here's what the expert says:

http://theantidrug.com/drug_info/mjmh_ask_the_expert.asp

Potential for ome pretty serious consequences for the future, indeed. These people aren't making this stuff up......

Young people who use marijuana weekly have double the risk of depression later in life.1

Teens aged 12-17 who smoke marijuana weekly are three times more likely than non-users to have suicidal thoughts.2

There is evidence of increased risk for schizophrenia in later years in some teens who smoke marijuana.3

and to learn about the effects on the teenage brain that is still developing you can take a virtual tour of the brain here:

http://www.theantidrug.com/drug_info/mjmh_virtual_tour.asp

Edited January 21, 2008 by Community Advocate

[jefferiah]

No, but if he always had a few drinks before writing, claimed that those few drinks helped him write better, wrote better than anyone else before or since, and if there was contradictory and therefore inconclusive scientific evidence that drinking causes bad prose, then I would say those few drinks probably didn’t hurt his writing.

No, I never said that drinking hurt his writing. But the fact that he was "influential" and a "drinker" does nothing to suggest that drinking does not impair. I don't know about Daniel Dafoe--whether he drank or not. But Mr. Poe did and you may have undermined his influence. Some people consider him the father of the modern mystery novel. Alot of influential writers were drinkers, that does not mean that its safe to drive while drinking. Since there are relatively few fatal writing or jazz improvization accidents we generally don't worry about this sort of thing.

Sigmund Freud was definitely influential. Does this mean its safe to operate heavy equipment under the influence of cocaine?

Edited January 21, 2008 by jefferiah

[eyeball]

Prohibitionists might have a valid point if they were also talking about alcohol and tobacco.

Don't you think the job of convincing kids to stay away from drugs would be a lot easier if they saw that alcohol and tobacco were outlawed too?

Edited January 21, 2008 by eyeball

[PoliAgno]

Im not sure if it would be easier but it would be easier for kids to not succomb to the peer pressure.

[Wilber]

No, but if he always had a few drinks before writing, claimed that those few drinks helped him write better, wrote better than anyone else before or since, and if there was contradictory and therefore inconclusive scientific evidence that drinking causes bad prose, then I would say those few drinks probably didn’t hurt his writing.

Booze has a way of loosening ones tongue and removing inhibitions which could be a good thing for a writer of prose or music but not for something that requires good judgment of speed and distance or motor skills.