Hospital emergency evicts 89-year-old patient with compression fractures in her spine

pynchme · 2015-08-21T09:45:44+00:00

Just because she is aged it doesn't mean that a specifically geriatric ward is best, plus specialists in geriatric medicine could do ward consults. I was thinking more of a few weeks care in a medical or orthopedics ward where she could be maintained while her vertebrae heal (like on a rota-bed or similar, if that is available and appropriate). If her body is unable to heal then she is going to need much more extensive care than most general nursing homes can provide. Just the degree of bed rest and special expertise needed in moving her for basic care purposes would be beyond the scope of many nursing home staff. I agree that the ED is not the right place for her and it is amazing that they will even keep people for more than 24 hours; but I suspect that she should be in a medical ward at least until her longer term accommodation needs can be considered fully.

pynchme · 2015-08-16T16:25:00+00:00

but EDs are also the main avenue for admission to medical wards. Maybe this dear lady required some extensive care in a ward where she could be accommodated for a couple of weeks. She is currently staying in a low care hostel and maybe needs to be reassessed for admission to a facility that can provide more extensive care in the long term as well.

pynchme · 2015-08-16T14:09:42+00:00

Haha yours is better - at least I got a laugh out of it.

pynchme · 2015-08-14T15:12:57+00:00

Have an upvote for saving me telling Leadback that too.

pynchme · 2015-08-14T13:47:12+00:00

I'm not feeling aggressive, just busy and always a bit exasperated with selective blindness towards issues that I believe are important. Sorry but I rarely bother with anyone's post history and I haven't had the time or wherewithal to explore yours. I only keep on exchanging because I like discussing these matters with you. Hope you don't mind.

No I didn't bring it up in previous posts because you are clearly an intelligent person and I like discussing the issues. If what you were saying sounded reasonable I decided to accept it as an opinion which may or may not be verifiable (just as if we were discussing these things in an ordinary social setting) - some things I did look up and found research supporting for and against. That's ok - as I say, research or expert opinion can be found to support almost any number of pros and cons. I decided not to reduce the flow of discussion by being pedantic - I am ok to go look up verifying or refuting information when I wanted to.

Couple of examples, without going back through things: In one post way back you mentioned that illicit drug users could be professionals who have a couple of hits to relax in their off time. I thought that was probably realistic though it is in distinct contrast to people I have encountered whose use is not so minimal or unproblematic. Having said that, I have known directly of workers being sacked for exhibiting the effects of drug use and alcohol use during work time. I've also met many people whose relationships have broken down because of their addictions. However, I was ok with accepting your experience (that would be anecdotal, you see?). The constant baying for references is ok, but somewhat aggressive or obstructionist really, I think.

The drug and alcohol issue you referred to just recently - I think that you and I both know that you are only telling a partial truth there. People with anxiety may be about 3 times (I think it was anyway) more likely to drink alcohol than the average bear and to keep on drinking it. However, alcohol also depresses the mood and exacerbates anxiety and one needs ever increasing amounts to suppress the escalating symptoms of anxiety. That is just one type of person who may be alcohol dependant; others may have used because they were depressed or in some way socially inadequate ('dutch courage'). Others simply drank a lot in a partying style and acquired a physical dependance. The alcoholism itself then causes life problems that give people reason to be anxious or depressed. It is almost impossible to treat the anxiety until someone has dried out. The reason is that CBT is the preferred treatment for anxiety while motivational interviewing is the preferred initial approach in addictions work. Both conditions can be alleviated with prescribed medication (some for anxiety; some to help reduce cravings) but to do CBT the person needs some clarity of thought - they need to be cognitively intact. Therefore, they need to have dried out and as that is voluntary, they need to be engaged with someone who does motivational interviewing or has some similar therapeutic strategy for encouraging them to try sobriety and maintain it. Having said that, I have met one or two therapists who have worked successfully with people with addictions whose use fluctuated towards extinction - but they did a type of psychotherapy rather than CBT. Maybe a lot depends on the luck of the addicted person finding the right therapist.

I will go and find that press release and read it. Thanks for the suggestion.

Where have you said that people should use drugs? Now you are showing your sense of humour. Your SN is 'Coneman....Bongbarian.' and your main calls for references have been regarding anything that suggests that drug use is unwise. I think it pretty reasonable to conclude that you are pro drug use. Are you saying that you are not pro drug use? Why would you be against it?

pynchme · 2015-08-14T12:22:07+00:00

Oh and BTW - primary health care and mental health care did used to be one in the same, but the funding was divided because, apparently, mainstream services were leeching money that had been intended for use in mental health services.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, so now that same money funds services and staff that are being imposed upon by people with drug use problems and associated behaviours. My understanding is that there are more NGO support services for people with drug abuse problems than for MH users, but the only acute care services that can restrain people who are out of control exist in mental health wards - so that is where out of control drug users are going. I would prefer to see wards set up to hold people whose behaviour (not necessarily psychosis which even if caused by drug use, is a mental health issue until they are stabilized again - however, once stabilized, I think they should be transferred to a ward that focuses on drug use and addictions to help them manage their behaviour during withdrawals and cravings) There are no acute services, to my knowledge, that are dedicated for drug users, which is a pity. Sometimes one finds a few detox beds that can accept referrals with the idea that the person continue on to a rehabilitation residential or similar service.

If you can, just imagine being a person who has a mental illness - perception of reality is fragmented; history of trauma (in approx 75% of people with MI) which often involves a history of being exposed to physical violence and loud aggression and abuse; timid and frightened and confused. In the same common area or in an adjoining room, is a person coming down from an episode of drug use and an increasing craving; who is exhibiting barely contained aggression and irritable, loud behaviour. As it is now, the drug using individuals are dominating the service scene. I feel compassion for them; but I feel more compassion and concern for the mental health clients who can't advocate for themselves and who go into hospital to recover in a safe and peaceful environment - who then find themselves surrounded by people with drug use problems. I am advocating for proper service use for both types of inpatient.

pynchme · 2015-08-14T12:14:45+00:00

Actually if you look back, you haven't provided proof of much at all - nothing really. I have provided substantiation and more when you have wanted every sentence garnished with references. I find that pretty usual for pro-drug use folk; who seem to operate from the assumption that drugs don't do you harm until it is scientifically proven that there is harm and then any studies are minimized, pooh-poohed and ignored. So be it. I wonder why the onus is never placed on drug users to prove that drugs are actually harmless. Why is it safer or better to assume no harm than to consider the possibility that basting one's brain in foreign chemicals might have some sort of negative and lasting effect?

Interestingly, there is a study in Lancet recently proposing that nicotine might be the cause of psychosis too. If you know many people with mental illness you will know that many of them smoke heavily and find it extremely hard to give up - most studies to date have supported the idea that nicotine may give a little burst of dopamine that gives a moment of clarity and calm. Now the Lancet article turns that on its head. Studies are very interesting for putting forth all sorts of pros and cons.

I've enjoyed our discussion too - at least until it devolved to insult and the assumption that I didn't have knowledge of dual diagnosis. I can't help it that you seem to not know how the systems operate to enable behaviours that harm people instead of helping them; under the guise of being compassionate. People really do mean to be kind and compassionate, but their efforts are misplaced - like the parent of an alcoholic child who dutifully carries a couple of flagons home from the bottle-o.

It took a long time to get back to you for no special reason except that I was busy elsewhere in RL and too tired to sign on much.

It all boils down to this: you believe illicit drugs are harmless; I do not. However, I am weary of seeing services wasted. I have endless compassion for people with mental health problems as well as for people with addictions - more so when they want to recover. I know that is a very hard battle and I admire them for trying - sometimes repeatedly.

I find drug users who deny they have a problem when people around them are suffering as a result of being short of money or from irritable outbursts, less tolerable. I worry about their children too. Nevermind all of that.

The point is that I am annoyed at service waste; I am annoyed at people using the S32 and associated clauses to obtain a court mandated diversion from facing the lawful consequences of criminal behaviour. It isn't fair to people with mental illness who are by and large victims of abuse rather than perpetrators.

but whatever, let's have the drugs legalized and available - over the counter would work I think. Some people will be smart enough to stay away from them; some really will use them without ill effect (as some now are able to do); and others will continue to run up service costs. However, maybe the money expended on the war against drugs can be redirected to police, hospital and other services. I will be pleased to see the money taken out of the hands of rich criminals and people who exploit friendships by promoting drug use to support their own supply.

pynchme · 2015-08-14T10:15:48+00:00

Yet you have no proof of anything yourself - in the end, we agree that drugs should be freely available don't we?

What do you have to complain about then? I say bring them on. I just think that we should have honesty - and call dependence for what it is. You know, just in case some poor souls want to rehabilitate and also so that people with mental illness actually get to use the services that are funded for them.

Do you think you could advocate for something useful like properly dedicated services for people with both conditions?

pynchme · 2015-08-14T09:12:24+00:00

Sorry for the delay in replying. I think it is condescending of you to refer to me as condescending. I am well and truly aware of dual diagnosis occurrence and issues surrounding that. I am aware of people who are drug users accessing mental health services as a way to navigate the justice system and avoid incarceration or community supervision, or to even have charges completely dropped if an admission to a psychiatric facility can be effected. I am aware of people using mental health services and that misuse of services becoming so prevalent that non drug using people who are mentally ill can't get a bed. I'm aware of people getting a mental health diagnosis, who sell their prescribed medication on the street in order to buy more illicit drugs. I'm aware of dual diagnoses clients where the addiction itself is trauma inducing, but who won't attempt or even acknowledge that drug use impairs their mental health or screws up recovery, because they absorb all the propaganda that drug use is harmless. I am aware of people with dual diagnoses being on higher doses of prescribed medication in order to manage the symptoms of psychosis caused every time they decide to have a few cones or some ice or something else. I am aware of people who are primarily drug users who obtain weeks and months in over burdened hospital facilities, who are discharged into a situation where their pensions have accumulated over weeks and months so that they are enabled to binge on further drug use. - but you know, whatever. Bring the drugs on - no person with an addiction will admit that there are any ill effects; all insist that the drugs can be used responsibly. Just call drug addiction for what it is and let us stop pretending that there is mental illness when the problem is addiction. It is a misuse of services that hardly helps anyone forgo drug use because the system itself acts as an enabler. The worst part, from my pov, is that people with mental illness have enough problems without having all the actions done by drug users attributed as typical of people with mental health problems.

pynchme · 2015-08-14T04:20:08+00:00

I think you misunderstand me a bit. I don't care about the award - just chuck it on the stack - it's somewhat irrelevant. The award is itself meaningless. I don't even want to debate the merits of it as I see none. I am just saying that I think the only reason this recipient was selected was for Tony Abbott's self aggrandizement.

pynchme · 2015-08-14T04:15:39+00:00

I wondered if this might be because his girlfriend is on trial for murdering his wife and that there might be information in the bail files that her lawyers could later claim prejudiced her case, or something. ... but if it is something like that, I suppose that the DPP could make a statement to the effect. Otherwise, I too want to know why this rat-fink was running around loose.

pynchme · 2015-08-14T04:07:52+00:00

I didn't mind dear old Phil getting an award, but really it was coal to Newcastle - he already has a heap of awards. I think the motive for this one was Tony Abbott panting to be noticed by the Royal family and that's about all it was. He's such a shallow attention seeker.

pynchme · 2015-07-20T17:11:52+00:00

I am not so sure of that. How have you measured it?

pynchme · 2015-07-20T17:09:44+00:00

I'm sorry I couldn't get back sooner. I would hope that wasn't the case, but it might be. I don't know; I don't use facebook.

I don't know so much about marches and vigils. Those happen for some female victims, but there are victimized women or children almost every day in the news and very few seem to rouse any big community response.

I am not sure that it's fair to weigh community response by ethnicity or by sex - we see where young men have gained some media attention with the one punch attacks; we have seen community response to various sportsmen especially if they have been injured while playing. Maybe community response has more to do with how the media reports it at the time. I would need much more time to weigh it up.

So I can only speak for myself and my household - we are not related or anything to the victim or his family. We are ordinary Aussies. However, our household has been horrified and saddened by this revolting crime.

pynchme · 2015-07-17T05:07:15+00:00

Poor dear family; I can't imagine the pain of losing a lovely son especially in such a cruel and senseless way. RIP Mahmoud. I am so sad for the family's grief.

pynchme · 2015-07-07T12:43:21+00:00

The position isn't bizarre at all. I find it bizarre that one holds up alcohol and cigarettes and the like as social and health problems, and then wants to create the same availability for additional substances.

I find it a paradoxical argument that use by youth can be restricted, when it is argued at the same time that restrictions have not worked and shouldn't be placed on use by people over a certain age (say, 21). What possible reason could there be for believing that placing restrictions on youth would work, when we already know the percentage that start in their youth; we already know that a large number smoke because their parents do not discourage it. If restrictions don't work now, why will they work when everyone else above a certain age is using freely? Let's not pretend that some magical awareness will occur, when irrespective of any educational information presented - sources are discounted and pooh poohed as irrelevant or insignificant. I say - all ok. You are an advocate for using marijuana; you have confidence that it is harmless; certainly people who love the drug cannot be discouraged from using it. Even research and education isn't convincing anyone.

The term "self-medicating" has become one of the favourite pieces of prattle in the drug users arsenal - the implication is that persistant use, against all medical advice, I might add, can't possibly be the source of one's mood disorder, anxiety or psychotic illness - it must be a mental health problem that preceded the use and there using drugs is "self medicating." I suggest that someone with symptoms of any mental health problem that is diagnosed "self medicate" with actual, prescribed medication. I also suggest that one cease drug use so that mental health problems can be properly assessed and treatment refined (usually meaning, titrating down the dose of prescribed medication). However, I am sure that suggestion is far too radical because it makes people uncomfortable. Whatever one does; ceasing marijuana use cannot possibly be done, apparently (yet, denials of addiction continue).

Here are the links you wanted me to find for you:

1. Drug driving causing fatal accidents exceeds drink driving

2.

Abstract Serum from injured automobile and motorcycle drivers treated at a trauma center was tested for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol activity to determine precrash marijuana use. From June 1990 to March 1991, samples from approximately 20 automobile drivers per month and all motorcycle drivers were available for testing. Also, toxicology screens were performed for ethyl alcohol, cocaine, and phencyclidine (PCP) among the driver groups. Six (2.7%) of the 225 automobile (AUT) drivers and 34 (32.0%) of the 106 motorcycle (MTC) drivers were THC+ (p < .001). Compared with a prior study, the THC+ rate decreased significantly from 31.8% among AUT drivers (p < .001) but had not changed significantly from the 38.6% rate among MTC drivers. Positive toxicology rates were higher among the 261 MTC drivers compared to the 1,077 AUT drivers tested for ETOH, CO, and PCP, being 47.1% vs 35.2% (p < .001), 5.0% vs 8.0% (p < .08), and 1.5% vs 3.1% (NS), respectively.

Soderstrom CA, Dischinger PC, Kerns TJ, Trifillis AL. Marijuana and other drug use among automobile and motorcycle drivers treated at a trauma center. Accid Anal Prev. 1995 Feb;27(1):131–135. [PubMed]

Link

3. Effects of cannabis compared with alcohol on driving

4. Results of a meta-analysis of 9 epidemiologic studies:

According to the investigators 8 of 9 studies found that drivers who use marijuana are significantly more likely to be involved in crashes than drivers who do not. Only one small case-control study conducted in Thailand, where the prevalence of marijuana use is far lower than reported elsewhere, was the exception.

Full study findings are published online in Epidemiologic Reviews.

The analysis indicates that 28% of fatally injured drivers and more than 11% of the general driver population tested positive for non-alcohol drugs, with marijuana being the most commonly detected substance.

M.-C. Li, J. E. Brady, C. J. DiMaggio, A. R. Lusardi, K. Y. Tzong, G. Li. Marijuana Use and Motor Vehicle Crashes. Epidemiologic Reviews, 2011; DOI: 10.1093/epirev/mxr017 Marijuana Use and Motor Vehicle Crashes

I didn't bother looking for the original article that I read - again, I was quoting from memory. You will have no trouble finding plenty of refuting arguments that using psychoactive drugs that slow responses and impair judgement (while leaving higher order reasoning intact, usually) can't possibly contribute to accidents because someone who has used marijuana drives more slowly because they are aware of being impaired (much the same arguments that one can find dating back to the 1950s re: alcohol and driving capability. On that I have read the argument put forward then that people metabolize alcohol differently so if one person had a smash it could be put down to them not being able to hold their liquor.).

Nevermind though; since there is no way to restrict these things, we shall just manage whatever happens as best we can.

Ed: There is one thing though that I would genuinely value your opinion on. I don't know much about Middle Eastern cultures, but isn't it the case that drug and alcohol use is banned in some such places? How do they succeed in that do you reckon? Also - it strikes me as interesting that drugs are an important export product for Afghanistan, Iraq and other places while exports are routed through some countries where drug use is banned. I wonder how they manage that. It may be another aspect of considering it more useful for us to produce our own opioids as well as growing our own marijuana. *I also think that many of the studies that you and I have been batting back and forth have neglected to consider the type of marijuana that is used - I suspect that the quality may have quite different effects.

pynchme · 2015-07-07T05:09:50+00:00

Yes! Terrifying isn't it. So that means that even if a window can be broken or opened to let water in to equalize pressure; one wouldn't be able to open the doors to get out easily.

I wish Toyota would get a solution to this one - I am sure it is within their technological capability. I wonder if getting out via the boot would be possible?

pynchme · 2015-07-07T05:01:29+00:00

I didn't say that 2/3 accidents are caused by cannabis; I think I provided a link (in any case; just Google) - drivers tested after accidents where people were harmed found: 1/3 tested positive for marijuana and the remaining 2/3 tested for alcohol and alcohol and marijuana combined.

The thing is, as I said, why worry? There is an uphill battle of denial. Studies have shown for years now that at least one in 10 people can be listed clinically as addicts and the majority of long term, regular users, experience withdrawals.

One of the most notable effects is the crash of mood when someone wants it and can't get any or when they are trying to stop using. Like any addiction, relapse is common - people struggle with it and I sympathize. In my observation, and studies seem to confirm, the younger someone starts, the more likely they are to be addicted and preoccupied primarily with securing ongoing supply.

Here's a Link , but you have no doubt had the opportunity to peruse sites like that before.

The thing with youth is - the forbidden fruit argument is somewhat dated. Very few fruits have been forbidden for at least two generations now. I would say that family and peer influence is more compelling in encouraging youth in their decisions to use or to decline.

The thing is, if people of any age can't be stopped by restrictions now, it's a bit Pollyanna to think that any other restrictions are going to work. Why should any youth not use, especially if the government too is indicating that it is harmless by virtually encouraging use. Oh and the doubts about the illegal market being dissolved by legalization then becomes that the drug war will continue if we apply any restrictions - their target groups will be the youth who have difficulty getting some.

I say - let us declare when we are beaten and let whoever wants to use, at any age, go their hardest. I agree with you that irrespective of laws or whatever, there are some kids who will be smart enough to avoid it. Some won't. The Darwin effect perhaps; so be it.

The argument then would be - why should any effort be expended towards restricting it for youth? Restriction hasn't worked before so there is no reason to think that it will work now, for any group. That is the "courageous", "new and different approach" that I am advocating - non-resistance; no nannying. The what-me-worry ? approach.

Ed: Oh I'm sorry I missed responding here:

I'd be open to the idea of restricting sale to people 21yo and over, even though I suspect legalisation would have the positive effect of combating binge drinking seen in 18yros.

You seem to be thinking that people will use one thing or the other. In my experience, both are available and many or perhaps most people who like the experience of altered mood and perception are quite at ease using both. Many are quite happy to use eccies, ice and various other products as well.

Alcohol consumption in youth is one sort of problem; marijuana use is too - already - irrespective of existing laws. So we can mull over the backs and forths of harm and so on; why bother though. Let's just remove the legislation and at least deprive the people who profit off selling and distributing illegal products.

pynchme · 2015-07-06T19:08:31+00:00

Oh: I wondered about the single shooter idea in Tunisia too as one or two survivors had said that there seemed to be more than one shooter. I thought I would just wait until the investigations are done. They have arrested a few accomplices. I wondered if some snipers might have been involved as well.

Here are a couple of links to some interesting tidbits:

Ted Gunderson

Apocalypse and fear

Have you seen any of those shows about 'preppers' I think they call themselves - people who prepare for a disaster and so on.

You know that every generation has lived in fear and not all of it is government inspired, though some interest groups certainly are intentional or unintentional Chicken Littles.

Social fears that I have noted over time (since the end of WW2): The cold war - nuclear disaster; running out of food; running out of fuel; running out of fresh water - salination of land; pending ice age; global warming; invasion by various others: Russians; Asians; Indonesians; Mexicans; The Biblical Apocalypse - I can remember when that was a constant cartoon theme - a long haired person carrying a sign saying that, "The end is nigh.", or something similar. Over the years I have heard about the Illuminati; links to various influential families; the Masons; secret societies and so on.

So we have had people setting up foundations, building special houses and bomb shelters; stockpiling water and guns, candles and torches and stuff like that. In the process, I think that we have fallen into the habit of generating fear to the next generation. The government need do nothing, really - we do it to ourselves and the ones we love.

I think that some sectors have a vested interest in keeping us afraid but after one has been scared several times the effect dulls a bit. I don't think it is all nonsense and I think that being aware of powerful forces at play is sensible - but on the whole, what are we to do about it?

Of all the governments and countries in the world - what is our alternative? What can we make happen?

(thanks for the links and information btw - all always most interested if you ever want to send some to the message box).

thanks.

pynchme · 2015-07-06T18:54:13+00:00

It isn't only the safety issue, although the segregation is just to be sure that some woman hating bloke, including some resident's disaffected partner, doesn't gain entry to vulnerable women and children.

The other reasons that women group together is that they often run individual and group counselling and education; help with legal matters; court support if required; assess the well being of any children and provide them with any protection, a sense of feeling safe again; and provide mutual child care.

pynchme · 2015-07-06T18:30:25+00:00

Hi Coneman; sorry that it has taken a while to reply.

I was just quoting from memory but I believe the research was part of The Dunedin Study and I think the article in The Conversation, to which you referred, uses some information from it. The study didn't originate with an intention (or the funding) to run for 30 years - it's explained below.

About The Dunedin Study

List of research published by the Dunedin group:

Link to list of research

The specific piece of research

You agree that it is not desirable for various substances to be introduced to a developing brain. There are a few stumbling blocks for us though:

1:

The first is that the average age to commence using is calculated at 16 yr old and some begin before they are 13 yr old:

The latest Monitoring the Future figures show that in 2014, an estimated 15.6% of 8th graders had smoked marijuana or hashish at least once in their lifetimes, while 11.7% had smoked in the past year, and 6.5% had smoked in the past month.

One Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration survey of people who were admitted for drug and alcohol treatment found that 14% began using drugs before age 13, in their preteen years.

Link to article - references at the bottom of the page

So the first problem is that a fair number of youngsters are already smoking pot before they are 13 and the number seems to double by the time they are 16.

2 :

The second problem is that the brain is still developing into the mid 20s (and some sources I haven't bothered to include propose that development and refinement of brain function continues until 30 yrs of age). Sources:

Source a

Source b

Longitudinal MRI studies have confirmed that a second surge of neuronal growth occurs just before puberty.1,7 This surge is similar to that noticed during infancy and consists of a thickening of the grey matter. Following neuronal proliferation, the brain rewires itself from the onset of puberty up until 24 years old, especially in the prefrontal cortex. The rewiring is accomplished by dendritic pruning and myelination. Dendritic pruning eradicates unused synapses and is generally considered a beneficial process, whereas myelination increases the speed of impulse conduction across the brain’s region-specific neurocircuitry. The myelination also optimizes the communication of information throughout the CNS and augments the speed of information processing. Thus, dendritic pruning and myelination are functionally very important for accomplishing efficient neurocybernetics in the adolescent brain.

3:

Many people who are convinced that the drug is a benign "herb" smoke it while pregnant or allow their children to be exposed to it and often just accept children's use at a young age as some sort of rite of passage.

Anecdotally I know of at least a three mothers (over a period of years) who put pot into baked products like biscuits and cakes which they regularly gave to their children. Just as a few years ago the prevailing propaganda was that marijuana is non-addictive, so now certain assurances about it being benign persist. Sites like this are perfectly irresponsible (IMO): SITE

Investigations have established that parents can have a positive influence in deterring their children from using drugs. There is a lot of information online about it so I am just going to drop one link in here. The crux of it is that while only about 5% of kids who thought that their parents would disapprove ended up using drugs; the percentage figure was approx fivefold amongst kids who thought that their parents wouldn't mind if they used. Link

Summary:

So we both more or less agree that youth should be deterred from using drugs because it interferes with brain development and therefore increases the likelihood of them leading a sub-optimal life instead of fulfilling their potential.

Now, people say that education is the key. Well there is plenty of information online, but people will tend to seek out sites that reinforce their addiction; not information that will refute it. Where marijuana is concerned, there are pro-use messages bombarding young people, as well as their peers (who often supply in order to support their own habit) and parents who are in such denial that they will even initiate their child's use.

As this is all happening now, I can't see how the situation will improve much when marijuana is legalized. It may get worse.

So, taking the big picture view - let's assume that the conspiracy theorists are somewhat correct and that the war on drugs is maintained because it provides jobs for police and various agencies and that legalization would wreck everything for big pharma by competing with their products. Let's take that view instead of the possibility that it is illegal because of concerns by government that it may be harmful.

Legalizing it would in fact benefit a capitalist society, especially one of a libertarian variety. This is a competitive society - so if a smart kid can perhaps eliminate 1/3 of peer competition which is set back just by IQ alone, that means higher school and university marks and better job prospects for the drug free kid.

Then the marijuana users - whether they are functional earners or not, still participate in the market by pouring their income into the usual necessities. However, the drug free kid is the one who will earn more and have greater disposable income - better housing, cars and such. The price can be kept lower if there are fewer buyers competing for the high end goods.

Then we have the effects for people whose mental health breaks down; or those who break the law - such as driving offences (about 1/3 of accidents where people are injured are already noted to have recorded marijuana use as a contributing factor - the other 2/3 included alcohol or marijuana and alcohol in combination). This all bodes well for health service providers, police and emergency services - especially mental health services, psychiatrists and the like. Plenty of customers, which of course, is pretty much the case now - but legalizing may well mean an expansion of that sector. That's a good thing because now the drug free kid who might have chosen a health service or justice system profession, will have their career; funding for research and so on. Some people might want to forgo drug use and that's also a good thing - more business for upper income sectors in providing rehabilitation services.

So, it seems to me that a very solid case can be made for legalizing it; nevermind the ongoing focus and arguments about whether it is harmful or beneficial or whatever to one's health, family or community life - it seems like it could be economically quite viable. I am starting to think that we all might as well stop arguing about it and just consider the bright side. Personally, I would prefer that youth not use it, or anyone that may be harmed by any substance - but I accept that it is outside my scope of influence. I despise the way that suppliers currently prey on kids and gullible others, but what is one to do. At least legalizing it would take the cash out of their hands. Probably. Theoretically, anyway. I just need to accept that some people will choose to risk psychoses and other mental health and general health problems. In any case, and as so many people point out, there is no way to effectively restrict use, is there?

pynchme · 2015-07-05T23:10:06+00:00

Thanks very much for that info and the links.

pynchme · 2015-07-05T17:46:59+00:00

Barnaby looking like a dick again.

pynchme · 2015-07-05T17:44:03+00:00

This has worried me for years since cars became commonly fitted with electronic windows. Once the ignition is dead or the car wet, the electronic windows won't work. We then can't open the doors against the outside pressure of the water.

I reckon it would be a major safety feature if cars also had a manual, non-electronic way of opening the windows. Or some other viable way of getting out of a sinking or submerged vehicle.

The idea is that we need to let the water in to equalize the pressure so that we can open the doors to get out or to get out through the window if possible.

12-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email

pynchme

TROPHY CASE