What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

T Roper wrote: I'm not a gynecologist but I'll have a look!

Westwoods classic
Diagnosis?

JNE wrote:TRoper, just as I thought: you will pass on volunteering to show us how gullible you are. At this point we can all only validly conclude you are "gullible". Thanks for playing.

How much weed does this guy smoke? Wow....

cragmantoo wrote: How much weed does this guy smoke? Wow....

Next it will be pot's not bad for kids. It comes from the Earth! God put it there for me you man.

Bill Kirby wrote: Next it will be pot's not bad for kids. It comes from the Earth! God put it there for me you man.

He does have a 4 year degree Bill. Dont believe the hype, its a conspiracy to keep children unhappy.

Jim Fox wrote:Last one.... “The main problem in any democracy is that crowd-pleasers are generally brainless swine who can go out on a stage & whup their supporters into an orgiastic frenzy—then go back to the office & sell every one of the poor bastards down the tube for a nickel apiece.” ― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72

I think this is as appropriate and true in 2016 as it was in 1972.
RIP, Hunter

So did we decide on the climbing president yet? Maybe Trump? Get the old revolution started sooner? While the fed is busy defending it's self from insurgents I can power bolt some sport lines in the national parks.

Dang it's hard to keep you all on topic, kinda like hearding kittens.

J Q wrote:So did we decide on the climbing president yet? Maybe Trump? Get the old revolution started sooner? While the fed is busy defending it's self from insurgents I can power bolt some sport lines in the national parks. Dang it's hard to keep you all on topic, kinda like hearding kittens.

Wait, I want to argue about pot some more....

which candidate would be able to climb the highest grade?

Tim Lutz wrote:I am also suspicious of legalization of all drugs. I should have said full scale marijuana legalization.

That's that argument that drinkers always had against marijuana. They wanted Their Alcohol/Nicotine/Caffiene/Benzos, but not Marijuana.
Really, the drug war isn't a ganga war, it's a drug war.
And the policies and practice that make it destructive are the same for all drugs.
Psychedelics are fairly unlikely to kill anyone, but no, they certainly are not healthy dietary supplements any more so than MJ is. But the drug war destroys lives and the black market organized crime thrives on a product that is less healthy than what it would be if it were legal.
So - I'm always a little surprised by people that make that argument for just 1 drug...

Tim Lutz wrote: huh? how is a 'public push' not criminalization?

Maybe 'educational' stuff (PFDFA, IE) 'brain on drugs' commercials? Drunk Driving commercials? Smoking kills commercials?
Not that I think it's terribly effective, but you did ask, so I answered that part of it.

Tim Lutz wrote:Todd, ok, let's say there are significant risks, what about the research that shows a myriad of physical and mental benefits?

Uhhh... To casual and occasional or habitual but uncontrolled use of MJ? Dude, I've stuided pharmacology, neurobiology, clinical neurology, and even specifically drugs. And I've been on the legalization train since before I was old enough to vote...

But what are you talking about? I'm not saying that there is nothing, but I certainly won't paint with a broad brush like that.

Long Duk Dong wrote:Mike or Tony, Either of you care to respond to my question on page 33?

What question?
I saw you post some Chompsky quotes, but that doesn't really pose a question to me.

Quinn Baker wrote: Gary Johnson is a fine guy, I have nothing against him, but as a third party candidate, he has no chance of winning. As such, a vote for him is voting against your own self interest.

Whenever I hear that arguement I get this visual of a parade of Zombies (infected with the D/R virus) slowly parading down the street, arms extended forward:
"Must eat the seed corn... must keep the RNC/DNC in power... must prevent actual free elections..."

The system needs to burn. This argument is what keeps it alive.
And if you ever ask yourself how it is that we got to a point where all you can do is pick between the lesser of 2 evils, this is it. This is how it happens.

Nobody will vote 3rd party because nobody will vote 3rd party. No other reason.

Bill Kirby wrote: The funny thing, to me anyway, is the stat that emergency room visits involving Marijuana went up a bunch in CO. That shows that more people are smoking pot than before. That statistic could be used to stop any legislation.

Not a 'fact' and not a very defensible conclusion. It certainly is not probably true, even if plausibly.

ER visits are up by a few... perhaps a lot in %, but relatively small in total number, and it's almost all related to edibles, not smoking.
And that does not mean that many more people are doing it.
It means 2 things:
1) That people are no longer afraid of going to jail if they go for treatment and are more likely to seek treatment. This is the fundamental argument for almost all harm reduction efforts involving limited immunity (IE: CO SB-20-12), and it has been proven to be true by any study that has explored it. Contraband has always had limited reporting or treatment seeking associated with it because it is/was illegal.
2) That a few more naive people are doing edibles and that they find out later that edibles are not the same as smoking it in terms of kinetics. They are naive of that fact, not necessarily of MJ in general. There are more 'edibles' users.

So yeah, that "statistic" could be used to fight legislation. But in reality, that's just your narrative, not a fact.

Tony- great post about the 3rd party.
To vote for the lesser evil is still voting for evil. And when you think about it, isn't voting for the lesser evil a half-assed thing to do? I mean, if you're going to vote for evil, then go all in and vote for the greater evil.
I personally have serious doubts that our system would even acknowledge a 3rd party victory, too much power and money at stake. I know a formerly high ranking RNC member who defected to the LP 3 months ago, before the Trump thing took off. She told us that the discovered the fix is in, voting is irrelevant.
However, despite the fact that your vote is completely meaningless when tossed in with a couple hundred million; one way to actually make it more valuable is to vote for Gary Johnson, or Dr. Jill Stien if you're a Sanders type. The powers that be will notice, but more importantly the next wave of citizens will see that other parties are rising.
Another component with the alleged rise in cannabis related ER visits is that we have seen 10-15K a month in new transplants. There is definitely a lot of anti-cannabis propaganda coming out from the sources that stand to lose money, like the alcohol industry and the prison industrial complex. They have pull with our limp-dicked local media through advertising dollars and police media access.

Tony B wrote: What question? I saw you post some Chompsky quotes, but that doesn't really pose a question to me.

I am pretty sure he was trying to initiate a true ownership of the word anarchy debate. Ever signed onto a AnCap v AnCom debate page on Facebook? He shows all the traits of one of those guys.

Tim,
I never asked if MMJ had benefits. It clearly does for certain conditions, no denying that.

Like my question said:

Tony B wrote: To casual and occasional or habitual but uncontrolled use of MJ? I'm not saying that there is nothing, but I certainly won't paint with a broad brush like that.

Your post seemed to say, and maybe was just misunderstood, that casual, healthy users had something to gain from it overall, as if a net positive for them. It sure seemed like you were talking about full legalization... which again, I'm all for. But that's not to say it will be a net health benefit. It's just that the drug war is worse than the drug... and the organized crime around it kills far more than it does, even indirectly (because direct death from MJ is pretty hard to do...). I suspect that is true for almost any illegal drug.

So having it legal for recreational is hardly for health benefits, no more so than alcohol. Prohibition wasn't ended to provide a health benefit, it was because it was stupid in the first place and failed because it was ill conceived, as if law could over-ride human nature.

And my question about decriminalization or legalization of psychedelics stands... if you want to legalize pot, why not shrooms, X, LSD, etc?
You know, those have very clearly understood and/or proven benefits and in the case of LSD a medical history... At least as valid as pot. I guess most younger people are unaware of all the hidden history on that which the FDA/DEA won't discuss, but is available to your fingertips if you know how to use google.

Also, unlike pot, the average/composite of occasional users of LSD measures higher in almost every metric of mental health than the aggregate of non-users (average). IE lower incidences of depression, people or property crime, divorce rates, suicide, early death, etc...

So if we're going to talk about legalization or decriminalization, why is it not a larger discussion? Why single out MJ as the only thing we can re-examine?

economist.com/blogs/dailych…

PS- yes Tim, some people give BJ's for weed, some for food, some for money, some for whatever--- some for liquor. I don't know what that is all about, but if it were legal, that would be a lot less common.

Tony B wrote: Whenever I hear that arguement I get this visual of a parade of Zombies (infected with the D/R virus) slowly parading down the street, arms extended forward: "Must eat the seed corn... must keep the RNC/DNC in power... must prevent actual free elections..." The system needs to burn. This argument is what keeps it alive. And if you ever ask yourself how it is that we got to a point where all you can do is pick between the lesser of 2 evils, this is it. This is how it happens. Nobody will vote 3rd party because nobody will vote 3rd party. No other reason.

You do not understand the mathematics involved here. It is not simply that nobody votes third party because no one votes third party. First Past The Post voting systems trend inevitably towards two parties. Change the voting system to instant runoff and implement mixed-member proportional representation and you will have the utopia you desire. Until then, voting for a third party is actively against your self-interest. Please, go watch the video i posted upthread, it contains a lot of information you desperately need to understand. Once you do, you will get why third party candidates cannot possibly win the presidency.

Tony B wrote: Not a 'fact' and not a very defensible conclusion. It certainly is not provably true, even if plausibly. ER visits are up by a few... perhaps a lot in %, but relatively small in total number, and it's almost all related to edibles, not smoking. And that does not mean that many more people are doing it. It means 2 things: 1) That people are no longer afraid of going to jail if they go for treatment and are more likely to seek treatment. This is the fundamental argument for almost all harm reduction efforts involving limited immunity (IE: CO SB-20-12), and it has been proven to be true by any study that has explored it. Contraband has always had limited reporting or treatment seeking associated with it because it is/was illegal. 2) That a few more naive people are doing edibles and that they find out later that edibles are not the same as smoking it in terms of kinetics. They are naive of that fact, not necessarily of MJ in general. There are more 'edibles' users. So yeah, that "statistic" could be used to fight legislation. But in reality, that's just your narrative, not a fact.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/un-report-more-marijuana-more-er-visits#47713

I think Tim and I were discussing an article (not the one above) 3 days ago. I never wrote fact but did write could've and would've.

Bernie Crushes!

Tim Lutz wrote:You would have your answer IF the Feds would classify it as a schedule 2 drug, able to be studied. The head in the sand attitude is from the feds. jama.jamanetwork.com/articl… conclusion: Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.

Who the f:ck smokes pot 2-3 times a month? Everyone I know smokes at least once a day if not all day.