Legal cannabis to generate $40bln, 400,000 jobs: study

January 3, 2018

Credit: CC0 Public Domain
The legal cannabis sector is expected to generate $40 billion and more than 400,000 jobs by 2021 in the United States, according to a study released Tuesday.

The estimate by consulting firm Arcview includes direct purchases by consumers of $20.8 billion and indirect revenue for growers and various subcontractors as well as money spent with businesses not affiliated with the sector, such as supermarkets.

The projection would represent a rise of 150 percent on the $16 billion revenue recorded in 2017, according to the study, released the day after recreational use of marijuana became legal in California.

Arcview and its partner in the research, BDS Analytics, expect $4 billion in taxes to be generated within three years.

The new regime will lead to the creation of nearly 100,000 cannabis industry jobs in California by 2021, about a third of the nationwide figure and 146,000 jobs overall when indirect effects are considered.

Customers and operators in California have complained however about the punitive sales taxes to be applied to cannabis and its derivative products, which can hit 35 percent when state, county and municipal levies are taken into account.

California, the most populous US state, became the largest legal market for marijuana in the world on Monday, and public reaction to the law change has been enthusiastic, with long lines and stock shortages reported at clinics already licensed and open.

Berkeley mayor Jesse Arreguin hailed the reforms at a ceremony on Monday at Berkeley Patients Group, one of the oldest dispensaries in the United States.

"I'm stoked about this historic moment, not just for Berkeley, but for the state of California," Arreguin said, praising the state for "embracing this new economy."

Cannabis possession remains illegal under federal law, and Arcview's Tom Adams said fewer than 100 out of the 3,000 outlets and delivery services operating in California were ready to go with the required local and state permits.

"Those that were generally report doing multiples of their typical day's business with a far more diverse and less experienced customer base that need a lot of hand-holding and educating from their bud-tenders," he added.

"We were very cautious in projecting revenue growth from $3 billion to $3.7 billion in this first year of adult-use legality in California, but we'll have to revise that upwards if, as now appears likely, San Francisco and Los Angeles are going to get permits issued more quickly than we expected."

Explore further: California issues first licenses for legal pot market

Related Stories

New year brings broad pot legalization to California

January 1, 2018

The arrival of the new year in California brought with it broad legalization of marijuana, a much-anticipated change that comes two decades after the state was the first to allow pot for medical use.

Recommended for you

University choice and achievement partly down to DNA

October 18, 2018

Research from King's College London has shown for the first time that genetics plays a significant role in whether young adults choose to go to university, which university they choose to attend and how well they do.

185 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2018
Yes, but what value does it generate to match the money being traded?

Extolling the virtues of an economy based on drug trade is like praising the economic benefits of breaking windows, or dropping bombs on people. It's not exactly useful, but a bunch of people, and the government, can get rich on helping other people waste their time and resources.

It's unethical and counterproductive - like a state-owned liquor store or a casino. It prospers by people harming themselves.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2018
The question is - is pot harmful? We are, after all, we are BORN with cannabiniod receptors already in our brains...
(And - i'm up huge in my portfolio due to pot stocks...)
gkam
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2018
" It prospers by people harming themselves."

Nope. I use it for dream suppression since the Vietnam War.
Whydening Gyre
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2018
" It prospers by people harming themselves."

Nope. I use it for dream suppression since the Vietnam War.

Nope. You use it cuz it gives you an excuse to eat more cookies...
But really, George... You need to deal with those dreams, not suppress them..
gkam
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2018
You have no idea what kinds of therapy I have tried to undo what the service rendered.

I think you should deal with your own ignorance.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2018
Yup what does it say about government when it looks upon drugs and gambling in a positive light due to the revenue that it generates.
BobSage
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2018
This is, at least, money that will stay in the United States and not go to drug cartels.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2018
Yup what does it say about government when....
@mr
considering the exorbitantly expensive "war on drugs" has done little except ... ???

... that is the way of gov't, especially when it's run by the uneducated masses who can't accept validated science

.

You have no idea blah blah irrelevant blah

I think you should deal with your own ignorance
@LIAR-kam
@Whyde is correct - and I've proven you wrong on this topic repeatedly with links
like here
https://medicalxp...ain.html

suppression of dreams only pushes the problem to a later date and has no long-term therapeutic studies validating its effectiveness for PTSD rehab, especially when the situation is long term as yours would be classed

just because you're a pot-head and want to smoke up while using the excuse of PTSD doesn't mean you know sh*t about PTSD

links/ref's or STFU
of course, that is also proven here on PO repeatedly
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2018
@idiot liar-kam

and before you idiotically misinterpret my point yet again, like you do every time: I am not against MJ, nor am I against it being legal

I am, however, against stupidity and the blatant misinformation you present above

Cannabis has a number of effective uses and gov't legalization should do much to remove the burden of the court's system (from what I can discern at DOJ.gov) as well as provide for more detailed scientific study (rather than the anecdotal stupidity of a known long term abuser of said product)
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2018
"otto", don't be like Trump: Outgrow it.

Yeah, I found those posts of you bragging about playing your games here under phony names which are variations on "otto". Wow, what maturity!

Like Trump you bragged about it, put all your credibility on it, . . and LOST.

And all bullies are cowards.

Now,, go away. Grownups are here now.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
"doesn't mean you know sh*t about PTSD"

Oh, it is the other otto, . . Grumpy. I got him mad once and he carries that grudge like a deformation which grew on his back.

Yeah, . I do sufficiently to see you need help with your out-of-control emotions.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
@STOLEN VALOR liar-kam
I do sufficiently to see you need help with your out-of-control emotions
considering your incredible wisdom, why not then link references to actually support your claims (from sources later than 1971)?

I can prove you wrong with a single link that contains multiple links all debunking your claim
https://medicalxp...ney.html

the reciprocal argument isn't one of personal commentary but rather one of evidence

if you can prove that there are PTSD studies showing the effectiveness of cannabis showing where eliminating dreams removes the PTSD conditioning then you should link it here, especially considering the above debunking information

you never could find any studies to refute the studies I presented to date

will you continue to blatantly lie?

your choice

PS- you didn't get me mad
you blatantly lied
Eikka
3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2018
As I pointed out, there's a moral hazard in a government that derives special tax revenue out of "recreational" drugs.

Because it has no incentive to actually mitigate drug use or the problems that follow. The more people use it, the more they use it, the more money they get, so the government sets itself conflicting goals in maintaining a productive healthy population and simultaneously peddling drugs to them.

It's the government then that becomes addicted to the drug. It's not an argument about legalizing drugs, but about taxing them.

From the economic standpoint again, drug use is a pointless activity. In a society where poverty and disparity between the haves and the have nots is growing, celebrating the revenue of a non-productive activity is idiotic because it represents resources wasted from essential goods and services to those who cannot afford them.

You live in rotting dump with lead paint on the walls - but at least you have weed, right?
MR166
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2018
Captain I 100% agree that the war on drugs is a costly failure. Much of the problem has been caused by doctors prescribing too many pain killers. That said anyone in real pain should not have to suffer so there is a real conundrum here. 30% of heroin addicts are prescription pain medication users that have been cut off by their doctors.

Thus treatment centers not jail cells need to be available for all that really want to quit. Perhaps government run happy camps for the others. We have tons of unhappy people willing to drop out of society so there do need to be restrictions on many drugs if we want to have a functioning society. Pushers of illegal drugs still need to be jailed.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
@MR
Much of the problem has been caused by doctors prescribing too many pain killers
absolutely true

unfortunately, this is not just on the shoulders of the medical establishment. Big pharmaceutical has much blame to carry as well
Thus treatment centers not jail cells need to be available for all that really want to quit
easier said than done

Americans don't like paying for the services they think is a right (like police, fire, medical emergency staff, etc) so though this is what may well be needed, I don't see it ever coming to fruition, sadly.
Pushers of illegal drugs still need to be jailed.
absolutely 100% wholeheartedly agree with this

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2018
@Eikka
As I pointed out, there's a moral hazard in a government that derives special tax revenue out of "recreational" drugs.

Because it has no incentive to actually mitigate drug use or the problems that follow
cigarette's

.

From the economic standpoint again, drug use is a pointless activity
so is sex for anything other than procreation - but humans still do it to "feel good"

.

I see your point, and agree on some of it... but you're using logic and that can't be done with an addict
period
full stop

addicts (especially the worst of them) typically only need to "scratch the itch"
they don't care how
just that they get their fix

it is irrational

regardless of how lucid they are when not using, addiction is an overwhelming thing that replaces rational thought

Steelwolf
4.8 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2018
Part of what this whole thing is about is the artificially making millions of people automatic class C Felons just so that Their Population (mostly anti-war Hippies, Blacks and Hispanics..the basic poor folks) could be controlled, kept away from the ballot box, sent to For Profit Prisons that use you as labor.

Part of it is teaching the proper uses and non-usages and being Honest with the younger generations coming in, they need the truth of what drugs do, not just 'Drugs are bad, M'Kay?' thing, we see too much of that and no honesty that pot is actualy somewhere between cigarettes and alcohol as far as effect, and much less danger than either of the other two.

There has been constant pot use here for centuries, including founding fathers who grew Very Fine Hemp....

And I see that it has cut crime and added a ton of new jobs and prosperity to Washington State already, and as a disabled Navy vet, yes, I use it also. You see people just like in the grocery store, all kinds.
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2018
So this is somewhat beyond the "Oh My Gawds Drugs Must Be Bad Because That Movie Reefer Madness Showed...fake effect, paid for and made as propaganda, and taken as truth by many for far, far too long: We have had the RIGHT to put into our own bodies what we found in Nature, ever since we came about, no matter how you have that happening.

Yes, some drugs Are nasty and destructive, I have seen lives torn apart by meth and heroin, I see tons of opiod addiction and I know people who have died that way. I have known many folks who died from cancer as well, and most of that was from environmental toxins and radiation, not from any drug use.

But some are more benign than others, cannabis has been known for millennia to be a euphoriant and relaxant, mild sedative, that left one feeling good and little else, perhaps make one happier and hungrier at table.

Personally I use if for PTSD and Pain from broken neck and back, from my Navy time. It's legalization has been a godsend.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2018
You have no idea what kinds of therapy I have tried to undo what the service rendered.

Poor George...
I have EVERY idea. I was there,too, remember?
It wasn't what the service rendered, it was what you put yourself through afterwards. (Although, it didn't seem to have affected your productive working years, to hear you tell it here.)
I happen to think that dealing with it by ACCEPTING it and moving on is way better than haunting yourself with situations that weren't in your control, ANYWAY...
Constantly excusing your inability to pull on your big girl panties is sad and telling as to the man you are, today...

I think you should deal with your own ignorance.

Ignorance?!? I think you're a flaming dolt.

I deal with my own demons by not sharing my failure to quell them with anonymous others on a website (who really don't give a shit), in the first place...
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
Part of what this whole thing is about is the artificially making millions of people automatic class C Felons ... For Profit Prisons that use you as labor
@steel
whereas I may agree on the latter of that post, this part is simply paranoia and conspiracist ideation, really
Personally I use if for PTSD and Pain from broken neck and back, from my Navy time
but unlike the idiot george-superengineerspysoldierliar, there are studies supporting your argument and it is being tested in the VA system

there is *zero* empirical evidence whatsoever that dream *suppression* in any way treats PTSD other than helping with sleep deprivation using chemical assistance (linked)

in point of fact, PTSD can *only* be mitigated by dealing with the dreams, flashbacks or precipitating trauma, which is what Whyde said - all of which has been repeatedly demonstrated to the idiot liar-kam

MJ is an effective mild sedative and psychotropic and helpful in *some* cases
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
I happen to think that dealing with it by ACCEPTING it and moving on is way better than haunting yourself with situations that weren't in your control, ANYWAY
@Whyde
not coming to idiot-girls defense but: this is situational and the guilt is often hard to let go when you have people who *actually* saw combat or had active roles in their trauma (unlike the idiot g who only thinks he was in combat)

this is a painful problem of PTSD - too often the person can't comprehend their own limitations or the fact that they didn't have near as much control as they thought... they play the "if I had only done [x]..." game and it eats at them

You are absolutely correct in that acceptance helps - along with desensitization and forcing the traumatic event into the light with other like veterans

of course, unlike you and a few others here, the lady g simply goes by what she heard in the movies, so she's not capable of comprehending what that means

MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
I know that this is somewhat OT but it is about drugs. Someone claimed that all of the mass shooters in the US were on antidepressants including Newtown, Columbine and LV. Antidepressants are known to cause suicidal thoughts in some. I just thought that this was a very interesting explanation for the surge in gun violence lately.
Thorium Boy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
Downward spiral of the American empire. Do you pot-smoking morons think treating the distribution of pot ass a crime wasn't profitable and didn't create jobs? Plus, legalizing it will make life miserable for all the people who live in condos and apartments who'll have to live with the stink of that crap 24/7.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
@mr
Someone claimed that all of the mass shooters in the US were on antidepressants including Newtown, Columbine and LV. Antidepressants are known to cause suicidal thoughts in some

I can't attest to the former, and I would question where you heard that, but I can attest to the latter in that antidepressants can cause suicidal (or, less frequently, homicidal) ideation

This is usually mitigated by programs (isolation or otherwise) to stabilise the drugs at a specific dosage which is proven effective or additional medications to mediate the problems (cocktails of meds) though not always successfully or with the same methods for everyone (situational)

not everyone reacts the same way
I just thought that this was a very interesting explanation for the surge in gun violence lately
doubtful - that seems more like wishful thinking IMHO
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2018
I have a good life and get good sleep with my meds.

Cannabis cannot help those with serious emotional control problems, like those with grudges.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
I have a good life
who cares?
I thought you were bringing science and evidence-based discourse to the table for once in your miserable pathetic life?

where are those studies refuting my own links and studies?
still nothing?

Hmmm... imagine that

you just proved you're a liar

again
and get good sleep with my meds
perv
Cannabis cannot help those with serious emotional control problems...
so... you're admitting it does nothing to help with PTSD!

LOL

you really should learn how to do basic research before opening your mouth and proving you're a complete idiot

https://www.nimh....ex.shtml

https://www.ptsd....ptsd.asp
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
addressing this last
like those with grudges.
I don't have a grudge

I just can't allow a lying advocate for stupidity to go unchallenged by spreading misinformation and blatant lies about reality, especially when they're so easily debunked by basic research

there are plenty of benefits to MJ use, but you're an advocate of MJ that makes unfounded claims based upon your personal opinion, then you claim expertise due to [insert reason] and tack on that you're some educated professional (proven false)

you have yet to be able to provide an evidence-based argument on any topic that you've discussed with me, Ira or anyone else

worse still, I've just proven all your claims false in this thread with evidence from science as well as your own words

links/references or STFU
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2018
It's unethical and counterproductive - like a state-owned liquor store or a casino. It prospers by people harming themselves
Whats UNETHICAL is spending billions for decades on measures that were completely ineffective, and having to reduce prison time for actual criminals because you're packing them full of pot users.

Legalizing pot isn't saying it's ok, just like tobacco and booze. It's just acknowledging that it's inevitable and we should stop wasting time and money trying to change that.

What's ETHICAL is denying a profit stream to the cartels, butchers and monsters of the first sort. Eliminating them will help reduce the hordes fleeing their violence, and restore real economies to Mesoamerican countries.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
Just watched the tom cruise movie 'American Made' on Redbox, recounting the legend of Barry Seale, oliver north, Noriega, the cia, contra guns, and gov clinton flying kilotons of cartel drugs into Mena, Arkansas.

According to David eike and others, the reptilian George Bush sr was brokering huge drug deals from the oval office. But this is beyond the scope of the movie.

However, as the drug trade was also inevitable, and threatened to create immense uncontrolled power bases, it would make sense that the US would want to gain control of it and use it for constructive purposes.

Again, the best way to ensure the proper outcome of any conflict is to be in control of both sides. The key is to understand what inevitability means, and then to prepare for it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
Naw man. I use it for dream suppression since the Vietnam War
Yeah I guess putting through the Cambodian countryside on your vespa while stoned on bhang could create some traumatic experiences.

Do psychopaths dream? Another opportunity to flex your victimizing skills I suppose.

"Those of us who have had experiences with psychopaths know that the language of the psychopath is two-dimensional. They are, as someone once said, as "deep as a thimble." An analogy is given of the psychopath as a color blind person who has learned how to function in the world of color by special strategies."

-But their dreams are probably not very interesting.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2018
Capt re antidepressants:

Well in the LV shooting " they said" that the perp committed suicide. It is not too far fetched that he wanted to take people with him since apparently it is no longer enough just to kill yourself.

Death by cop has become the fashionable way to go of late and to insure that it is best to kill a few innocent bystanders first.
MR166
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
I grew up with guns as a kid. In Westchester County, New York just above NYC pretty much every road sign had bullet holes in it especially in the more rural sections. No one ever got shot and there were no mass shootings. BWT I am not claiming that shooting road signs is a good idea and have never shot one.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2018
"Just watched the tom cruise movie "

Yeah, you also fell for "WMD!" like the other goobers.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2018
@MR
Well in the LV shooting " they said" that the perp committed suicide
thats not uncommon among mass shooters...
Experience, according to Smith, suggests that mass shootings are a kind of theatre to them. That is, the entire world is a stage. Seen this way, shootings are a kind of theatre, and the shooter is acting out a public spectacle. The mass slaughter of random victims is really an attack against society. Then, the typical consummation of mass shooting and killing is suicide by the perpetrator. This perverse revenge against society denies justice or closure because the offender does not allow for a trial or punishment; yet the offender gets his pound of flesh for the perceived sins committed against him
http://files.aisc...0096.pdf

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2018
@MR cont'd
Mass shootings and their portrayal have been a key focus of the media. The American
Psychological Association recently published an article titled "Media Contagion is Factor in
Mass Shootings". This study found that as mass shootings rose, so did media coverage of the
shootings (Mills, 2016). Not only did the media cover the shootings, but honed in more specifically
on the shooter(s) themselves, rather than the victims, creating both contagion and copycat effects (Johnston & Joy, 2016). However, media coverage is selective as only some mass shootings are covered, while others remain unpublicized. This media coverage is not only evoking contagion and copycat effects, but also arousing distress throughout the world (Delateur & Fox, 2013, Johnston & Joy, 2016)
"Lay Profiles of Mass and Serial Killers" - Terrell, Nunez 2017

IMHO I think any mass shooting should completely ignore the shooter and concentrate on removing the identity of the idiot criminal
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2018
You are 100% correct about the copycat factor. Also, I feel that all of the prescription drugs that are being pumped into today's children by doctors, parents and schools are doing more harm than good. These drugs are just hiding the underlying problems not curing them. At some time these problems will surface anyway with much more devastating social effects.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
Sessions is now trying to re-do the federal legislation against MJ.

Next, he will make lynching legal.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
Sessions is now trying to re-do the federal legislation against MJ.

Next, he will make lynching legal.
Only psychopaths. What else you gonna do with them? You cant fix them. Their lies poison everything.

"Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.

"The presence or absence of conscience is a deep human division, arguably more significant than intelligence, race, or even gender.

"...a general personality trait in the community at large. In other words, psychopathy is being recognized as a more or less a different type of human.

"What distinguishes all of these people from the rest of us is an utterly empty hole in the psyche, where there should be the most evolved of all humanizing functions.

"The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth."
MR166
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
I think that it is a VERY bad idea to have selective enforcement of any federal law. If the federal government does not want to enforce a law they should strike it and allow the states decide what they want to do. The founders wanted to have a very weak central government and left the lawmaking to the states which are much more responsive to the will of the people.
MR166
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
An exception to this rule is state laws or lack thereof that violate individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. It is the federal government's duty to protect these rights.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2018
I think Stumpy's fixation on sociopaths is a Trumpian attempt at getting attention.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2018
Yeah, you also fell for "WMD!" like the other goobers
Come on George, the Mena saga is right up your alley. The Bush and clinton dynasties both supported drug lord psychopaths by not only moving product for them but by sending them guns as well. Which has to be ok because Obama also sent them all the fast and furious guns they could want.

They weren't the full-auto Israeli-captured AKMs they were used to mind you, but they still worked well enough to kill a few border patrol agents no?

Consider that all the money you spent on cartel drugs for decades was used to buy the guns the cartels used to eliminate the competition, as well as many many 1000s of innocent civilians. Their terrorizing also flooded your state with all those undocumented welfare recipients and criminals for your entertainment.

You should send papa bush a thankyou note.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
"Sessions is now trying to re-do the federal legislation against MJ."

That does bring up an interesting question. How can companies that grow and sell MJ be traded on the stock exchange? BTW they cannot have bank accounts.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2018
" How can companies that grow and sell MJ be traded on the stock exchange?"

Interesting question.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2018
"welfare recipients and criminals for your entertainment."

I have you.

You are my entertainment.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
Regular users of cannabis in California get theirs from local growers, ones with ecology in mind. And they pay taxes.

I do not know what happens in the Bible Belt, where they vote for the Roy Moores.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2018
"Sessions is now trying to re-do the federal legislation against MJ."

That does bring up an interesting question. How can companies that grow and sell MJ be traded on the stock exchange? BTW they cannot have bank accounts.

States that have legalized it allow licensing. Since the federally regulated banks can't really handle their money, they have to capitalize in a corporate structure.
BTW, that announcement sent a bunch of my stocks way down. Thank goodness for the canadian ones...
Anyway. it was a great buy opportunity this morning...
How many DOJ people want to buy into the market, but didn't want to pay going stock prices, do you suppose there are?
Jeff Sessions himself, I could even imagine...
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2018
Since they are public companies that are exchange traded they come under the auspices of the SEC. How can they file financial reports when their income comes from federally illegal activities?

Again, we have partial enforcement of federal laws. How can you bring any one up on federal charges for drug sales when these companies are allowed to go public.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2018
Since they are public companies that are exchange traded they come under the auspices of the SEC. How can they file financial reports when their income comes from federally illegal activities?

Again, we have partial enforcement of federal laws. How can you bring any one up on federal charges for drug sales when these companies are allowed to go public.

I'm not a banking law kind of guy.
However I do see this for what it really is - a money grab...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2018
Regular users of cannabis in California get theirs from local growers, ones with ecology in mind. And they pay taxes.

California will be the first state to successfully secede from the US.

I do not know what happens in the Bible Belt, where they vote for the Roy Moores.

Well, not enough of them did, if you recall the most recent election...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2018
I know that this is somewhat OT but it is about drugs. Someone claimed that all of the mass shooters in the US were on antidepressants including Newtown, Columbine and LV. Antidepressants are known to cause suicidal thoughts in some. I just thought that this was a very interesting explanation for the surge in gun violence lately.

Notice that anti-depressant's are pharmaceutical (synthetic) in nature...
Can't beat Mother Nature...
MR166
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
MJ has a lot of bonafide medical uses and has less unwanted side effects than many prescription drugs used for the same conditions. There is no logical reason for banning it as a prescription drug.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
@MR
... Also, I feel that all of the prescription drugs that are being pumped into today's children by doctors, parents and schools are doing more harm than good. These drugs are just hiding the underlying problems not curing them. At some time these problems will surface anyway with much more devastating social effects.
worse still, there are no long-term studies showing the ramifications or long-term effects of medicating children at so early an age
If the federal government does not want to enforce a law they should strike it and allow the states decide what they want to do
IOW- establish a confederation of states centrally governed by singular inviolable rights while allowing states to govern themselves but being constrained by a common core cause

that will never work
[sarcastic and ironic hyperbole intended]
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2018
@MR
Again, we have partial enforcement of federal laws. How can you bring any one up on federal charges for drug sales when these companies are allowed to go public.
this really depends upon which laws you're talking about and what loopholes they're discussing (medicinal use, etc)

see also:
https://en.wikipe...nces_Act

or you can peruse the law here: https://www.usa.g...ulations
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2018
MJ has a lot of bonafide medical uses and has less unwanted side effects than many prescription drugs used for the same conditions. There is no logical reason for banning it as a prescription drug.

Again, I say - total Money grab.
How many federal employees (and their friends) have Etrade accounts, would you say?
MR166
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
"worse still, there are no long-term studies showing the ramifications or long-term effects of medicating children at so early an age"

You mean like producing mass murderers?

Today's wealth in comparison to say the 50s-70s more modest lifestyle comes at the cost of our children. One parent staying at home and one parent working is ideal. Now time stressed over employed parents just bring their kids to a doctor and say fill umm up with high test please I don't have time to deal with this.

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
@MR
You mean like producing mass murderers?
that is exactly what I meant

is there a connection between the mass-prescribed anti-hyperactivity medication being issued like candy and modern mental health issues?
One parent staying at home and one parent working is ideal
not necessarily
there are far too many factors that should be reviewed, IMHO
Now time stressed over employed parents just bring their kids to a doctor and say fill umm up with high test please I don't have time to deal with this
schools and parents alike have become addicted to the medicated docility and controllability of their youth

My wife often gets downright pissed about that one!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
@MR cont'd
Today's wealth in comparison to say the 50s-70s more modest lifestyle comes at the cost of our children.
had to separate this part

there are many factors for this change starting with lifestyle changes after the war and depression

More often than not people simply want to live better than they can actually afford. This is hard to ignore when you see others around you driving new vehicles while you can only afford a used POS Hooptie. So credit time: but that also means repayment and at a cost

Is it really rational to purchase food on a card with higher than 18% interest? not really. yet it happens. especially today when it's easier to swipe than carry cash

there are so many factors though. Can you really attest the problems to a singular or small number of sources when it's so convoluted?

life just aint easy. hell, even my own lifestyle requires money and almost everything I have is made, grown or hunted
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2018
Yea I do tend to oversimplify but then again perfection is the enemy of accomplishment.

I agree with the credit card addiction. I just bought a 2006 small puckup truck by choice not by lack of funds since my 1996 jeep was getting a little old. I laugh at the idiots driving $60K pickup trucks that will never see so much as cinder block loaded behind the King Crew Cab!!!!
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
so is sex for anything other than procreation - but humans still do it to "feel good"


At least you don't pay tax to have sex.

The point is, keep the government out of the dope business. If they want to regulate it, they should have no stake in it, because that creates perverse incentives and ends up badly.

Another example of the same principe: the government collects huge amounts of money out of taxing gasoline, while at the same time being publicly committed to reducing fossil fuel use.

Alright, so what do they do? They put all the legislative and subsidy pressure on pie-in-sky technologies like hydrogen cars that they KNOW will not deliver the goods for a good number of decades, if ever. They're just playing lip service to delay the date when they have to give up on that source of tax revenue.
Eikka
3.5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2018
Which just goes to point out the old truth: the most successful politician is good at identifying problems and even better at doing nothing about them.

Politicians get elected by promising the public to fix a fault, but if they actually do then they don't get re-elected because there's no problem to be fixed anymore. Therefore they either don't do anything about it, try to make it worse, or if the problem happens to solve itself - they make up another one.

They just can't leave well enough alone. The bureaucrat always finds a reason for more bureaucracy, just like the revolutionary will always find more enemies after they've already won.

Hence why, a good government isn't trying to find problems to solve, doesn't try to save people from themselves, but merely acts as an arbiter of disagreements and upholds the agreements (law). A goverment that meddles in the people's businesses and taxes them for this purpose is being a bad goverment, because it's self-serving
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
@MR
since my 1996 jeep was getting a little old
should have had a straight 6 put in the old Jeep. I had an old '96 that I repurposed with a straight six for off-road use since we live very, very, very rural (say: goat trail)
the best damn truck I've had in a long while excepting the Deuce I drove in the Army
I laugh at the idiots driving $60K pickup trucks that will never see so much as cinder block loaded behind the King Crew Cab!!!!
Ditto!
why do people pay for an off-road truck when they will never want to scratch the paint?

that confuses the h*ll out of me, to tell the truth. my truck is ugly as f*ck, but it will do everything I need, and far more, especially important as I (and others) regularly need to clear roads and paths for travel in our area (and find idiot lost tourists, hunters and the like)

.

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 04, 2018
@eikka
At least you don't pay tax to have sex
unless you:
1- purchase prophylactics
2- have a kid
the government collects huge amounts of money out of taxing gasoline, while at the same time being publicly committed to reducing fossil fuel use
...from wiki: https://en.wikipe...d_States
about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to earmarked programs.[10] However, revenues from other taxes are also used in federal transportation programs
so the fuel is taxed primarily for infrastructure and other programs

this brings to question how we will raise funds for infrastructure once we mandate electric vehicles

it's a double edged sword, really
the gov't is there to regulate but most don't want intrusive gov't regulations: you can't have it both ways though, so there will always be an outcry for those who want something for nothing

aint no such thing as a free lunch
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2018
Well the Jeep Gran Cherokee Laredo did have 6 good cylinders but unfortunately it was a V8.
Only bottles of assorted stop leaks kept toxic puddles out of my driveway. BTW did you know that 2 tablespoons of black pepper makes a great radiator stop leak?

Then the transmission took quite a while to go into 1st when it was cold outside. All in all it was just cheaper to buy a $6,000 truck.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2018
@eikka
Hence why, a good government isn't trying to find problems to solve, doesn't try to save people from themselves, but merely acts as an arbiter of disagreements and upholds the agreements (law). A goverment that meddles in the people's businesses and taxes them for this purpose is being a bad goverment, because it's self-serving
they are one and the same, especially when the gov't is "of the people".

no way around that one

so long as there are idiots out there that refuse to take responsibility for their actions and force the gov't to be involved then there will be a need to have gov't interference "meddling in people's business"
(Koch comes to mind here, or most industry polluting the air with CO2 refusing to govern themselves)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2018
@MR
Well the Jeep Gran Cherokee Laredo did have 6 good cylinders but unfortunately it was a V8
I had a Cherokee with a V-6 that burned up
the straight 6 was not only far more powerful and capable, but it was also hardier (until they get smooshed, that is)
BTW did you know that 2 tablespoons of black pepper makes a great radiator stop leak?
haven't heard that one!
Then the transmission took quite a while to go into 1st when it was cold outside. All in all it was just cheaper to buy a $6,000 truck
Ah
I can understand now

I absolutely *hate* automatics. I had a 5-speed manual
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2018
so is sex for anything other than procreation - but humans still do it to "feel good"


At least you don't pay tax to have sex.
...

I disagree. You're taxed on everything it requires to have a successful sex life.
There are no free lunches...
Mother Nature is the Bitch Queen Capitalist...
MR166
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
What will be legalized next cocain? Lets face it between the entertainment industry, Wall Street and DC politicians the demand for this drug is insatiable.

One of the reasons given to legalize MJ is to reduce illicit drug sales by criminals. As the law a unintended consequences states that might backfire. Do you really think that drug dealers will just close up shop and go work at McDonalds??? Nope the MJ sellers will just start pushing more dangerous stuff to their existing customers.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
@MR
What will be legalized next cocain?
it does have some clinical medicinal functions (like in otolaryngology), but it's also being phased out for better medicines or treatments, plus it is difficult to store
http://onlinelibr...022/full

One of the reasons given to legalize MJ is to reduce illicit drug sales by criminals
source?

are you referring to a popular opinion or a particular reason one has given for advocating the legal change?
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2018
"source?
are you referring to a popular opinion or a particular reason one has given for advocating the legal change?"

I was referring to popular opinion.
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2018
I don't have a problem with any drug used for a valid medical purpose. I just have a problem with the recreational use of drugs if they interfere with the users ability to function in society. The problem is that most drugs including alcohol, when used as a drug, require ever increasing doses to remain effective. Soon the side effects become deadly.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 05, 2018
so long as there are idiots out there that refuse to take responsibility for their actions and force the gov't to be involved then there will be a need to have gov't interference "meddling in people's business"


That wasn't the kind of meddling I was talking about.

I was talking about when the government defines itself as a "guardian" of sorts, and tasks itself to be proactive about identifying issues and then fixing them. Like, "oh no, many people are obese, the numbers are really high according to this arbitrary standard we just invented, we absolutely must do something about this, and in order to do something we must raise your taxes!!"

That sort of government ends up developing its own internal goals that supercede its external purpose, and it becomes a self-serving elitistic entity that believes it knows what everyone wants or needs without asking, existing only to feed itself.

And that's even before taking into account corruption and lobbying.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2018
Now one could make the argument that it is my life and I am entitled to do with it as I wish. The problem with that is that the state eventually becomes responsible for many of them or especially for their children.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2018
The problem with that is that the state eventually becomes responsible for many of them


Who sets them that responsibility?

Who gives the state the authority to take one man's money to keep another man alive, even if he's a do-nothing drug addict?
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2018
Unfortunately the same people who want unlimited drugs then point to the staring children and demand that something be done. The politicians meekly acquess. Starving children are always good for a vote or two, and at times, even two votes from the same person.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2018
Hell, here in the US we have built a whole political system around starving children. If they were to disappear a whole political party would cease to have meaning. That is why the problem will never be solved. During the past 8 years the US government imported over 100K unaccompanied minors to fill the shortage.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2018
Some folk assume we all have the same character.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2018
@MR
I was referring to popular opinion
I tend to ignore that
I don't have a problem with any drug used for a valid medical purpose. I just have a problem with the recreational use of drugs if they interfere with the users ability to function in society
true that
This is more a problem of the individual, however

IMHO - we should be allowed to live as we please, including personal recreational drug use, so long as it does not in any way interfere with the rights of others like a DUI or uncontrollable habit is wont to do

perhaps a good alternative would be to designate a "free for all" location for this behaviour in every major city?
Soon the side effects become deadly
evolution works
I won't complain about that one
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2018
@Eikka
That wasn't the kind of meddling I was talking about
I know
you also seemed to miss my point

government is always "of the people"
*always*
full stop

until this is corrected, we will always have the same problems

the difference between a Monarchy (or any other single government head) and democracy is the layers of blame: the former have a far narrower range to distribute guilt or blame
That sort of government ends up developing its own internal goals that supercede its external purpose, and it becomes a self-serving elitistic entity
this is true of all governments, actually
there is only hope in our specific system because of the "perceived" checks and balances

and I use that word intentionally as power is given
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2018
I remember the last immigration news tear jerker. A man came from CA and was separated from his son at border.

http://www.sandie...ory.html

Now I ask you, he escaped Central America why can't he live in Mexico? What gives him the right to cross our border? What kind of tear jerking B.S. is this?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2018
@Eikka cont'd
Who sets them that responsibility?
we do (en mass)
as I stated: power is given, especially in governments

so long as there are people there will be a vocal minority driving policy with perceptions rather than reality

this is most prevalent in today's *perceived debate* on climate change: the science is absolutely clear, yet there is a vocal minority who have access to the funds required to advocate a known delusion

So long as we're so ignorant a society to follow the money for the sake of personal gain over and before the science, we will always have this problem
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2018
"perhaps a good alternative would be to designate a "free for all" location for this behaviour in every major city?"

Yea it could be in a "Police Free Zone" serving another function by keeping the BLM crowd happy.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2018
"this is most prevalent in today's *perceived debate* on climate change: the science is absolutely clear, yet there is a vocal minority who have access to the funds required to advocate a known delusion"

Yup just like science made it absolutely clear that margarine ( hydrogenated corn oil ) was better for you than butter!
PTTG
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2018
>"Small government states rights!"
(buys shares in private prisons)
> "Lock up all the drug users!"

Also in this thread: "I'm a libertarian. Now, let's get rid of the liberty to control your own neurochemistry, and waste a bunch of tax money doing it!"
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2018
Captain, I was just remembering how much of our stuff had been made by Prison Labor, like duffle bags, uniforms, certain easy to produce items that were not mission critical if they were low quality. And lots of it. Also much of even the office furniture in Navy/military in general facilities was prison built. So I was not just talking randomly. Also the For Profit Prison thing has certainly been abused since we have even had judges found guilty of sending minors to prison facilities for unproven crimes, many innocents got snared up in those, and for the For Profit's, it is even better to get a young healthy adult busted for drugs.

It is something that is actually very much a problem in some places as it Does drive the 'But we ARE Still Slaves' thing, even for us Irish, whom Britain found were good, hardworking slaves thru debt-endenture, at least in the colder northern regions. In the South we died from the heat, so they imported Blacks from Jamaica for the South.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2018
@MR
Yup just like science made it absolutely clear that margarine ( hydrogenated corn oil ) was better for you than butter
the great thing about science is that it can correct itself, such as your example, which showed a result from poorly performed studies with limited knowledge that is currently better understood

Arguing that because one mistake was made, we should ignore all future science is like saying that because Newton was *mostly correct* we don't need GR/SR
if you use Newtonian mechanics on a GPS you will quickly kill off a large number of users

-just sayin'

.

@Steel
So I was not just talking randomly
yes, and I understood that part of the point
however, the labour in prison has a purpose, from making restitution and providing prisoners income in a commissary to keeping idle hands busy (for various reasons)

2Bcont'd
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2018
MR, what about Coffee? That too is most certainly a drug, hundreds of millions addicted to their morning cup. Tea? same thing, Caffiene is certainly a drug...yet it is legal and all over the place, one can OD on it easily even, yet it is very plainly legal and in our face. Cigarettes, while socially frowned upon, are used by hundreds of millions to billions worldwide, alcohol is widely used, and so are a number of substances. So why the artificial classification?

The major reasons that majrijuana was made illegal was not because of it's drug useages, although that was the excuse given. It was between Carnegie and Dupont that they got hemp production shut down so that Carnegie could cut forests, which he owned, for pulp since a way had been made to produce paper, although of low quality, from wood, rather than better paper from hemp.

Same thing went on with Nylon rope and Hemp rope, and the banning of hemp killed entire worldwide industry and trade, impoverishing many nations.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2018
@Steel cont'd
Also the For Profit Prison thing has certainly been abused since we have even had judges found guilty of sending minors to prison facilities for unproven crimes, many innocents got snared up in those, and for the For Profit's, it is even better to get a young healthy adult busted for drugs
this is part of the conspiracist ideation I spoke of
surely there are examples of problems like you state, just like there are examples of wrongful convictions elsewhere, but is there a trend or overwhelming problem as you note?
if there is, it can be mitigated using the justice system (federal or otherwise)

yes, our system is flawed, but it is far, far better than that which we had under a Monarchy, let alone some of the other systems I've seen around the world
even for us Irish
Ah!
this elucidates the situation now (not being facetious)

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2018
I have you.

You are my entertainment.
Spoken Like a true psychopath, albeit a failed one.
Some folk assume we all have the same character
"What will you do with your huge and secret advantage, and with the corresponding handicap of other people (conscience)?

"The answer will depend largely on just what your desires happen to be, because people are not all the same. Even the profoundly unscrupulous are not all the same. Some people - whether they have a conscience or not - favor the ease of inertia, while others are filled with dreams and wild ambitions. Some human beings are brilliant and talented, some are dull-witted, and most, conscience or not, are somewhere in between. There are violent people and nonviolent ones, individuals who are motivated by blood lust and those who have no such appetites. [...]

"Provided you are not forcibly stopped, you can do anything at all."

-HR depts are very good at discerning character aren't they? boo hoo
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2018
George kamburoff, lab rat.

The major reasons that majrijuana was made illegal was not because of it's drug useages, although that was the excuse given. It was between Carnegie and Dupont that they got hemp production shut down so that Carnegie could cut forests, which he owned, for pulp since a way had been made to produce paper, although of low quality, from wood, rather than better paper from hemp
Well a much bigger reason besides trees and rope is the competition with alcohol and pharmaceuticals. All potential alternatives were targeted and deemed evil incarnate.

Plus the profits from illegal drugs were enormous and provided a way of controlling major power bases in central and South America, and southeast Asia. Like oil, drugs enabled the west to maintain influence over areas and peoples with the potential to become problematic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2018
Nope the MJ sellers will just start pushing more dangerous stuff to their existing customers
So stoners will naturally want to buy other drugs now that they can get pot legally? That doesn't make sense.

It's not a gateway drug. Neither is booze or caffeine.
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2018
", which showed a ....result from poorly performed studies with limited knowledge ...."

Ah, AGW perhaps. Add in a cup of bias due to government funding and you might be able to see my point.

I really don't think that the margarine study was and accidental error. It is more likely that the so called researchers were paid to obtain certain results.

The so called DDT study got the results that they wanted also by purposely reducing the amount of calcium in the birds diet.

MR166
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2018
"So stoners will naturally want to buy other drugs now that they can get pot legally?"

Some will if it is made more available to them. Some of these dealers will find new customers since the will not stop dealing. They will just change the product that they are selling.
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2018
I am willing to bet that there will be an increase in MJ sales to HS students when possession penalties are reduced.

What is interesting is when government sponsored studies concerning MJ are mentioned most liberals dismiss them as being part of an anti MJ agenda. Yet when I say the government pays researchers to promote a CO2 warming agenda they all say that this is not possible.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2018
A fraudulent study by doctors at Harvard funded by the sugar companies started the high carb low fat diet that created our diabetes epidemic. One of the doctors went on to the federal government and created the carb heavy food pyramid. At that time it was not officially recognized that sugar and other sugar like carbs were responsible for diabetes even though their effect on blood sugar levels was known.

Bottom Line::::: CORRUPTED SCIENCE HELPED BY THE GOVERNMENT
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2018
https://www.zeroh...-deepens

We have a real problem in the US. People are unable to cope with the society that has been created.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2018
You would think that they could look at all of their participation trophies and feel good about themselves.
Steelwolf
4 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
Actually MR, a couple of things we have found is that HS age students have a Much Harder time finding pot now, not that they cannot, but it is No Where Near as readily available now on the street as it used to be, the penalties for such are just too high and they Are enforced, which is good, I like seeing that.

Also since some of the 'stoner population' are now able to get jobs as 'Budtenders', who are the shophelpers who assist you in the pot shops making sales, and they get paid well, along with all of the State and Fed taxes for being a company etc, the Govt has No Problem collecting those Taxes, but ye cannot have a bank account for a pot shop.

Also, people using pot tend to feel little need to try harder drugs, usually That starts when people are in deep pain and get started on Prescriptions. That is a totally different than pot, and I much prefer knowing potency, exact weight at a dry state and any pesticides or chems used on it at all (Very Few), right on the label.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@MR
Ah, AGW perhaps. Add in a cup of bias due to government funding and you might be able to see my point
*sigh*

the problem with this comment is your insistence that the worldwide community of scientists who repeatedly validate AGW with evidence is somehow American, paid by our gov't, or conspiring against you and yours

There is a *huge* difference between a flawed study from a paid corporation who only has information from its own paid scientists and a worldwide community who continually validates studies from other nations where the cultural differences are so intense that they can't even agree on the tastiness of bacon for breakfast

That simple fact demonstrates your ideological bias, conspiracist ideation and refusal to accept reality more than anything else you've ever posted - and yet you will never be able to see my point because it will force you to rethink your own reality you constructed for yourself

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@mr cont'd
What is interesting is when government sponsored studies concerning MJ are mentioned most liberals dismiss them as being part of an anti MJ agenda. Yet when I say the government pays researchers to promote a CO2 warming agenda they all say that this is not possible
for starters: facts are facts, regardless of your belief in them or not

2: MJ studies "sponsored" by the gov't only get partial funding. they rarely pay 100% of anything, and you usually must have your own funding from other sources to make up the difference. that is how science and gov't grants work ( https://www.usa.g...ts-loans )

3: medicinal studies tend to have to jump through far less stringent hoops than physics or other hard sciences ( https://www.fda.g...5713.htm )

4: your CO2 warming agenda argument is your fear of change meeting up with your refusal to accept proven factual science because of ideation issues
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
they got hemp production shut down so that Carnegie could cut forests, which he owned, for pulp since a way had been made to produce paper, although of low quality, from wood, rather than better paper from hemp.


Hemp and wood fibers serve entirely different purposes in the paper industry. Hemp has long strong fibers, which make excellent speciality papers such as cigarette papers and very thin pages for bibles, but you wouldn't want to make toilet paper, cardboard, or copier/printer paper out of it because it's entirely too costly for the purpose and the properties of hemp fibers are not well suited for the use.

"Better" depends on the application. For example, the use of hemp for rope and fabric was superceded by better alternatives even before artifical synthetic fibers came along. Manila rope was superior for its salt water resistance, and cotton was superior for comfortable clothing.

Despite the conspiracy theories, hemp became obsolete as a material.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@Steel
Also, people using pot tend to feel little need to try harder drugs, usually That starts when people are in deep pain and get started on Prescriptions
IMHO - no

from what I can tell the problem of "drugs" is no different than alcohol:

people try harder drugs when they have a situation that they can't cope with and they require some means of disassociation from reality or their perceptions of said reality (your pain argument fits in here, but this can also be mental issues or some other coping mechanism)

-or-

they simply want to experience something they haven't experienced before (Hedonism etc)

Eikka
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
The reason why hemp fibers are so expensive is that the hemp plant only contains about 20-25% usable fibers per fresh plant mass, and it requires extensive handling and processing which are not easily automated. Hemp fiber costs about six times more compared to wood fiber.

TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
Some will if it is made more available to them. Some of these dealers will find new customers since the will not stop dealing
CA quality pot is averaging $260/oz. So maybe if they have any money left.
MR166
2 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
"That simple fact demonstrates your ideological bias, conspiracist ideation "

That part I totally agree on. Ideology on both sides borders on religion. As far as conspiracy goes when you have a religion that needs protecting it will always look like a conspiracy. In my view 95% of the media is solid Progressive Liberal and it offers the exact same opinions in the exact same way most of the time. 90% of the educators are Progressive Liberals or Socialists. In discussing their views and goals they form a de facto conspiracy. The same goes for the Right. Being a religion it is very hard to convince either side to change.

The grant system is heavily biased towards particular outcomes. This is painfully obvious when one reads the description of the papers such as considering triboelectric generators a source of green power or papers proposing to charge one's cell phone from a home wifi signal or background radio signals.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@MR
That part I totally agree on. Ideology on both sides borders on religion. As far as conspiracy goes when you have a religion that needs protecting it will always look like a conspiracy
yes
however you are specifically commenting on the political argument of AGW and not the science WRT the argument of bias or ideology

when you talk about the science things are very different: the evidence speaks for itself
period
full stop

this is the biggest problem I have with most of your anti-AGW posts, BTW
The grant system is heavily biased towards particular outcomes
no, it is not
not only have I been part of the grant system (non-point source pollution and studies) I also have applied for grants: the grant system is heavily biased towards effective communicators who are capable of presenting a valid, clear, concise request for funding (experience helps)

so long as you can find an experienced writer your chances are exponentially better for a grant
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
Capt you think that science shapes government policy while I think that government policy also shapes science via the availability of grants.

The UN is a huge part of the problem. They want to use AGW as a revenue and political power generating tool. AGW is a large part of the One World Government tool box.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@MR cont'd
This is painfully obvious when one reads the description of the papers such as considering triboelectric generators a source of green power or papers proposing to charge one's cell phone from a home wifi signal or background radio signals
this is also a potential resource that fills a seriously large need in society

whereas you can sometimes have focus areas in the grant system (as in alternate power sources or similar niche market areas) for the most part it all comes down to the historical success of the grant writer - that single factor can make or break a grant (which is why there are professional grant writers out there)
Being a religion it is very hard to convince either side to change.
very true
it's more like a disease or mental illness than a belief

problem is: more often than not people replace historical "religions" with modern substitutes which lead to pseudoscience and modern "debates" when there aren't any
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
Just as Hitler had no problem finding scientists to create weaponry for his empire the UN has no problem finding scientists to willing to "prove" AGW. For instance the UN's claim of 97% of scientists agree with AGW is a blatant fabrication used to promote a political agenda. I am sorry to tell you that you do not need an outright conspiracy to do what they did just a carrot on the end of a stick ( $$$$$).
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@MR
Capt you think that science shapes government policy while I think that government policy also shapes science via the availability of grants
sorry, but no
if science shaped gov't policy we would have curbed CO2 emissions long ago

science is a tool to examine the natural world around you

government grants can't "shape science" simply because they're simply a means to pay for the examination that will happen anyway, especially since most of the science funding comes from other sources
The UN is a huge part of the problem. They want to use AGW as a revenue and political power generating tool
1- maybe. but that in no way invalidates the *science*

2- the *science* isn't political: the use of the science by the individual is
MR166
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
"very true
it's more like a disease or mental illness than a belief

problem is: more often than not people replace historical "religions" with modern substitutes which lead to pseudoscience and modern "debates" when there aren't any"

WOW you took the words right out of my mouth, it could even be a quote, yet we are on opposite sides of the fence. You have to see the irony in that.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@MR
Just as Hitler had no problem finding scientists to create weaponry for his empire the UN has no problem finding scientists to willing to "prove" AGW
Godwin's law? argumentum ad Hitlerum? really?

for starters- you're confusing the use of science with the actual science
this is like confusing a car with mobility. you don't need a car to travel

for two- in order for your argument to be valid you must have a worldwide conspiracy (not logical, nor can it be supported considering cross-cultural issues)
The best way to keep a secret is to not share it... including hundreds of thousands of people (when you include research assistants and clerks, PA's and more) is a really sh*tty way to have a secret conspiracy that will work

more importantly - none of that invalidates the proven facts of AGW, which are still being repeatedly validated by secondary or tertiary nonrelated sources

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@MR
WOW you took the words right out of my mouth, it could even be a quote, yet we are on opposite sides of the fence. You have to see the irony in that
except we're not on opposite sides of the fence

you are making a political argument
that is essentially making the argument that your belief is better than anyone else's belief
that is called religion

period
full stop

*my* position is thus: The evidence makes a clear, concise picture that is always being validated while also exploring the minutia of the issue clearing up the smaller issues

I have no vested interest in any political outcome, though I would like to see my children and grandchildren have the same world I remember

I don't have a belief
I don't accept a leadership or authority

there is only the evidence and what it states, which is that AGW is real and it's potentially fatal to us unless we deal with the situation

essentially no different than sh*tting in your drinking water
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
Since they are trying to prove a very small temperature increase over a long period of time is does not really take a lot of data massaging to prove anything that one wants. " Hide the decline" comes to mind here. With the advent of an amoral society it is very easy to corrupt research. For Pete's sake they cannot even properly measure the earth's temperature with sufficient accuracy today let alone know past temperatures and their causes.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
this is also a potential resource that fills a seriously large need in society


The point he was making is, that there are obvious and serious limitations to things like triboelectric power generators (power from friction) which will consign them to be curiosities at best, or to a very very niche application - yet the papers describing them pay lip service to the -political- cause of climate change etc. by suggesting that these are somehow applicable to renewable energy or the environment.

The authors are simply checking all the boxes that might ensure them future funding, and it often works. When you add references to politically expedient topics to your research, the politicians can say they're "doing something" by funding this research.

That's why I have commented earlier that, whenever you see some invention being described as helping the environment. it often lacks real merit. If it did have real merit and relevant results, they'd list that instead.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@MR cont'd
more to the point: you actually *believe* (for lack of a better term) the same things that I do WRT pollution

you *choose* to ignore those scientific facts when it applies to AGW because you have a politically motivated belief system that ensures you refuse the facts

This is proven by your knowledge that if you sh*t in your drinking water, it's bad for you
you *know* that you cannot survive in a polluted environment, nor can you *evolve* fast enough to deal with it, and if it's global, you can't get away from it

...yet you still dismiss AGW because you fear the actions you may have to make due to the political conspiracist ideation like NATO World Government or the loss of rights (as if the US would allow that one! )

so we actually *believe* the same, but I don't allow my prejudices to colour the evidence making me fear reality
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
Hide the decline is a very important statement in that it shows intent from a leader in the field. The purpose of a paper is to make things clearer not to hide the truth.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@Eikka
The point he was making is,
I know what point he was making
it is also irrelevant because the "suggesting that these are somehow applicable to renewable energy or the environment" comes entirely from either the idiocy of the general public and education system (scientific illiteracy - a great example of this is "solar freakin' roadways") or from the ability of the author to bullsh*t the reader into believing the argument is valid and worth funding, which is exactly the point that I made about experienced grant writers

using colour and analogy to make an argument that presents a strong visual image in the reader is the greatest tool an author can use to guarantee funding, especially if you use a lot of pretty pictures and graphs
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
you *know* that you cannot survive in a polluted environment, nor can you *evolve* fast enough to deal with it, and if it's global, you can't get away from it


Now now, that's begging the question already - which is part of the point that MR166 is making.

There's plenty of places on earth that stay habitable even with the most dire projections of climate change. For example, the whole of Siberia and northern territories of Canada become rather comfortable if the global temperature rises a couple degrees.

Have you seen the map of the globe recently? Northern Asia is a -huge- place that is currently all but uninhabited because it's landlocked from the north by year-round ice and the climate is too cold to grow food.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@MR
Hide the decline is a very important statement in that it shows intent from a leader in the field. The purpose of a paper is to make things clearer not to hide the truth.
1- you are confusing a scientific paper with a political argument again

2- a scientific papers purpose is to present the evidence
does not really take a lot of data massaging to prove anything that one wants
your personal ignorance of science doesn't mean all are ignorant of the science

you can either learn ( https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm )
or you can accept the position of your leadership

you chose to accept the position of your peers or leaders

you are the one who got taken for a ride - not I
and not anyone else who comprehends basic science

if the anti-AGW could prove *any* of the science false it would be debunked worldwide
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@Eikka
There's plenty of places on earth that stay habitable even with the most dire projections of climate change
and what happens when those places become inhospitable because no one thought to actually make changes?

if you keep crapping in your drinking water you're asking for trouble - which is *my* point, and what MR seems to fear the most because of politically motivated campaigns not based upon reality or fact which do not allow him to see reality

I am not advocating for extremism - I am advocating for the science and the evidence
a point you seem to have missed, even though I stated
I don't have a belief
I don't accept a leadership or authority

there is only the evidence and what it states, which is that AGW is real and it's potentially fatal to us unless we deal with the situation
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2018
if the anti-AGW could prove *any* of the science false it would be debunked worldwide


Now you are confusing science and data.

There's two parts to this question: whether the empirical data is representative of reality, and whether the manipulations done by people like Mr. Mann distorted it or not. That's the controversy.

The third part is the projections, which are extrapolations and not science, as they are not testable. It takes 15-30 years to come up with the evidence of whether the model was actually right, as you can fit an infinite number of false models to pre-exisitng data and seemingly "explain" it by tweaking your model.

The problem with AGW is that you have a vast selection of models and projections to choose from, for any political purpose you wish. Your side is making it seem like accepting one part of the science means accepting all the other parts, such as with the 97% consensus argument which means far less than it is made out to mean.

Eikka
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2018
and what happens when those places become inhospitable because no one thought to actually make changes?


That's shifting the goalposts beyond the point. For the AGW projections we have now, there's no "end of the world" in sight, so appealing to such scenarions is just irrelevant.

That's the real question, because AGW is intrinsically entwined in politics. You can't even talk about the subject without touching the subject of what should be done about it. Trying to present the issue as, "the science is settled, the politics is irrelevant", is disingenuous because there are no neutral parties. Everybody, including the scientists coming up with the data, have an opinion and those opinions refect back on the science.

Confirmation bias does exist, and you can't get rid of it. Science tends to converge to the right answers, but assuming that it already has always needs to be viewed through skepticism.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2018
Capt solar roadways are a prime example of the problem we face. Science, media and the government are teaming up to fleece the taxpayers and enrich corporations. But why stop there when billions upon billions are yet to be distributed?
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2018
The problem of the science is thus - well - it's not a problem of science, but of what results from the science and how people then interpret it:

If you take as your assumption that the climate is an unstable system dominated by positive feedbacks, then all the mathematical descriptions of climate lead to runaway oscillatory changes that bounce from catastrophe to catastrophe.

That is to say, none of your models will result in an answer that says "everything will be fine", because you've started by assuming that this cannot be.

This subtle point is often overlooked by even the climate scientists themselves, because unstable models produce "more interesting results" - ie. they're more sensitive to tweaking and thus easier to make fit the data even if they're wrong. It's a false application of Occam's Razor.

You can also start from the other assumption that the climate is a stable system, but this is more difficult, so the science is biased towards the doomsday scenarios
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
Capt the root of our disagreement is that you think that scientists are pure and I view scientists as just as corrupt and amoral as the rest society especially politics since both are now interlinked.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
"If you take as your assumption that the climate is an unstable system dominated by positive feedbacks, then all the mathematical descriptions of climate lead to runaway oscillatory changes that bounce from catastrophe to catastrophe.

That is to say, none of your models will result in an answer that says "everything will be fine", because you've started by assuming that this cannot be."

Note, this choice was not by accident! There is a lot more money to be made and funding to acquire when preventing catastrophes than predicting no real change.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2018
Of course, as a real scientist you would be interested to test whether the climate is stable, unstable, or whether it switches for some reason or another and why, but the doomsday mongers will not wait for you to test your theories.

Nobody will fund such a long study, because it won't result in politically useful answers in the here and now, and even if we did fund it, the results would arrive 30 years hence - in the mean while the doomsday mongers will have pulled off a political coup and de-funded all research that disagrees with them.

Even if the science is only partially funded by the government, the same political biases pervade the entire society. If some answer is useful right now, like "climate change is happening, buy our solar panels", then it's that much easier to get funding for research that confirms.

It's a rigged game, as people are very fast to label anyone considering alternatives as "big oil shill", while totally ignoring the opposite bias
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
Note, this choice was not by accident!


One cannot say it was by design either. There's no evil conspiracy involved here:

Government systems, political systems, begin to exist to solve conflicts in the society, but as the political class tasked for the purpose has solved the issues, it starts to find other reasons and excuses to keep existing and to keep growing, so the political elite always finds a new conflict or an enemy to keep fighting, to keep saying to the people "you need us".

This happens automatically.

At the end of 19th century with the erosion of autocratic power where the elite simply took resources to itself by right and might, the new democratic societies started warmongering, doomsday mongering, selling fear, selling conflict, selling victimhood etc. for the profit of the "vanguard". Even the communist revolution in Russia was just the communist elite wanting to be the bourgeoisie instead of the bourgeoisie.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
NASA is a great example of scare funding. As soon as the space program dried up they switched to asteroid collision prevention as a source of funding.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@eikka
Now you are confusing science and data
no. you're confusing what I stated with what you want me to state or believe

there is one thing that *science* is exceptionally good at and that is disproving something
if there is scientific evidence of a refute which can debunk AGW then it would have been presented and validated in the same way that modern evidence (data) has been presented and validated proving AGW exists

AGW exists because there has been absolutely zero evidence presented that can be validated refuting it

that is how science works
There's two parts to this question: whether the empirical data is representative of reality, and whether the manipulations done by people like Mr. Mann distorted it or not. That's the controversy
that is the *political* controversy

politics are not equivalent to science, nor is it valid in this argument as it's irrelevant
it's his personal monkey to bear
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
I am not advocating for extremism - I am advocating for the science and the evidence
a point you seem to have missed, even though I stated


The question isn't about you, but about the society in general. AGW is a political issue first, a scientific issue second, and these are practically inseparable. You cannot be neutral in the matter. If you try asking the hard questions or exhibit any skepticism, you are labeled a "denier" or a "shill" - regardless of what the science actually says or doesn't say.

Hell, half the time even the IPCC yearly report disagrees with what the AGW-acolytes are claiming.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@eikka
The third part is the projections, which are extrapolations and not science, as they are not testable
WTF?
how are projections not testable?
they make a prediction based upon historical data that has been observed, they have a testable range to be observed, and they contain error bars due to potential noise in the data... wait: that sounds familiar

https://en.wikipe...cess.svg

For the AGW projections we have now, there's no "end of the world" in sight, so appealing to such scenarions is just irrelevant
you can make a prediction that if no changes are made then things will continue to degrade until the situation is untenable, which is essentially the same thing

not saying end of the world so much as end of what we know as it is now
Nor am I saying "life" will end
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
there is one thing that *science* is exceptionally good at and that is disproving something
if there is scientific evidence of a refute which can debunk AGW then it would have been presented and validated in the same way that modern evidence (data) has been presented and validated proving AGW exists


Two faults:
1) shifting the burden of proof.
2) begging the question that "AGW" has a specific particular meaning, that the science has exactly -one- answer to the matter rather than the ambiguity and inaccuracy and the multitude of differing opinions

You don't actually have evidence for any single thing called AGW, because there isn't one. That's the problem. You're already picking sides and making politics while claiming you're just following the science.

The third fault is assuming that if contrary evidence exists, it would have been presented already. Again, proving any of the current climate models wrong by contrary evidence would take 15-30 years for the data.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@MR
Capt the root of our disagreement is that you think that scientists are pure and I view scientists as just as corrupt and amoral as the rest society especially politics since both are now interlinked.
wrong again
in point of fact, I am far more knowledgeable of the problems of human behaviour as it's the study subject I have chosen

no human is "pure"
nor have I made any statement that any scientist is pure or authoritarian
in point of fact, I stated the opposite (there are no authorities in science)

there is, however, the evidence, which is my key point and the point I will continually reiterate to you regardless of your intentional attempts to distract from it

the evidence makes a clear, concise statement that has been validated cross culturally worldwide

that is not political, nor is it able to be influenced by authoritarian rule due to the worldwide efforts and the nature of the method
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
WTF?
how are projections not testable?


They are not testable in the here and now, where the claims about climate change are being made, so the claims made in reference to such projections are not scientific as the currently untested models have not yet yielded any -science- (lit. "knowledge")

you can make a prediction that if no changes are made then things will continue to degrade until the situation is untenable,


Yet that would be begging the question again. You assume things are degrading. Maybe we can say things are getting better, because the north sea passage is beginning to open and the vast lands of north Asia are becoming available, so maybe we should continue on this route for a while?
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@Eikka
Two faults:
1) shifting the burden of proof.
2) begging the question that "AGW" has a specific particular meaning, that the science has exactly -one- answer to the matter rather than the ambiguity and inaccuracy and the multitude of differing opinions
1- you are the one misconstruing the argument and shifting the burden of proof
2 -AGW does have a specific meaning, which is: anthropogenic global warming

there is direct observed/measured evidence of warming and direct observed/measured evidence of our influences which caused said warming (such as CO2)
The third fault is assuming that if contrary evidence exists, it would have been presented already
https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk

if you compete to prove each other wrong and instead validate the claim, and there is a well-funded group seeking to invalidate said science, it stands to reason evidence would exist to be validated considering the time scale

Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
A big part of the problem here is also the Gish Galloping of the climate science.

Every year new models are being put out, new projections and predictions and refinements, so as the old ones prove to be incorrect and inaccurate, unable to predict the actual course of events that unfold, the new as of yet untested models still remain as a basis for argument that the sky is still falling because we have this "science" that says so.

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@Eikka
They are not testable in the here and now, where the claims about climate change are being made, so the claims made in reference to such projections are not scientific as the currently untested models have not yet yielded any -science- (lit. "knowledge")
1- the claim isn't about untested models

2- you're making a claim that tested models that meet the requirements of the method and demonstrate accuracy in predictions *to date* and include error bars (which are continually updated with new information while insuring accuracy with current predictions) somehow can't be trusted past... what date, exactly?
tomorrow?
next month?

how many times till you finally accept the accuracy of the prediction?

your argument is no different than the eu cult when they claim modern astrophysics doesn't know plasma physics

is it within the error margin?
you're arguing about the final pinpoint accuracy and assuming
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
1- you are the one misconstruing the argument and shifting the burden of proof


No, you are demanding the opposition to prove AGW wrong, and in the mean while demanding that we consider AGW to be right even as none of the models that describe it have been proven. That is a logical fallacy called shifting the burden of proof.

2 -AGW does have a specific meaning, which is: anthropogenic global warming


That's a glittering generality. Nobody actually considers AGW like that. AGW defined in such a broad way can mean anything, including negative warming.

The real politicized AGW is all about the projections, as simply noting "things are warmer now because of us" doesn't result in any conclusions or action. The question is all about what -should- be done, rather than what is.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@eikka
A big part of the problem here is also the Gish Galloping of the climate science
adding new data to the set isn't gish-gallop
it's part of the scientific method in order to be accurate

more to the point: do not ASSume that an article written about a study is representative of the facts presented in the said study. if you will take just a few seconds of time you can see that there are multiple articles on PO alone all based on the exact same study (sometimes with long periods of time between them)

that, by definition, is clickbait, not gish-gallop
Every year new models are being put out
so... you don't like science because it continually strives to improve the models?

and that makes it the fault of... whom, exactly?

WTF?
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
2- you're making a claim that tested models that meet the requirements of the method and demonstrate accuracy in predictions *to date* and include error bars (which are continually updated with new information while insuring accuracy with current predictions) somehow can't be trusted past... what date, exactly?
tomorrow?
next month?


A few years at best.

Because these models are based on unstable positive feedbacks, and the results are exponentially chaging functions. Now, even if the assumptoin is true, the wrong model will deviate exponentially from the right model over time.

For example, if you get the rate of global warming too high by 1%, your prediction will be off by 10% in 10 years, and 170% in 100 years. Global warming is neglible on the scale of a decade, so the 10% error bar looks like you're still following the right curve, but in those 10 years you have to make decisions that span 100 years

Mind, there's a 50% uncertainty in man's forcing potential
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@eikka
No, you are demanding the opposition to prove AGW wrong, and in the mean while demanding that we consider AGW to be right even as none of the models that describe it have been proven
sigh

1- I am demanding proof that their claims about AGW being wrong are presented the same way science presents evidence of its claims

2- as per your modeling claim: if I can present evidence of the accuracy of models (like James Risbey (2014) ) and you state the models are wrong, then you are making the claim of better information, and therefore I am requesting the same levels of evidence that science can provide refuting the validated claims

not claims, mind you, because James Risbey (2014) validated earlier studies (like Roe) and has been validated more than a few times, like by the various IPCC reports

so, if you want to make a claim that X is wrong regardles of it's validation then present the evidence as would be required per the scientific method
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
adding new data to the set isn't gish-gallop
it's part of the scientific method in order to be accurate


The new models aren't new data - they're new arguments - subtly modified from the previous such that proving the previous model wrong doesn't prove the new model wrong.

That's what makes it Gish Galloping. You've got a stack of arguments, like patent claims, where you have to debunk every single one before the opponent admits they're wrong - but you can never complete the task because the opponent keeps piling on new arguments.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@eikka
Because these models are based on unstable positive feedbacks
which are continually adjusted by further studies and continual updates to the models making them more accurate over time, which was my point but you ignored it

which brings us back to your argument of
That is a logical fallacy called shifting the burden of proof.
here is the thing: there are levels of evidence as we all should know
opinion is not the same thing as observation, and validation is the strongest yet
even a validated claim can be debunked if there is evidence to debunk it

what *science* requires, and as an advocate of science I require, is the same levels of evidence that I would present to substantiate a scientific claim

MR has a long history of ignoring the science for the political argument
You've jumped in to defend that position, therefore are defending opinion over science

IOW- that makes you the burden shifter and assuming opinion equivalent to validated evidence
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
1- I am demanding proof that their claims about AGW being wrong are presented the same way science presents evidence of its claims


You are also demanding that AGW be considered -right- until such evidence is presented, and that's what makes it a logical fallacy.

if I can present evidence of the accuracy of models (like James Risbey (2014) ) and you state the models are wrong, then you are making the claim of better information, and therefore I am requesting the same levels of evidence that science can provide refuting the validated claims


I can only provide that evidence after years and years have passed, and the actual temperatures fail to follow the model. I cannot fullfill your request.

Therefore I have to treat your claims about AGW with equal skepticism as you treat my dismissal of them.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@Eikka
The new models aren't new data - they're new arguments - subtly modified from the previous such that proving the previous model wrong doesn't prove the new model wrong
at this point I would make the following statements

1- argument from ignorance

2- argument from conspiracist ideation

3- show the evidence
That's what makes it Gish Galloping.... you can never complete the task because the opponent keeps piling on new arguments
wrong
science is self adjusting

*if* there is a valid argument it can be made against a data point or series of points (AKA - the evidence)
This is the reason adjustments are made to the models, BTW

your entire argument centres around the assumption of conspiracy while not providing a specific piece of evidence of said conspiracy

Eikka
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
which are continually adjusted by further studies and continual updates to the models making them more accurate over time, which was my point but you ignored it


Which amounts to shifting the argument to match the answer, and that's not science. If you keep tweaking the model continuously to match the data, that's no evidence that the model is correct. You're just making a better and better approximation of the data, like constructing a Taylor series of a function.

https://en.wikipe...r_series

If you understand what's happening there, you see the problem: no matter how well you tweak the wrong function, it still deviates outside of the range of your data.

Which was my point, but you ignored it.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@eikka
You are also demanding that AGW be considered -right- until such evidence is presented, and that's what makes it a logical fallacy
no, I am not
I am saying the *evidence* be considered right - because it's been validated - until such evidence is presented that proves it wrong

and when said evidence is provided with requisite validation then it will be accepted

that is how science works
I can only provide that evidence after years and years have passed, and the actual temperatures fail to follow the model. I cannot fullfill your request
IOW - you have opinion, not evidence
herefore I have to treat your claims about AGW with equal skepticism
circular argument

I've presented validated references above
you presented opinion

refusing to accept validated evidence because you have a personal anecdotal story or belief is called delusional (or religion - same thing, really)

back to the origininal argument
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
at this point I would make the following statements

1- argument from ignorance

2- argument from conspiracist ideation

3- show the evidence


1. 2. Non-sequitur.
3. evidence not necessary, as you admit it yourself:
which are continually adjusted by further studies and continual updates to the models making them more accurate over time


wrong
science is self adjusting


Ideal science is. Practical science is subject to the biases of scientists, and is prone to locking on to paradigms. It adjusts eventually, kicking and screaming.

I am saying the *evidence* be considered right - because it's been validated - until such evidence is presented that proves it wrong


But the evidence is not yet presented, as the newly modified models are still untested! It has not been validated until the actual climate is doing what the models are saying it should.

You can't declare results before you have results.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@eikka
Which amounts to shifting the argument to match the answer...If you keep tweaking the model continuously to match the data, that's no evidence that the model is correct
logical fallacy - argument from ignorance
the model isn't shifted to match
the data is included and adjusted to create a better more accurate model
sometimes this is stated as the following:
-develop testable predictions
-gather data to test predictions
-refine, alter, expand or reject
-develop general theory(ies)
Which was my point, but you ignored it.
I ignored it because it is wrong and based upon conspiracist ideation

if you have no evidence that the model is altered to reflect the data then you have a belief that this happened

if the references can prove this is untrue (they do, and there are plenty more where that come from) then it stands to reason that the problem isn't me, but your interpretations of reality

hence the argument from ignorance
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
circular argument


No it isn't. Pointing out that you have no evidence as a reason to skepticism isn't circular logic.

I've presented validated references above


No, you've claimed so, but you are actually ignoring the argument that these references are not validated as the current climate models stand untested.

You can "hindcast" as much as you want, but that just amounts to tweaking the model to the data, again like constructing the Taylor series. That "validates" the model, but does not prove it is correct.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@eikka
evidence not necessary, as you admit it yourself
wrong
every time a model is adjusted there is a published paper reflecting the reasons or data as well as the input of new data

just because you don't know this doesn't mean no one will
see also: https://en.wikipe...cess.svg

Practical science is subject to the biases of scientists, and is prone to locking on to paradigms. It adjusts eventually, kicking and screaming
assumption and circular based upon conspiracist ideation

you're going in circles again because you don't understand how science works

you're also making assumptions based upon your personal beliefs (such as: kicking and screaming)

so there is ample evidence for conspiracist ideation and delusion on your part

solvable: https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2018
logical fallacy - argument from ignorance
the model isn't shifted to match
the data is included and adjusted to create a better more accurate model


So now you're admitting the data is massaged to match the model as well?

Cool, I suppose.

I ignored it because it is wrong and based upon conspiracist ideation


No it isn't. It's based on the very scientific principle that you don't "tweak" your answers to match the data you have, and then pretend it proves your model right. The real test is against the real world, for the real event that is about to unfold.

if you have no evidence that the model is altered to reflect the data then you have a belief that this happened


You just said that the model is altered! Now you're just trying to mince words.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
Some will if it is made more available to them. Some of these dealers will find new customers since the will not stop dealing
CA quality pot is averaging $260/oz. So maybe if they have any money left.

Sigh...
I remember the $20 lid...
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2018
wrong
every time a model is adjusted there is a published paper reflecting the reasons or data as well as the input of new data


That's just a different way of saying the same thing.

The reasons may be whatever, but in the end it still amounts to tweaking the model to the data - changing the argument to match the evidence. Whatever excuse or justification you give to that doesn't make it anything else.

The problem here is that this adjustment, re-modelling, is happening faster than the models are verified, because the real test of whether the model works takes decades - yet every year we get new models, new arguments, so there's no "AGW" to be argued about as it is continuously shifting.

You keep referring to the scientific method, but you are mistaken, mispresenting it. You're skipping the part where you don't refine your argument before you have replicated the test - in climate science the refinements are on-going without the replication of the "experiment".
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@eikka
Pointing out that you have no evidence as a reason to skepticism isn't circular logic
my mistake
it's called proof by assertion

your argument continually circles around making the same claims while never providing equivalent evidence
No, you've claimed so, but you are actually ignoring the argument that these references are not validated as the current climate models stand untested
the current models stand untested only in the future
tested, by definition, means: subjected to or qualified through testing

in order to be considered a current model it has to have been "tested" to ensure it's accuracy to date, as this is required by the method

making the claim otherwise states you have knowledge, and therefore it should be presented
if said knowledge isn't equivalent to the tested validated knowledge it can be dismissed

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@eikka cont'd

If you make a claim without evidence, then the counterclaim (reciprocal) without evidence holds the exact same validity
(I made a claim with references regarding the validity of models)

If you say something is without being able to prove it with evidence than simply saying something is *not* is equally valid and holds the same truth
(I state that you're wrong, but I have supporting facts, therefore my argument holds more power by definition)

one of the cornerstones of the scientific method is:
the claim *plus* physical evidence supporting claim *plus* it must be compatible with observation *and* past validated knowledge

dismissal of a baseless claim is not prejudice or wrong, it is REQUIRED by the scientific method

(I can dismiss your claim as it's baseless and has no evidence, and surely has nothing that is equivalent to mine)

so my reasoning is sound
see also
http://www.auburn...ion.html
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
my mistake
it's called proof by assertion

your argument continually circles around making the same claims while never providing equivalent evidence


I am providing you evidence by argument: I am telling you that the actual verification of the climate models requires 15-30 years, as this is considered the time frame of "climate" as distinct from "weather". I.e. to say you have observed a climate trend it must continue for a number of years.

I am telling you that these "refinements" to the climate models that happen all the time, as admitted by you, amount to shifting the argument before the real answer is in, so as new climate data keeps coming in the models are continuously being made to match - like a person who's gambling on a horse race by writing down a new number on the ticket every second based on how the race is progressing.

So the climate "science" can never be wrong. Consequently, it doesn't actually predict anything.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@eikka
That's just a different way of saying the same thing.

The reasons may be whatever, but in the end it still amounts to tweaking the model to the data - changing the argument to match the evidence. Whatever excuse or justification you give to that doesn't make it anything else.
no, it isn't
example
temperature observations show that your car gets hot when you use it
so your car is hot after use
temperature ranges between 200F and 350F

you can make predictions

now you take a temperature and it shows 2500F
observation shows flames on the hood

you can adjust the model to reflect the data showing a spike

or you can "chang[e] the argument to match the evidence"

adjusting the model shows there is a car fire (science)

changing the argument to match the evidence shows that cars just get that hot sometimes and it's no big thing, so we should just drive from the trunk (your argument)

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@eikka
I am providing you evidence by argument
no
evidence based upon ignorance of the scientific method
I am telling you that the actual verification of the climate models requires 15-30 years
this is the problem
that is verification of the *prediction* of the models - not of the model itself
the model itself is based upon physics and known data points along with known feedbacks or other similar requisite data

that is why your argument is invalid - it is ignorant of the basics of the model itself and makes assumptions
So the climate "science" can never be wrong. Consequently, it doesn't actually predict anything.
the way you do it, surely this is true

the way it's really done is completely different as the model, by definition, must show accuracy to the known data and observation before being acceptable to make predictions (which requires continual input to refine the ability to predict)

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@eikka

moreover, I prefer to post this quote for a final point as it's referenced
Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects - and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you'd be in a car crash, you wouldn't get in the car (or at the very least, you'd wear a seatbelt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.
SS

so again: I've presented a fact supported by reference
you've presented your opinion on how models work based upon your ignorance and interpretations of the science

reiterating your argument when you don't understand the topic is like telling everyone you're a fruit because you own a fridge and an apple tree
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
adjusting the model shows there is a car fire (science)


No it doesn't. The original model based on data you present doesn't account for the possibility of a fire, because the normal function of a car's cooling system prevents it.

Your data leads you to the assumption that the car is not broken. Observing the high temperature therefore disproves your original assumption: the car is broken, because it caught fire. Your model failed to predict the case, so you have to abandon the model.

if you adjust your model to explain the unexpected temperature rise, you're forced to say that the proper function of a car include cases where the engine catches fire, and that would be absurd.

The biggest flaw in your example is that you didn't actually explain what exactly your theory is, what exactly are you claiming, so you can change it just in time as things are going differently, and still say you were correct. This is the same problem as with climate science.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
moreover, I prefer to post this quote for a final point as it's referenced

Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects


You forget that trends are extrapolations. For example, Moore's law is a trend. If I'm getting married tomorrow, the trend is that I'm gaining a wife per day. That doesn't mean I'll have seven wives by the end of the week.

The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.


That's again a different argument that you are deliberately mixing in to pull a red herring.

Saying that humans are causing global warming is an irrelevant point, as the real question is: so what? What's going to happen, when is it going to happen? What can we do about it? etc.

You're just going back to the glittering generality.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@MR
NASA is a great example of scare funding. As soon as the space program dried up they switched to asteroid collision prevention as a source of funding.
wrong
NASA and the USAF have had a program for that pre-1989

funding may have been re-adjusted, but the program has been there for decades

.

No it doesn't. The original model based on data you present doesn't account for the possibility of a fire
@eikka
assumption based upon ignorance and ignoring the arguments preceding/proceeding
the *new evidence* would show that it is a fire, which was the point
That's again a different argument that you are deliberately mixing in to pull a red herring
no, it is a clarification of a relevant point regarding models and extrapolations of data using a real-world example that includes modeling

but you knew that

You keep repeating yourself while ignoring the basics

why?

You're fishing or truly ignorant of the method: which is it?
Eikka
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2018
that is verification of the *prediction* of the models - not of the model itself
the model itself is based upon physics and known data points along with known feedbacks or other similar requisite data

that is why your argument is invalid - it is ignorant of the basics of the model itself and makes assumptions


No, you're avoiding the argument. The climate models are not pure theoretical physics, but depend on a very large number of variables, which interact with each other. Even if you got the theoretical physics correct, that doesn't mean your model is correct due to your choice of these other variables.

Consider a pool table. We can model the physics of the pool table precisely, but we cannot say where each ball will end up unless we choose where each ball is. As these choices have chaotic interactions, shifting one ball by 1 mm can result in an entirely different outcome. Likewise, observing a particular outcome doesn't mean you know how the balls started.
Eikka
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2018
continuing the pool table analog,

so, when you try to reconstruct where the balls were, by observing where they end up - which is like knowing how the temperature record went - you will find that there is actually a very very large (technically infinite) number of starting positions that result in the same outcome - each just subtly different, but some vastly different from each other. These are like the different climate models that you can formulate, and "validate" by observing that they meet known data.

Now, the pool game stops when the balls are in the socks, but suppose it didn't. Those subtle differences in your balls' starting positions change what happens next - they change what happens beyond your known climate data, and if you don't place them exactly right - your climate model will deviate from the real climate.

That's why climate models (and weather forecasting) uses monte carlo methods, which produces a range of likely outcomes.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
But those methods also rely on you taking all the variables into account, at a sufficient precision, because if you didn't then the results can again shift drastically.

So in this way, climate science actually relies on having a ton of different models tweaked to match the data, and then seeing how many of those models agree with each other. This unfortunately makes them untestable, because whatever really happens doesn't prove or disprove the validity of the prediction.

That's because from the very beginning, the groups of models didn't actually say things -will- go this or that way, they were merely saying things -might- go like that.

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@Eikka
No, you're avoiding the argument. The climate models are not pure theoretical physics, but depend on a very large number of variables, which interact with each other
nowhere have I avoided that point, however, it is the source of your discontent, as anyone can plainly see - and no, I haven't avoided the argument

the problem isn't that there are a large number of variables, but rather that you have no ability to comprehend what has been done, with what, and it's accuracy, or even how accuracy is measured

hence your pool ball model interpretation which is in itself illogical in that you are attempting to redefine the model based on your limitations of knowledge while issuing a new model which will confuse you

.

so, if you don't even know how a model is checked for accuracy, how can you make a claim that models aren't accurate?

if you don't even know how accuracy is checked, how can your pool model be relevant?
it's a red herring
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 06, 2018
@Eikka

here is something analogous to the model problem you and I are having:
if you have a person who has a known mental disorder
and this person has destructive tendencies (homicidal, not suicidal)

a simple model can make a basic prediction that this person has a high statistical probability of becoming homicidal against an aggressor, real or imagined, due to his instability

now add in more accurate defining characteristics precipitating anger
this person hates:
beards
short men
fat men
aggressive behaviour
the colour red

You can now make a more accurate prediction that if a short Santa Claus gets aggressive with the person, there is a very probable chance of homicidal violence

that isn't tweaking to match the data, but it does reflect how climate models work

we already know that x+y= z +/- 10% uncertainty
the additional data simply narrows that 10% uncertainty to far less
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2018
When dealing with a chaotic system the validity of the models assumes that one knows the magnitudes of ALL of the variables. Not only do we not know all of the feedbacks we cannot even properly model the effects of increasing water vapor and cloud formation.

Plus that there is no real basis for the temperature data that has been inputted into the systems. Historical data is constantly being "adjusted" if one is being kind or tampered with if one is being more cynical.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
Basically the models all predict a chaotic climate system that is always on the edge of swinging wildly out of control. They need to predict this in order to be marketable.

They very fact the the earth is habitable today contradicts this theory. Thus it is up to science to prove that the models are true not the other way around. The earth recovered from the glaciers just as it recovered from the many warm periods.

Claiming that we will never see snow again, that the polar bears are all dying or that NYC would be under water by now does not really help strengthen a weak cause.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
Scientists who should know better are constantly using research papers that document sea level rise in a certain geographic location and using it as proof of rising seas across the entire globe. Papers are constantly blaming every social, economic and political problem on rising temperatures.

One has to ask oneself why there is concerted effort among the intellectual community to blame a trace gas for all of the problems of mankind.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
@MR
When dealing with a chaotic system the validity of the models assumes that one knows the magnitudes of ALL of the variables
apparently you didn't read the above exchanges between eikka and I

no point in continuing until you're caught up because your posts are rife with errors, false claims and logical fallacies

just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean it is, hence the reason your arguments are based on religion whereas science is based on evidence and fact
One has to ask oneself why there is concerted effort among the intellectual community to blame a trace gas for all of the problems of mankind
one has to ask onesself why you would ignore empirical evidence that is validated just to suck up to a person who is only trying to make money off of you
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
How can 20 years of pause including an El Nino be called empirical evidence of AGW?
How can a pretty constant rate of sea level rise be called empirical evidence of AGW?
How can a stable since 2012 arctic and an increasing antarctic sea ice level be called empirical evidence of AGW?
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
One area that has not been commented on is the negative psychological effects of scaring young children and teens by constantly telling them that they are destroying the planet. When I was a child they put people in jail for scaring children. Now they become professors or get elected to high office.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2018
https://botanika.life/patients-legally-using-cannabis-stopped-used-less-opioids-dangerous-prescription-drugs/
Over a third of the patients enrolled in the medical cannabis program stopped using prescription drugs altogether.

Thanks for bringing back the topic, Mack..
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2018
A study concluded that chronic pain sufferers who were legally able to use medical cannabis eventually ended up using fewer opioids and other dangerous prescription drugs
-No doubt because they forgot where they put them.
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2018
Don't know if that was based in fact but it was funny Otto.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2018
A study concluded that chronic pain sufferers who were legally able to use medical cannabis eventually ended up using fewer opioids and other dangerous prescription drugs
-No doubt because they forgot where they put them.

Just leave 'em in the fridge...
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2018
"Honey did you see where I put my opioids and other dangerous prescription drugs?"

"No dear."

"Billy, Janey, did you see where I put my opioids and other dangerous prescription drugs?"

"No dad."

"No dad."

"Uh what was I looking for again?"
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2018
"Honey did you see where I put my opioids and other dangerous prescription drugs?"

"No dear."

"Billy, Janey, did you see where I put my opioids and other dangerous prescription drugs?"

"No dad."

"No dad."

"Uh what was I looking for again?"

Duh... check the fridge...
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
"Honey, could you tell me again where the fridge is?"

"No dear."
TrollBane
not rated yet Jan 10, 2018
Remember when 'Weed Eater' was a brand of gardening tool?
phytoplantresearch
not rated yet Feb 01, 2018
It is great to hear that legal cannabis sector is generating more revenue as day by day it is being helpful in treating various diseases.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.