Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[Captain Wiggles]

53 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I have been to grocery stores and gas stations.  My post is true and accurate.  You missed or just ignored my point.

 

(We should be moving towards the further decommercialization of other gateway drugs (alcohol and tobacco) as we have been for the last 40+ years not moving towards the commercialization of marijuana (which is what we are doing).)

 

No I didn't miss it I just don't agree with you.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

19 minutes ago, sportjunkie07 said:

The 3 year dem temper tantrum continues. 

 

Keep it up and Trump will get re-elected.

This is a serious post, right? 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Holding people accountable for crimes is a temper tantrum lol

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

Well, it appears somewhat tough to have the marijuana debate with Biden because he seems to be a bit all over the map.  The same article:

 

 

So is he for decriminalization all together or just for possession?  If he is for just possession because marijuana is still bad enough to criminalize distribution, what sense does it make to have states decide on recreational use?  And when he says recreational use, does that literally mean recreational use only or all the attendant growing and selling that comes with recreational use? (If it's the latter, is he just saying that he would allow states to legalize it but not the federal government?)

 

On one hand he appears to be saying that marijuana should remain illegal.  On the other, he seems to be saying that states should decide.  At the same time, it's not clear if he's for decriminalizing all crimes related to sale and use of marijuana or just possession.  If it is just possession decriminalization and if the only thing he's falling back on is the questionable gateway theory, I think he's wrong.  Prove first and then criminalize, not the other way around.  If he's for decriminalizing all aspects of marijuana sale and use, then it's nonsensical to decriminalize and then stop at legalizing (which I guess would mean some type of civil fine).  If he's for decriminalizing all aspects and then leaving the legalizing to the states, I guess he's passing the buck.

 

Back to the original point though, marijuana doesn't seem to be a gateway drug.  At least not in real life practice.

 

1.  Verbal answers are really ever complete from politicians.  I suspect that he's for the complete decriminalization of it at the federal level, while leaving legalization up to the states.

 

2.  I don't see how you can come to the conclusion it doesn't seem to be a gateway drug in real life practice.  Just because everybody that does a drug doesn't go onto use other drugs doesn't mean it isn't a gateway drug.  That's a complete misrepresentation of the gateway drug hypothesis and doesn't mean that it isn't a gateway drug.

 

People that use marijuana appear to be more likely to use other illegal drugs and more likely to have issues with other drugs (e.g. alcohol).  This is even true when people look at twins and try to control for different variables.  Because of ethical considerations, controlled mechanistic studies will never be done in humans (i.e. we'll never force people that don't want to use marijuana), but we know from studies in rodents that marijuana affects the parts of the brain that makes rodents more susceptible to being addicted to other drugs.  The same parts of the rodent's brains have similar roles and the relevant genes/proteins have roles in drug addiction in people.

 

Other than the sort of ridiculous idea that everybody that uses the drug goes onto use heavier drugs or that everybody that uses heavier drugs uses it first (which the gateway drug hypothesis never meant to include), what else would you expect to be true of a gateway drug?

 

Science always progress.  People aren't rodents and large scale statistical studies are always difficult and it isn't uncommon for larger and better studies to come back with different results so I wouldn't say the result is extremely established.  But based on what we know marijuana certainly seems to check the boxes of being a gateway drug.  We have statistical studies in humans indicating it is, and those studies are backed by a mechanistic studies in rodents.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

1 hour ago, sportjunkie07 said:

The 3 year dem temper tantrum continues. 

 

Keep it up and Trump will get re-elected.

Why can't these Dumbocrats see that Trump is just commiting these crimes to get them riled up? Y'all libs stay getting triggered by corruption.

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  Verbal answers are really ever complete from politicians.  I suspect that he's for the complete decriminalization of it at the federal level, while leaving legalization up to the states.

 

2.  I don't see how you can come to the conclusion it doesn't seem to be a gateway drug in real life practice.  Just because everybody that does a drug doesn't go onto use other drugs doesn't mean it isn't a gateway drug.  That's a complete misrepresentation of the gateway drug hypothesis.

 

People that use marijuana appear to be more likely to use other illegal drugs and more likely to have issues with other drugs (e.g. alcohol).  This is even true when people look at twins and try to control for different variables.  Because of ethical considerations, controlled mechanistic studies will never be done in humans (i.e. we'll never force people that don't want to use marijuana), but we know from studies in rodents that marijuana affects the parts of the brain that makes rodents more susceptible to being addicted to other drugs.  The same parts of the rodent's brains have similar roles and the relevant genes/proteins have roles in drug addiction in people.

 

Other than the sort of ridiculous idea that everybody that uses the drug goes onto use heavier drugs or that everybody that uses heavier drugs uses it first (which the gateway drug hypothesis never meant to include), what else would you expect to be true of a gateway drug?

 

Let's put it a different way.  I believe when marijuana was first made illegal and criminalized, the perception was not that it stimulates the brain and results in cross sensitization the same way alcohol, nicotine, or other addictive behaviors all do.  I believe marijuana was perceived to be more of a gateway than other legal substances and behavior, hence legally allowing some addictive behavior vs illegalizing marijuana.

 

So if your position is that any addictive substance that stimulates the dopamine response increases the possibility of cross sensitization and therefore is a gateway drug, then that would be correct.  And in that vein, any addictive behavior would similarly be gateway to drugs.  Then people would simply disagree that being a gateway drug would be sufficient cause to make it illegal.

 

I don't know what your position is, but I assume Biden is not advocating for illegalizing all drug gateway substance or behavior, such as alcohol or tobacco.  So when he says he opposes legalization of marijuana because it may be a gateway drug, I assume he means gateway drug as in something worse than what we already legally allow (lest the rest of his logic fall apart).  

 

This is difficult to decipher because we don't know whether the slightly higher correlation between marijuana use and harder drugs compared to alcohol and tobacco stems from inherent properties of marijuana or because in order to use marijuana, the user already crossed the line into illegality.  But when I hear Biden or other politicians say "gateway drug", I assume they are not referring to any substance that promotes a dopamine response and can lead to cross sensitization.  I understand it to mean something that promotes greater likelihood  of harder drug use than those  substances that are already legal.

[DoneMessedUp]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

34 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Let's put it a different way.  I believe when marijuana was first made illegal and criminalized, the perception was not that it stimulates the brain and results in cross sensitization the same way alcohol, nicotine, or other addictive behaviors all do.  I believe marijuana was perceived to be more of a gateway than other legal substances and behavior, hence legally allowing some addictive behavior vs illegalizing marijuana.

 

So if your position is that any addictive substance that stimulates the dopamine response increases the possibility of cross sensitization and therefore is a gateway drug, then that would be correct.  And in that vein, any addictive behavior would similarly be gateway to drugs.  Then people would simply disagree that being a gateway drug would be sufficient cause to make it illegal.

 

I don't know what your position is, but I assume Biden is not advocating for illegalizing all drug gateway substance or behavior, such as alcohol or tobacco.  So when he says he opposes legalization of marijuana because it may be a gateway drug, I assume he means gateway drug as in something worse than what we already legally allow (lest the rest of his logic fall apart).  

 

This is difficult to decipher because we don't know whether the slightly higher correlation between marijuana use and harder drugs compared to alcohol and tobacco stems from inherent properties of marijuana or because in order to use marijuana, the user already crossed the line into illegality.  But when I hear Biden or other politicians say "gateway drug", I assume they are not referring to any substance that promotes a dopamine response and can lead to cross sensitization.  I understand it to mean something that promotes greater likelihood  of harder drug use than those  substances that are already legal.

 

1.  The gateway drug idea wasn't heavily used to legalize marijuana.  The push was mostly based on lies associated with racism.  

 

2.  I'm not at all sure all addictive behaviors are gateway drugs.  Not all drugs appear to cross react the same way or have the same mechanisms of action.

 

3.  I don't think the rest of his logic falls apart.  Because of the entrenched (financial) interests of alcohol and tobacco, it is hard to move toward their further decommercialization (though again, we have moved in that direction over the last 40+ years).  Just because some products are heavily commercialized based on historical precedence doesn't mean we should move to commercialize other products that haven't been commercialized because they are similar.  (Though I don't know where Biden stands on the commercialization of alcohol and tobacco).

 

Just because 70 years or more ago a mistake was made (and the alcohol and tobacco industries were allowed to become heavily commercialized) doesn't mean we should make that same mistake again.

 

I'm for decriminalization, but not for commericialization.

[bearrock]

31 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Just because 70 years or more ago a mistake was made (and the alcohol and tobacco industries were allowed to become heavily commercialized) doesn't mean we should make that same mistake again.

 

I'm for decriminalization, but not for commericialization.

 

I think many (most?) people would place alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana on the same level.  I get the sense you are too (at least to a certain extent).  I think many would flow from that conclusion to legalizing marijuana.  You are opposing commercialization of all three, which I'm not sure is a very prevalent viewpoint (I suppose it depends on your definition of commercialization).  You said you oppose criminalization.  Where do you stand om legalization?  And if you are for decriminalization but oppose legalization, how strong do you want the penalty to be?  Or are we talking about complete freedom to grow and harvest your own plant but illegalizing all commercial transaction?  Does that extend to seed?  What would be the penalty for illegal commercial transaction?

 

I'm also pretty skeptical that Biden is secretly for decommercialization of all three because he views all three as roughly equally bad, yet he can only call for restrictions on marijuana due to political concerns.  I think it's more likely that he views marijuana as something worse than alcohol or tobacco.  But I suppose I have no proof of that as no one seems to have asked that specific question.

[PeterMP]

23 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I think many (most?) people would place alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana on the same level.  I get the sense you are too (at least to a certain extent).  I think many would flow from that conclusion to legalizing marijuana.  You are opposing commercialization of all three, which I'm not sure is a very prevalent viewpoint (I suppose it depends on your definition of commercialization).  You said you oppose criminalization.  Where do you stand om legalization?  And if you are for decriminalization but oppose legalization, how strong do you want the penalty to be?  Or are we talking about complete freedom to grow and harvest your own plant but illegalizing all commercial transaction?  Does that extend to seed?  What would be the penalty for illegal commercial transaction?

 

I'm also pretty skeptical that Biden is secretly for decommercialization of all three because he views all three as roughly equally bad, yet he can only call for restrictions on marijuana due to political concerns.  I think it's more likely that he views marijuana as something worse than alcohol or tobacco.  But I suppose I have no proof of that as no one seems to have asked that specific question.

 

1.  I think many people, even of Biden's generation, have a worse view of tobacco than marijuana.  Biden is a boomer.  Not the greatest generation and his wife is even younger.  It would be somewhat surprising if at least one of them didn't have some at least indirect experiences with marijuana.  My parents backgrounds aren't that dissimilar to Biden's and both had some exposure to marijuana.  Nicotine is extremely addictive and smoking has pretty large negative health consequences.  I suspect Biden (and many of the Boomer's) appreciate that.

 

2.  Biden also doesn't drink based on family history and personal experiences growing up so I doubt his opinion of alcohol is very high either.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if his opinions don't pretty closely match mine.

 

In terms of practice of how thing work, I'm not sure of all of the details.  For sure, I wouldn't want any penalty for individual possession or use.  From there, in terms of sales, I don't know, and there would have to be almost two sets of rules.  You'd have one set of rules for addicts and another for people just in it for financial gain.  Though I'd like to see a complete prohibition on advertising with pretty significant economic penalties.

[bearrock]

26 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  I think many people, even of Biden's generation, have a worse view of tobacco than marijuana.  Biden is a boomer.  Not the greatest generation and his wife is even younger.  It would be somewhat surprising if at least one of them didn't have some at least indirect experiences with marijuana.  My parents backgrounds aren't that dissimilar to Biden's and both had some exposure to marijuana.  Nicotine is extremely addictive and smoking has pretty large negative health consequences.  I suspect Biden (and many of the Boomer's) appreciate that.

 

2.  Biden also doesn't drink based on family history and personal experiences growing up so I doubt his opinion of alcohol is very high either.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if his opinions don't pretty closely match mine.

 

 

Well, I think at this point we're getting into speculation as to Biden's thoughts on the subject.  If Biden literally meant gateway drug in the sense that alcohol and tobacco are gateway drugs as well, then that's one thing.  If he views marijuana as worse, then that's a different issue.

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

 

Well, I think at this point we're getting into speculation as to Biden's thoughts on the subject.  If Biden literally meant gateway drug in the sense that alcohol and tobacco are gateway drugs as well, then that's one thing.  If he views marijuana as worse, then that's a different issue.

 

I do feel like I should point out this idea that alcohol and nicotine are gateway drugs isn't unusual.  It is pretty common.

 

The NIH page with respect to nicotine even is entitled to indicate that nicotine is a gateway drug (as if there isn't even any doubt).

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/why-nicotine-gateway-drug

 

"Why Nicotine is a Gateway Drug"

 

I don't know if Biden is used to such language, but it isn't uncommon.

[bearrock]

27 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I do feel like I should point out this idea that alcohol and nicotine are gateway drugs isn't unusual.  It is pretty common.

 

The NIH page with respect to nicotine even is entitled to indicate that nicotine is a gateway drug (as if there isn't even any doubt).

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/why-nicotine-gateway-drug

 

"Why Nicotine is a Gateway Drug"

 

I don't know if Biden is used to such language, but it isn't uncommon.

 

Again, we are talking about a presidential candidate talking about something being a gateway drug within the context of legalization.  It's not the same as scientist using that word.

[PeterMP]

10 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

Again, we are talking about a presidential candidate talking about something being a gateway drug within the context of legalization.  It's not the same as scientist using that word.

 

But it is a page that is geared towards the general public.  It isn't something that is buried in the peer reviewed literature or for scientists talking to other scientists.  The idea that nicotine is a gateway drug is found in the media.  Ted Kennedy was calling nicotine a gateway drug back in 1996 and it made CNN.

 

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/21/tobacco.regulate/index.shtml

 

You seem to have quite a bias here.  You don't want to look at his personal actions when talking about his likely attitudes with respect to alcohol, but you want to completely categorize his comments with respect to marijuana because he's a politician.  It isn't unreasonable that today that Biden has similar understanding of gateway drugs as Kennedy did in 1996 and certainly isn't so unreasonable that it should be dismissed with well he's just a politician.

 

(And I've said this before, I don't even like Biden.  I don't think he should be President and post-2016, I said I didn't understand why people thought he would have a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary did.)

 

What Biden said is true and IMO even under plays the evidence.  The current evidence supports the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug.

 

If making a factual statement about marijuana is somehow discrediting from being the Democratic nominee, then that's a problem for the Democratic party.

 

(now, if Biden comes out tomorrow and adds to his comments and says marijuana is worse than nicotine, then that's a problem and would be new evidence beyond he's a politician. )

[Renegade7]

Even if Mayor Pete wins Iowa, is it realistic he gets creamed in South Carolina anyway?  At this rate I'm wondering why he hasnt brought up his "black friend" yet.

 

 

blackvoters4trump.webp

 

 

blacksfortrump.webp

[The Evil Genius]

Why does the Dem primary in SC matter to anyone other than SC residents? None of the Dem candidates have a chance of winning that state in 2020. At least Iowa is a toss up state most years.

 

Edit..obviously this is a high level question and ignores the part where the states count towards getting the overall nomination.  The point stands..SC and most of the South is a lost cause for any Dem Presidential candidate. I'd rather the candidate being the candidate of the solid blue and the purple states.

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

But it is a page that is geared towards the general public.  It isn't something that is buried in the peer reviewed literature or for scientists talking to other scientists.  The idea that nicotine is a gateway drug is found in the media.  Ted Kennedy was calling nicotine a gateway drug back in 1996 and it made CNN.

 

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/21/tobacco.regulate/index.shtml

 

You seem to have quite a bias here.  You don't want to look at his personal actions when talking about his likely attitudes with respect to alcohol, but you want to completely categorize his comments with respect to marijuana because he's a politician.  It isn't unreasonable that today that Biden has similar understanding of gateway drugs as Kennedy did in 1996 and certainly isn't so unreasonable that it should be dismissed with well he's just a politician.

 

(And I've said this before, I don't even like Biden.  I don't think he should be President and post-2016, I said I didn't understand why people thought he would have a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary did.)

 

What Biden said is true and IMO even under plays the evidence.  The current evidence supports the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug.

 

If making a factual statement about marijuana is somehow discrediting from being the Democratic nominee, then that's a problem for the Democratic party.

 

(now, if Biden comes out tomorrow and adds to his comments and says marijuana is worse than nicotine, then that's a problem and would be new evidence beyond he's a politician. )

 

I'm basing my opinion of his position based on his proposed policy.  He objects to legalizing marijuana but as far as I know has not stated that he wants to illegalize alcohol and/or tobacco.  There's something at the root of his position.

 

Many, including me, have speculated that his contrasting opinion of marijuana vs alcohol/tobacco would explain such a discrepancy in policy positions.  Your preferred explanation seems to be that Biden feels the same about all three but can't support illegalizing alcohol/tobacco due to political reasons.  There doesn't seem to be any evidence of that but that's your opinion.  I can't prove mine and I can't disprove yours.

 

The generalities of his and your parents' generations' opinion of marijuana doesn't get us anywhere for multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that plenty of people who experimented with drugs in their youth later support a ban.

 

Same with Biden not drinking.  I'm sure he doesn't approve of hardcore porn or marathon videogame sessions either (maybe he does, who knows).  Is that evidence that he views those behavior with the same kind of disdain as marijuana and would secretly support illegalization?

 

You have a certain view about alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana.  One that would lead a rational policymaker to conclude that they should be treated the same.  Where you differ from people like me is that you do not support legalization/commercialization, only decriminalization.  But at least you are logically consistent because you propose such a system for all three substances. 

 

Barring some secret support for illegalizing alcohol/tobacco, Biden's view is not logically consistent with a person who views the three substances as roughly the same.  You opine that the distinction is due to political reasons.  I disagree and view the distinction as due to him viewing marijuana as worse.  And that could be true even if Biden came out and said all three are gateway drugs.  One would ask whether he views all three as having the same magnitude of gateway effect.  If he says that marijuana is worse, that would prove my suspicion.  If he says all three are the same, then you would be right (,though the natural follow up is would you support illegalization of alcohol and/or tobacco). 

 

Since no one seems to be asking that particular question and Biden's push back to this story that puts him at odds with the Democratic base and the American people seems to be hammering decriminalization rather than explaining what he meant by gateway drug and why he would support illegal label for marijuana but not alcohol or tobacco, I don't think we can settle this particular dispute (as much as I disagree with your opinion of Biden's views, there's too much speculation involved).

[NoCalMike]

Marijuana has also largely always been associated with counter-culture.   Despite it being legalized state by state, there is still a stigma attached to it that is not there for people who choose to drink alcohol and/or cigarettes.   Whether marijuana is legalized today or not, it is still going to take time for that stigma to go away over time.   

I think it is fair to have concerns about legalization and what impacts it could have on a specific segment of society the same way we are all concerned with alcoholism, underage binge drinking,  teenagers developing nicotine addictions etc etc etc......the question is why is marijuana still treated differently and approached like it is some special category of danger.  Somehow the concerns with alcohol and tobacco are not enough to ban them, we weigh the pros and cons and have decided that making the substances legal to responsible adults is worth the overall risk of what it might mean for a small percentage of society. 

 

The push for federal legalization is largely due to needing to stop the legal gray area when it comes to the business side of things. 

[DoneMessedUp]

 

 

[sportjunkie07]

17 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

This is a serious post, right? 

These hearings are full of hearsay. They are preying on the feelings and bias of the political left in an attempt to discredit Trump. It is a sham.

 

The hearings lack facts. Gimme some hard data of impeachable crimes and we can go from there.

 

its been a while now and we have nothing. It’s going to be another month at least. We’re just wasting time, taxpayer expenses, and crying wolf on actual problems.

 

It is disgraceful.

[bearrock]

12 minutes ago, sportjunkie07 said:

These hearings are full of hearsay. They are preying on the feelings and bias of the political left in an attempt to discredit Trump. It is a sham.

 

The hearings lack facts. Gimme some hard data of impeachable crimes and we can go from there.

 

its been a while now and we have nothing. It’s going to be another month at least. We’re just wasting time, taxpayer expenses, and crying wolf on actual problems.

 

It is disgraceful.

 

Did I miss the impeachment inquiry, articles of impeachment, and are we in the midst of the senate trial?  If a criminal defendant can be indicted on hearsay, why would a president be afforded greater protection in an impeachment inquiry?  

 

At the end of the day, I would assume we will hear from some direct witnesses (assuming they don't get shut down with executive privilege). 

 

Do you really believe there's not enough substance to the suspicion of quid pro quo to justify an inquiry or do you think quid pro quo as alleged against Trump is not an impeachable offense?

[LadySkinsFan]

It's the "head in sand" conclusion of those who are so blind they cannot see obeyance to the criminal enterprise occupying the executive branch of our government.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

35 minutes ago, sportjunkie07 said:

These hearings are full of hearsay. They are preying on the feelings and bias of the political left in an attempt to discredit Trump. It is a sham.

I’m glad you understand that it’s possible for people to be manipulated by their feelings and preconceived biases. Have you given any consideration to the possibility that you might be the one who is being manipulated here?

[NoCalMike]

42 minutes ago, sportjunkie07 said:

The hearings lack facts. Gimme some hard data of impeachable crimes and we can go from there.

 

 

Ok slowdown there.

 

Do you think the witnesses are lying about anything they have said so far?  Do you believe Vidman was right to have legitimate concerns about what he heard on the call? You realize his testimony is not "heresay" as he was in the room during the call?

 

After everything you have heard so far, you are still of the belief that Trump did not hold up military aid to Ukraine that had already been approved by the state department in exchange for Ukraine announcing investigations into the Bidens?  Is this what you truly believe?

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

Why does the Dem primary in SC matter to anyone other than SC residents? None of the Dem candidates have a chance of winning that state in 2020. At least Iowa is a toss up state most years.

 

Edit..obviously this is a high level question and ignores the part where the states count towards getting the overall nomination.  The point stands..SC and most of the South is a lost cause for any Dem Presidential candidate. I'd rather the candidate being the candidate of the solid blue and the purple states.

 

First, South Carolina primary has a reputation for needing support of black voters in order to win it.  If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire and still cant take so much as the black vote going to Biden thinking he has best chance to win, it should be a red flag that we are dealing with a nominee that black voters are still uncomfortable with. 

 

I'm still uncomfortable with him, and it has nothing to do with him being gay (which I cant say for a lot of black people).  When you have a state like Kentucky where Trump won by 30 points now having a Dem governor, the idea of what's in play changes.  If the focus is to win the presidency, you dont need South Carolina.  But if you want the turnout to take back the senate and possibly even knock out Lindsey Graham, this absolutely matters. 

 

This is just me, but If I had a choice between Trump as president and democrates taking full control of the senate, I'd take the senate, because they would throw him out of office and wouldnt be afraid to go after Pence, too.  This matters because were at a point that policy differences arent what's at stake, it's a possible end to checks and balances in the federal governme t.  The biggest problem I have with GOP right now is they dont care what the executive branch does anymore, that's bigger then tax breaks that will bankrupt us or taking my health care, because they going to do that AND be an authoritarian government, so we wont be able to get in to fix it.