Golden Sun Hacking Community
January 17, 2018, 06:54:00 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home   Forum   DC Wiki Help Search Calendar Downloads Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Marijuana  (Read 4855 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
roger
the blind-oriented developer
Jupiter Clan

Regular Member
*

Coins: 3
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
I am: chillin'
Posts: 180

« on: May 12, 2015, 06:15:24 PM »

What's your opinion on the various issues surrounding recreational marijuana? We're all grown ups here for the most part so let's stay mature here. This thread is NOT about discussing the drug itself but rather issues surrounding it - please try to refrain from discussions about use unless they are informative.

What is your stance on legalization? If legalized, what do you believe the regulations behind it should be? If not, what punishments should be enacted?

If you believe in legalization of marijauna, how do you think that the growth of recreational cannabis should be regulated?

What is your opinion on "stoner culture"? Do you think it positively or negatively impacts marijuana legalization? How large of a subset of marijuana users do you believe this subculture to be?

Do you have any interest in indulging in marijuana, be it through smoking, edibles or otherwise?

Feel free to add a couple more issues.

Here are my thoughts.

Some people on this forum know already that I'm a regular toker. I smoke mainly for recreation but also because it does help me with insomnia and eating problems. Personally, and quite obviously, I do believe that it should be legal but with similar restrictions to alcohol. I find the drug analogous to alcohol in many ways in that it serves a social purpose and is, in comparison to other drugs, much less addictive or dangerous, and is more comparable to the negative effects of smoking or drinking.

Regarding marijuana growers, I think that the sale of pot should be restricted to licensed individuals, to promote better regulations and quality (this is why, after all, marijuana from dispensaries is much better quality and much more consistent quality than street stuff), but people should be allowed to grow their own plants, not intended for sale of product, for themselves. In many medicinal states, cannabis is allowed to be grown by holders of cards, usually limiting the number of plants allowed.

Stoner culture is extremely annoying and impedes legalization, but is a small reflection of the amount of marijuana users.

And of course, I smoke fairly regularly; I both smoke and use edibles, but less frequently. If you do decide to indulge, I should warn you that while smoking is going to be harsher on your lungs, its much easier to gauge how high you will get, as opposed to edibles. Edibles take about an hour and a half to metabolize enough for me to feel the high and as such you can easily consume too much before you know it, and thus have a much stronger high than you really should be - this can trigger panic attacks. Not fun.

Ultimately, I believe that the right to smoke should be given to citizens. It's not the government's business if I smoke when playing video games or watching movies. I never smoke in front of children or even in public, so I don't see how my private behaviour that affects nobody should be illegal.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2015, 06:17:23 PM by Seto Kaiba » Logged

View Profile WWW
Salanewt
His Sexiness
Mercury Clan

Oh yeah, baby!

Prodigy
*

Coins: 32
Offline Offline

I am: A part of the organization of Cool Cats, but more of a dog person in reality.
Emblems: Have a nice day.
Posts: 4565

« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2015, 08:33:17 PM »

Plus the sin taxes that could be placed on its sale would provide a major source of revenue for governments, and regulating it like alcohol would make it safer and easier to obtain while making it harder for youths to acquire. If it's cheaper to buy from a licensed store than a street seller, then people will stop going to the latter for their product, which means that the latter will mostly go out of business while the former will have to follow laws regulating its sale. Furthermore, fewer street sellers would result in less revenue for more... nefarious groups and organizations. 

On that note, I also support legalization for a wider range of illicit substances. My basic argument has been condensed into bullet points:

- While addiction can be dangerous (ignoring personal tendencies for addiction vs. base chemical properties), it should be treated like an illness rather than a crime to remove the stigma of addiction. This stigma makes it harder for addicts to seek the help they need.
- Furthermore, this stigma means that there is a focus on traditionally illegal substance abuse and a lack of focus on something just as dangerous; prescription or pharmaceutical abuse. I can't necessarily speak for all countries, but this is one of those rather reclusive issues facing Canada right now (for lack of a better term) despite our idiotic federal government's failing war on drugs. Or disrespect for basic government institutions and the Charter/constitution, but that's a topic for another day.
- Tying into your other post, rehabilitation and positive reinforcement have been proven to work; for example, Vancouver has something called Insite that basically provides a safe injection site with clean needles and helpful counselling, and has been proven to ease addiction and reduce the spread of diseases like HIV.
- With all of this in mind, there would be less of a strain on public health. A healthier public means resources can be better utilized to strengthen provincial healthcare systems (or national where applicable); this can mean almost anything, including more health practitioners, lower wait times, or even more expansive coverage that could include the costs for prescription meds (which Canadian systems are still lagging in for the most part), etc.

But yeah. Not sure how much more I'll actually post in this topic, but this one message basically summarizes many of the key facets of my views on public health and healthcare.
Logged

Oh yeah baby, £ me harder.

Fusion is just a cheap tactic to make weak Adepts stronger.

Yoshi's Lighthouse is a hacking website in progress. Why not check it out if you like Yoshi or the Mario & Luigi games?
View Profile WWW
Majora
Venus Clan

Regular Member
*

Coins: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 147

« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2015, 12:47:31 AM »

I like civil discussions, I'll give my two cents.
It's reckless and counter-intuitive to legalize marijuana. Doing so creates a domino effect of negative events that arguably exceed by far the original, presumably poor state of affairs, in regard to the drug's current status as a federally-controlled substance. For example, many concerned individuals draw a parallel between the redaction of the Prohibition laws, which allowed businesses to sell and serve alcohol to customers for exclusive use on-site or at home, but did not allow public consumption. Whereas the redaction of Prohibition laws did not see any noteworthy rise in use by adults or minors, or any other concerning events, (crimes, deaths, and other incidents related to alcohol sales or alcohol use remained fairly consistent with American population growth before, during, and following the redaction of the law) marijuana legalization has instead initiated a number of detrimental effects that run counter to the intended positive results many users of the drug incorrectly believe legalization brings (claims including: decreased overall drug use, decreased use among minors, fewer overall crimes, accidents, and so on) in the areas where legalization has been practiced. Here are a few supporting international cause-and-effect examples of the detrimental effects of the drug's legalization:

'...regulating it like alcohol would make it safer and easier to obtain while making it harder for youths to acquire...'
Investigation Reveals Medical Marijuana Is Getting Into School Kids’ Hands:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/25/only-on-2-investigation-reveals-medical-marijuana-is-getting-into-school-kids-hands/

Marijuana use increases in Colorado, according to new federal survey:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27212493/marijuana-use-increases-colorado-according-new-federal-survey

Hindsight: Colorado Gov. Hickenlooper: Colorado ‘reckless’ to legalize marijuana:
http://kdvr.com/2014/10/06/hickenlooper-colorado-reckless-to-legalize-marijuana/

...the taxes that could be placed on its sale would provide a major source of revenue for governments...'
In Colorado, Marijuana Taxes May Have to Be Passed Back:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/us/colorado-lawmakers-scramble-to-keep-millions-in-marijuana-taxes.html?_r=0

Mexican Drug Traffickers Turn To Heroin And Meth To Help Alleviate Slow Marijuana Sales:
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/01/12/mexican-drug-traffickers-turn-to-heroin-and-meth-to-help-alleviate-slow-marijuana-sales/

'With all of this in mind, there would be less of a strain on public health...'
Smoking cannabis can lead to manic behaviour: Hyperactivity, aggression and delusion are all strongly linked with the drug, researchers warn:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2949585/Smoking-cannabis-lead-manic-behaviour-Hyperactivity-aggression-delusion-strongly-linked-drug-researchers-warn.html

Strong cannabis causes one in four cases of psychosis: Users three times more likely to have an episode than those who have never tried it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955020/Strong-cannabis-causes-one-four-cases-psychosis-Users-three-times-likely-episode-never-tried-it.html

Marijuana users may have ‘false memories’: Brain scans reveal how cannabis smokers can live in their own reality:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3051326/Marijuana-users-false-memories-Brain-scans-reveal-cannabis-smokers-live-reality.html

Mom Arrested For Allegedly Giving Edibles To Son Who Jumped From 3rd Story:
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/04/23/mom-arrested-pot-edibles-teen-jumped-third-story/

Marijuana Edibles Blamed For Keystone Death:
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/03/25/marijuana-edibles-blamed-for-keystone-death/

'While addiction can be dangerous... it should be treated like an illness rather than a crime to remove the stigma of addiction'
Panel: PTSD, migraines OK for medical pot... But not anxiety, diabetes...:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-state-board-to-hear-case-for-marijuana-for-ptsd-other-conditions-20150504-story.html

Drug use at 'highest level in more than a decade'...
http://www.asam.org/magazine/read/article/2015/09/10/increased-marijuana-heroin-use-contribute-to-highest-reported-illicit-drug-use-in-more-than-a-decade

In summary, I don't doubt many users believe the drug is not as harmful to them as materials such as alcohol or tobacco, or even those who believe the drug provides some form of medical function, but the long and short of things is that neither of those two claims are true in the way users believe it to be, few things in life are ever that straightforward. There is no question that the drug may dull the symptoms of an illness in some patients dependent on a case-by-case basis, however, the same function is performed by innumerable other available prescription drugs that do not carry the detrimental effects touched upon above, including increased use amongst youth, increased cartel manufacturing of "more intense" drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines, and so on. There isn't a patient alive today who could honestly express to a practitioner of medicine to have tried every last affordable medication available and found that nothing but a federally-controlled substance could alleviate their (more often than not, mild) symptoms. Promoting the substance's use in a medical setting is a redundant and poor decision to make, as drugs already exist to treat the conditions most medical marijuana users cite, which include mild to severe migraines, insomnia, and anxiety, with a notable margin for delinquent prescriptions. Legalizing the drug performs no new medical function and introduces more severe side-effects.

The bare-bones of things is that the drug does indeed impair users, especially from the young age at which most users begin use, and the drug does undeniably introduce an undeniable and unregulatable number of users to drugs that even most marijuana users will agree do ruin and kill.

Not to be insensitive of course, as in many users' cases, it's a question of misplaced faith. I personally see very few valuable points when I read things like 'tobacco is worse than marijuana' and 'it alleviates my symptoms', not for any lack of trust in the individuals making these statements, but for lack of qualification to perform medical or international criminal justice analyses. I like my friends who smoke marijuana as much as anyone, they're as good as they come, but they and the grant-funded studies they cite which come to conclusions like these simply aren't qualified to make these claims, they do not possess degrees or licenses to practice, and instead lobby an agenda to promote the drug for legal recreational use in lieu of any real medical benefit. It just has no place in serious legislation. If for no other reason, remember that regulation is eternally incapable of being performed efficiently, all forms of government are incapable of effectively regulating anything they do; a classic case of 'multi-hyphenate' syndrome: do many things poorly. If nothing else, there is no supportable logic to asking an (especially multi-faceted) government body to regulate even more than it already does; may as well ask a three-headed snake to fly, run, and swim at the same time.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 02:42:03 AM by Majora » Logged
View Profile
Salanewt
His Sexiness
Mercury Clan

Oh yeah, baby!

Prodigy
*

Coins: 32
Offline Offline

I am: A part of the organization of Cool Cats, but more of a dog person in reality.
Emblems: Have a nice day.
Posts: 4565

« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2015, 04:42:07 AM »

You definitely raise some good points, although there are a couple areas that I feel I should clarify on with my previous post before I continue.

Anything that is a low-mid schedule or class should probably be legalized and treated in the same manner as tobacco and alcohol (both are addictive, unhealthy, and dangerous, either proven or likely carcinogenic and affect more than the individual if used in large amounts) unless a group or society of nonpartisan and neutral scientists and/or medical practitioners state otherwise. Given that cannabis itself is typically considered to be less potent than something like meth, as this is reflected in various legislation or policy, it likely applies as a low schedule drug. For example, Canada's Controlled Drugs and Substances Act places certain cannabis product of certain weight in the lowest schedules, while in the Netherlands cannabis is considered a soft drug that, while still illegal and quite regulated, is a low enough priority that authorities will turn a blind eye toward you if you possess a limited amount of cannabis/number of plants. Oh, and anything above a certain schedule/class should have laxer laws on possession/use, but still fairly strict for distribution/sale/etc.; as I said before, it's easier to seek help when the fact that you essentially broke the spirit of the law/social norms doesn't go on record.

Now on to some other things...

Quote
'...regulating it like alcohol would make it safer and easier to obtain while making it harder for youths to acquire...'
Investigation Reveals Medical Marijuana Is Getting Into School Kids’ Hands:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/25/only-on-2-investigation-reveals-medical-marijuana-is-getting-into-school-kids-hands/

Yeah, but that's LA; not legal for recreational use, therefore not regulated in the same way. We mean for full legalization beyond medical use, which a reasonable government may regulate in such a way that it's treated similarly to alcohol or tobacco, both of which are typically illegal to sell or distribute to those below a certain age (varies in jurisdictions; typically 18-19 in CAN/AUS/NZ, often the same lower in Europe, and higher in US I think). It's not like kids can get tobacco or alcohol from street dealers like the can with cannabis, although it's not much of an argument against legalizing it if they can either because then it becomes kind of hypocritical. Plus it's much easier to establish strong guidelines and regulations that specify these things when a government doesn't rely on a blanket ban with little justification other than "it's bad for you" or something along those lines.

Quote

Can't say I am familiar with Colorado's laws, but I imagine this would be an expected result. Could still discourage use in other ways though; I love the smoking adverts in CAN/AUS, like this poor person here, or these. While cannabis likely doesn't cause these same problems, there would be nothing preventing governments from mandating labels like these if they can base them on fact rather than fear.

Quote
'With all of this in mind, there would be less of a strain on public health...'
Smoking cannabis can lead to manic behaviour: Hyperactivity, aggression and delusion are all strongly linked with the drug, researchers warn:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2949585/Smoking-cannabis-lead-manic-behaviour-Hyperactivity-aggression-delusion-strongly-linked-drug-researchers-warn.html

Doesn't really refute my statement though, which was also directed more toward general drug legalization/decriminalization for the public good rather than individual. If an addicted patient has to repeatedly visit their doctor for infections resulting from injection, then it will cost more over those repeated visits (assuming they are afraid of coming clean) than it would to rehabilitate them after opening up about their infection; this would likely prevent future infections. Now if this is applied to a wider selection of patients, one could reasonably expect this to free up a lot of resources. Plus things like rehabilitation and monitored safe injection sites are proven to improve public health by easing addiction and reducing the spread of disease, thereby improving public health.

Quote
'While addiction can be dangerous... it should be treated like an illness rather than a crime to remove the stigma of addiction'
Panel: PTSD, migraines OK for medical pot... But not anxiety, diabetes...:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-state-board-to-hear-case-for-marijuana-for-ptsd-other-conditions-20150504-story.html

Have to be honest, I have no idea how that really relates to what I said. Especially when the story is blocked by a pay wall. But again, addiction in general. Also...

Quote
...innumerable other available prescription drugs that do not carry the detrimental effects touched upon above...

A couple points with that.
a) Prescription drug addiction is a very real concern, which is one of the many reasons why these drugs tend to require prescriptions rather than be available over the counter. This is especially troublesome when the fact that the majority of these are made by pharmaceutical companies, which may easily lobby against things like cannabis due to production costs vs. profit, etc.; a fast growing plant, which has been seen to provide some medical benefit in some cases (and may even be alluded to in your last source) is much easier to produce on a massive scale than pharmaceuticals and has the added benefit of possibly being organic. Not that natural = better or healthier by default of course, but...
b) Prescriptions may also cause a whole slew of other dangerous side effects that are as bad if not worse than some of the ones your articles touch upon. Additionally, they are largely composed of numerous different chemicals which may or may not be harmful or even lethal in certain doses (and they typically are).
c) While all of your links discuss possible dangers with it, I could just as easily find a dozen or more links that claim the opposite. It would be so much better to see hard, government (preferably international or more neutral/nonpartisan) polls/census/statistics on the matter, or at the very least a wider variety of sources than local newspapers or the Daily Mail (a Conservative/right-leaning tabloid, which is traditionally anti-pot and -as a tabloid- is fairly biased in the content it produces to begin with). Going to ignore the general US-centric arguments and comments near the end though.
 
Right, and another bonus to legalization is that fewer resources would go into enforcing bans on drugs. While cannabis may or may not be as bad as you say, you said yourself that there are worse things out there; if legalization should strictly apply to cannabis, then that would be one less ban that police have to worry about. They could then spend their time worrying about more dire issues, like preventing violent assaults or investigating missing persons reports. Or even enforcing the bans on those harder drugs you say this one is a gateway to.

So... yeah, there's a couple more of my pennies. I also don't know why this is such an issue with some people, but you're chastising government regulation while simultaneously supporting ban on a drug, which is a type of regulation. I personally want more reasonable government regulation where applicable, and for me poorly utilized/executed blanket bans are not good examples of reasonable regulation. For example, I love Norway's environmental laws; super strict, despite the fact that Norway is really wealthy from the royalties they get from their oil reserves. I hope Alberta turns around with their oil, but that's also a different topic for another time.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2015, 06:13:07 AM by Lord Squirtle » Logged

Oh yeah baby, £ me harder.

Fusion is just a cheap tactic to make weak Adepts stronger.

Yoshi's Lighthouse is a hacking website in progress. Why not check it out if you like Yoshi or the Mario & Luigi games?
View Profile WWW

Regular Member
**

Coins: 0
Offline Offline

I am: reading.
Posts: 90

« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2015, 02:57:56 PM »

I think this counts as informative.

Neutral http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
Logged
View Profile
Salanewt
His Sexiness
Mercury Clan

Oh yeah, baby!

Prodigy
*

Coins: 32
Offline Offline

I am: A part of the organization of Cool Cats, but more of a dog person in reality.
Emblems: Have a nice day.
Posts: 4565

« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2015, 04:07:57 PM »

Have to admit that I like your source better, although an issue is it still reeks of bias and almost feels like propaganda in a way. It also doesn't even touch up on its [real or perceived] medicinal properties/uses or explain how medical distribution systems function/exist in some states, which it probably should do given that some US states have even gone so far as to legalize it for recreational use. It's hard to take that page for face value as an informative source when it fails to even address these basic facts about it.

Now I don't like focusing on Canada-specific things much, but here is a government page for Health Canada about the medical use of cannabis. It explicitly states that, while the government itself does not support medical use, it is legal because the courts have ruled past bans/restrictions on medical use to be unconstitutional. It then briefly details some of the key facts about the existing regulations in place, while the tabs on the left provide even more information about it. The main thing to point out though is that health care is provincial jurisdiction in Canada while drug laws are federal; it kind of looks like both are federally mandated in the US based on my limited knowledge of your laws/constitutional division of powers.

Logged

Oh yeah baby, £ me harder.

Fusion is just a cheap tactic to make weak Adepts stronger.

Yoshi's Lighthouse is a hacking website in progress. Why not check it out if you like Yoshi or the Mario & Luigi games?
View Profile WWW
Majora
Venus Clan

Regular Member
*

Coins: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 147

« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2015, 12:08:10 AM »

Quote
Yeah, but that's LA; not legal for recreational use, therefore not regulated in the same way. We mean for full legalization beyond medical use, which a reasonable government may regulate in such a way that it's treated similarly to alcohol or tobacco, both of which are typically illegal to sell or distribute to those below a certain age (varies in jurisdictions; typically 18-19 in CAN/AUS/NZ, often the same lower in Europe, and higher in US I think). It's not like kids can get tobacco or alcohol from street dealers like the can with cannabis, although it's not much of an argument against legalizing it if they can either because then it becomes kind of hypocritical. Plus it's much easier to establish strong guidelines and regulations that specify these things when a government doesn't rely on a blanket ban with little justification other than "it's bad for you" or something along those lines.

The idea is that the substance is only legal for 'medical' use in that state, and yet it is already more easily available to minors than it was prior to its status in that state as a medicinal substance. If the substance were to be legalized in that state as you would like, it is reasonable to assume its overall use would increase in a similar way to the usage increase post-legalization in Colorado; by extension, its use among minors would increase to reflect that case similarity, which contradicts the general goal of having less minors using drugs. May as well bail water out of your backyard pool with a bucket while running a water hose into it simultaneously.

Quote
Can't say I am familiar with Colorado's laws, but I imagine this would be an expected result. Could still discourage use in other ways though; I love the smoking adverts in CAN/AUS, like this poor person here, or these. While cannabis likely doesn't cause these same problems, there would be nothing preventing governments from mandating labels like these if they can base them on fact rather than fear.

The issue with preventive marketing is that it is taxpayer-subsidized, (government-operated) and is consequentially ineffective at what it does. In your example, despite a fair amount of Canadian dollars spent on that advertisement and many others, Canada is facing an intimidating endeavor to curb drug use, an effort worse today than it has ever been, as you mentioned earlier:
Quote
I can't necessarily speak for all countries, but this is one of those rather reclusive issues facing Canada right now (for lack of a better term) despite our idiotic federal government's failing war on drugs.

This arguably reflects the ineffectiveness of tactics such as these. I can see why, personally. I can imagine an individual would require a fairly low amount of will power to make a personal life change as dramatic as sobriety, just from seeing an advertisement on the TV or reading a strongly-worded label on packaging. The fact of the matter at hand is that no amount of prevention will ever sway an individual's opinion in a meaningful way; someone who smokes tobacco does not concern themselves with the increased risk of developing lung cancer or other respiratory problems, they make that purchase because it is a product they want, regardless of third-party disapproval.

Quote
'With all of this in mind, there would be less of a strain on public health...'
Smoking cannabis can lead to manic behaviour: Hyperactivity, aggression and delusion are all strongly linked with the drug, researchers warn:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2949585/Smoking-cannabis-lead-manic-behaviour-Hyperactivity-aggression-delusion-strongly-linked-drug-researchers-warn.html

Quote
Doesn't really refute my statement though, which was also directed more toward general drug legalization/decriminalization for the public good rather than individual. If an addicted patient has to repeatedly visit their doctor for infections resulting from injection, then it will cost more over those repeated visits (assuming they are afraid of coming clean) than it would to rehabilitate them after opening up about their infection; this would likely prevent future infections. Now if this is applied to a wider selection of patients, one could reasonably expect this to free up a lot of resources. Plus things like rehabilitation and monitored safe injection sites are proven to improve public health by easing addiction and reducing the spread of disease, thereby improving public health.

These links are an extension of the point against legalization, which states that medical use and legalization both cause notable increases in overall drug use, including use among minors. Acknowledging an increase in usage of the substance among a population, its negative effects on the user are then passed on to that population, thereby increasing strain on public health. Think of marijuana less as an individual material independent of outside correlation, and more as a funnel stopper: if the stopper is removed from the funnel, liquid that once flowed against the stopper now has a far greater chance of entering the funnel and saturating in volume - will all marijuana users eventually use cocaine and heroin? The answer is yes, and no; no one simply wakes up one day and says "I'm going to start using crystal meth today", they begin this process with a gateway drug. Marijuana use does not necessarily predict methamphetamine use, but in all methamphetamine cases, the user would not have graduated to use of that substance had marijuana not been present, had that stopper been removed, thus justifying the material's status as a federally-controlled substance. This is a more visual example of the domino effect in play: by making a gateway drug more available to a wider group of people, you increase use of that gateway drug, and in doing so, increase use in destination drugs. The correlation between use of marijuana and use of other illicit substances is identical; if marijuana use increases, illicit drug use increases:

Spoiler for Hidden:

If this figure contained data for a longer timeline, correlation between the increase in marijuana use and other substances such as heroin, psychotherepeutics, and hallucinogens would be more distinct, as well. When one factor increases, over time, so does another. It's the valuable lesson of reverb use in audio production: no sound simply stands on its own, all environments have distinct character, as no action fails to carry a reaction.

Quote
'While addiction can be dangerous... it should be treated like an illness rather than a crime to remove the stigma of addiction'
Panel: PTSD, migraines OK for medical pot... But not anxiety, diabetes...:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-state-board-to-hear-case-for-marijuana-for-ptsd-other-conditions-20150504-story.html

Have to be honest, I have no idea how that really relates to what I said. Especially when the story is blocked by a pay wall. But again, addiction in general.

This article shows the ineffectiveness of state regulation of the substance; which requires an immaculate regulation handle to achieve the results most users cite to support the cause of legalizing the drug. The article describes the State Board of Connecticut's efforts to determine which medical conditions are to be accepted in medical marijuana prescription approvals; ie): regulation. The irony in the story is that the State Board decided that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and migraines are approvable conditions for medical drug use, but case conditions of arguably equal seriousness, such as anxiety and diabetes, are not. The point is that government bodies are incapable of making ruling medical decisions (perhaps, most decisions in general?) because its body of professionals are not qualified to make medical decisions. There is no applicable rule of thumb for state bodies to determine which conditions bely medical treatment over other conditions, as they do not possess the qualifications to make these decisions. In summary, it is an impossibility in legislative terms to 'treat addiction as an illness to remove stigma', as government bodies are incapable of making the medical determinations required to meet that goal.

Quote
...innumerable other available prescription drugs that do not carry the detrimental effects touched upon above...
c) While all of your links discuss possible dangers with it, I could just as easily find a dozen or more links that claim the opposite. It would be so much better to see hard, government (preferably international or more neutral/nonpartisan) polls/census/statistics on the matter, or at the very least a wider variety of sources than local newspapers or the Daily Mail (a Conservative/right-leaning tabloid, which is traditionally anti-pot and -as a tabloid- is fairly biased in the content it produces to begin with). Going to ignore the general US-centric arguments and comments near the end though.

That would be where your interest and mine would differ slightly, as especially from a medical standpoint, the quantity of a selection of supporting citations does not necessarily reflect any greater or lesser amount of truth to the points they make; the ability to refute the points contained in the articles with an equal or greater number of opposing articles does not necessarily disprove their referential validity. Additionally, the above articles do actually cite internal studies from international government sources and schools of medicine, the links are simply news sites which contain the information found in these studies; it would be a little odd to see the DailyMail conducting its own medicinal research. And further, the DailyMail is actually a liberal English tabloid source, if that somehow makes any difference at all. The three DailyMail links you mentioned out of the eleven links I provided contain literature from the following authors:

Dr. Steven Marwaha, of Warwick University
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/med/staff/marwaha/

The Journal of Affective Disorders, the official journal of the International Society for Affective Disorders
https://www.isad.org.uk/default.asp

The Biomedical Research Institute of Hospital de Sant Pau
http://www.iibsantpau.cat/portal/ca/iib/12698

Autonomous University of Barcelona
http://www.uab.cat/web/universitat-autonoma-de-barcelona-1345467954774.html

Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/index.aspx

The Lancet Journal of Medicine
http://www.thelancet.com/lancet/about

Quote
Right, and another bonus to legalization is that fewer resources would go into enforcing bans on drugs. While cannabis may or may not be as bad as you say, you said yourself that there are worse things out there; if legalization should strictly apply to cannabis, then that would be one less ban that police have to worry about. They could then spend their time worrying about more dire issues, like preventing violent assaults or investigating missing persons reports. Or even enforcing the bans on those harder drugs you say this one is a gateway to.

That's the point. As supported by existing cases of legalization, marijuana usage has seen an increase among all age groups, which in turn as a gateway drug, broadens and increases the eventual user base for substances such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Think of the scenario as if it were the watertight bulkheads system on the Titanic: if one bulkhead fills with water during sinking, water spills over from the top of that bulkhead into the next, and so on - as marijuana use and its user base increases and broadens, so too does the use of other illicit drugs, therefore further impeding law enforcement resources. Legalizing all drugs, as you suggested, would have a similar impact, inhibiting law enforcement resources due to increase in the domino effects of broadening drug use, ie): violent crime, theft, and so on. It's all about action and reaction: increase gateway drug availability > increase gateway drug use > increase destination drug availability > increase destination drug use > increase criminal activity > decrease ability of law enforcement to perform effectively, and so on.

Additionally, regulatory action requires enforcement. For example, marijuana is legal in Colorado, however, that does not mean any individual can produce 100 pounds of the substance for sale in that state, thus, a police presence is required to enforce regulatory standards. Always keep in mind: nothing in life is ever clear-cut. Lessening punishments for possession charges does not equate to lighter police resources.

A final point regards the precedent set by legalizing marijuana, or any other illicit substance. I'll cite a classic Supreme Court rebuttle to give you a clearer picture of what you would like to legalize will eventually be countered with when it inevitably goes to federal court sometime in the next fifty years in America. If I were to legalize this drug today, the legalization of which you claim is in our nation's best interest, a move which is notably and undeniably a large deviation from the law as it currently exists, what then prevents me from legalizing or criminalizing any other substance or law whose qualities you or I deem to be of national interest or infamy? Legalizing first degree murder so as to lessen the desire in the populous to kill others would also be a large deviant from existing laws that forbid the intentional slaughter of others, would it not? Criminalizing the expression of free speech and the practice of religion so as to prevent the deaths-by-suicide of bullied children and the practice of discrimination based on religion would also share a stark commonality with your argument in that it also deviates dramatically from current law, would it not? On what basis could I justify the declassification of this substance as a controlled material with a clean conscience, knowing that my decision would not set a climate for potential future misinterpretation or abuse of my ruling?
« Last Edit: May 14, 2015, 04:02:51 AM by Majora » Logged
View Profile
Salanewt
His Sexiness
Mercury Clan

Oh yeah, baby!

Prodigy
*

Coins: 32
Offline Offline

I am: A part of the organization of Cool Cats, but more of a dog person in reality.
Emblems: Have a nice day.
Posts: 4565

« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2015, 06:25:59 AM »

Wow, long post! Um...

LA: My best guess would be that they lack the regulatory provisions to keep it away from kids because the legislation for it wasn't made to regulate accessibility beyond fulfilling a medical market; the blanket ban would be in force otherwise, with all the problems discussed in the other posts I made still being prevalent. Plus I never said that increased marijuana (or any drug) use was either good or bad. The main reason for my supporting legalization, as someone who does not use any sort of substance, has to do with public health. If something is considered legal, then there is no government-sponsored stigma against it, meaning that use/addiction is not seen inherently bad, and so patients are less afraid to seek help or counselling to curb their problems; fewer resources spent on prosecution/continual treatment than would be on treating them for good. The less people use public resources to treat their symptoms with bandaid solutions, the more resources are available to tackle other serious public health issues.

Quote
The issue with preventive marketing is that it is taxpayer-subsidized, (government-operated) and is consequentially ineffective at what it does. In your example, despite a fair amount of Canadian dollars spent on that advertisement and many others, Canada is facing an intimidating endeavor to curb drug use, an effort worse today than it has ever been, as you mentioned earlier:

I feel like I have to apologize, but none of this makes any sense at all. Mainly because the labels on cigarette packaging have proven to be extremely effective (and inexpensive, according to the WHO) at curbing smoking addiction rates in numerous countries. Partly because the images are graphic and eye catching, and partly because the labels aren't paid for by the government like you seem to be implying; according to the Tobacco Act (Canada again), cigarettes may not legally be sold or distributed without following the strict packaging guidelines, which also mandates the labels that are to be used. Additionally, it completely restricts the advertising of cigarettes/tobacco so that it is illegal to advertise brand/product/whatever; again, at no cost to the government. There is literally nothing stopping a government institution from creating similar regulations for cannabis if they felt it were necessary.

Quote
This arguably reflects the ineffectiveness of tactics such as these. I can see why,

... Exactly. Because the ruling CPC (Canada again) has taken a prohibitionist stance against certain substances while sweeping pharmaceuticals under the rug. If governments were to reverse this stance and instead advertise or otherwise regulate these industries so the issues become more widely known to the public, then one could reasonably expect that this would not be the case at all. Unless you misunderstood my comment before, now that I'm looking at your response again...

Quote
someone who smokes tobacco does not concern themselves with the increased risk of developing lung cancer or other respiratory problems, they make that purchase because it is a product they want

Addiction, dude. Many (including my closest family members) are terribly concerned with certain addictions to tobacco and alcohol. However, this does not detract from the fact that these regulations are still quite effective on a larger scale. Plus, should they ever decide they want to quit, there are readily accessible community or medical options to help them quit.

Quote
These links are an extension of the point against legalization, which states that medical...

I like your funnel analogy, but the main issue with it is that the funnel has a set size and a few factors to consider; the water represents drug amount/access, which fills the funnel (capacity that regulates flow), and then the plug is a prohibitionist policy (as you said). However, if all you rely on to control the water flow is that stopper, then the volume of water going in will eventually overflow and start pouring over the wider edge of the funnel anyway, which essentially means that the only way for the plug to work is if you can completely stop the flow of water to the point where not even a single droplet can enter the funnel. This just can't be done for extended periods with any reasonable measures. If you instead decide to remove the plug and regulate the volume of water filling the funnel through moderate regulation, like with the tobacco examples, then you can better control the amount of water flowing through the funnel without worrying about it overwhelming your ability to deal with the consequences of having water everywhere.

Although, I'll go a step further and suggest that the only reason cannabis is considered a gateway drug is because it is typically acquired through the same venues as these so-called harder drugs, so they have about the same amount of access. If you were to take the gate away and attach it to a reputable, regulated supplier, then you wouldn't have the criminal ties and could be better equipped to deal with the consequences of abuse (because you know first-hand everything that has gone into what you supply). Although personally, I believe the gateway theory is largely without merit because the assumption is on the idea that cannabis is to blame rather than the venues through which it is acquired. I'll go over that some other time though.

Even another step further, but it would be better to have a public/legal distribution system that discourages you from using the drugs in the first place (and simultaneously benefits from revenue) than it would to have a street dealer who would sooner encourage you to switch to harder drugs or pharmaceuticals so they can make even more money than they could from cannabis. The former option comes with education and avenues for help, the latter comes with exploitation.

Also, that graph is missing a lot of crucial information. Where is it based? If it's alluding to the fact that general drug use has increased as a result of legalized pot in select regions, then why do the trends show a gradual increase from 2007? If medical, then why? Why do some numbers have + symbols while others don't? Who made/sponsored the graph? Etc.

Quote
The point is that government bodies are incapable of making ruling medical decisions (perhaps, most decisions in general?) because its body of professionals are not qualified to make medical decisions.

If that is an issue, then why not consult a counsel of qualified medical professionals? Better to do that for a few different sets of professionals so as to avoid bias or whatever. You really don't seem to trust governments to be capable of anything for some reason, which almost makes me want to ask what you think they are good for... Although, you also seem to believe that they are not qualified to make medical decisions. Would prohibition not be a decision made with medical issues in mind?

Quote
the DailyMail is actually a liberal English tabloid source

It is an English tabloid, but it isn't liberal at all. They typically endorse the UK Conservative Party, which is centre-right at best. They even tell their readers how to vote (for the ruling party) using fear tactics, which is actually kind of anti-democratic to begin with. And if Canada's CPC is anything to go by, which is also centre-right at best, this sort of thing seems to be a common trait of more conservative parties...

"...For all these reasons, the Mail urges readers to vote Conservative tomorrow. David Cameron is the best and perhaps the only hope on offer for Britain."

But onto your other links. None of which actually take me to some of the specific sources that the tabloid and more local news sites were using, although they seem to be oriented more toward mental or cognitive disorder research anyhow. Kind of makes me suspect that some of their information was taken out of context (again, something tabloids are prone to doing).

For the following two paragraphs, I feel like I have adequately explained my position on those already and no not feel like reiterating it at this time. Especially because I have to get ready for bed soon... But I guess a Supreme Court (of Canada) ruling to pair up with yours should be a good way to finish up for the night. It was a landmark decision in 2000 that essentially ruled the lack of medical exemptions on the blanket ban to be unconstitutional, effectively decriminalizing cannabis for medicinal use. It does acknowledge some concerns with cannabis use, even some of those you raised in your posts, but overall the highest court ruled that the drug itself is still beneficial in other ways. I just hope some of this quote/ruling isn't lost from a lack of understanding the Charter, but oh well.

Quote
... Deprivation by means of a criminal sanction of access to medication reasonably required for the treatment of a medical condition that threatens life or health also constitutes a deprivation of security of the person.

The prohibition on the possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use to treat the accused's epilepsy deprived him of his rights to liberty and security of the person. The marijuana prohibition both exposed the accused to imprisonment if convicted and infringed his right to make decisions that were of fundamental personal importance. To intrude into that decision-making process through the threat of criminal prosecution is a serious deprivation of liberty. Moreover, to prevent the accused from accessing a treatment by threat of criminal sanction constituted a deprivation of his security of the person. The marijuana laws forced the accused to choose between commission of a crime to obtain effective medical treatment and inadequate treatment. Finally, the marijuana prohibition infringed the accused's security of the person by interfering with his physical and psychological integrity. Section 7 of the Charter protects the right to make choices concerning one's own body and control over one's physical and psychological integrity free from interference by criminal prohibition.

The principles of fundamental justice are breached where the deprivation of the right in question does little or nothing to enhance the state's interest. A blanket prohibition will be considered unfair and thus in breach of the principles of fundamental justice if it is unrelated to the state's interest in enacting the prohibition, and if it lacks a foundation in the legal tradition and societal beliefs that are said to be represented by the prohibition. The absence of a clear legal standard may contribute to a violation of fundamental justice. If a statutory defence contains so many potential barriers to its own operation that the defence it creates will in many circumstances be practically unavailable to persons who would prima facie qualify for the defence, it will be found to violate the principles of fundamental justice. An administrative structure made up of unnecessary rules, which result in an additional risk to the health of the person, is manifestly unfair and does not conform to the pri nciples of fundamental justice.

The regulation of marijuana has a very short history in Canada and lacks a significant foundation in our legal tradition. It is, in fact, an embarrassing history based upon misinformation and racism. While the marijuana prohibition is not firmly rooted in Canada, there is a well-established history of regulation of drugs in this country. However, of all of the drugs with potential therapeutic effects, marijuana stands out because it is subject to a complete prohibition. This prohibition results in a web of legislation that makes it impossible as a practical matter for a physician to prescribe marijuana and, therefore, for a patient to legally possess it pursuant to a prescription.

The common law treatment of informed consent, the sanctity of life and commonly held societal beliefs about medical treatment suggest that a broad criminal prohibition that prevents access to necessary medicine is not consistent with fundamental justice. ...
Logged

Oh yeah baby, £ me harder.

Fusion is just a cheap tactic to make weak Adepts stronger.

Yoshi's Lighthouse is a hacking website in progress. Why not check it out if you like Yoshi or the Mario & Luigi games?
View Profile WWW
Fox
Fox McCloud, the Hacking Doctor
Mercury Clan

Prodigy
*

Coins: 28
Online Online

I am: certainly not a Gallant!
Clan Position: Head Gallant
Posts: 2403

« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2015, 10:50:06 AM »

Long text walls... (Didn't read everything, but I guess I can say what I think relating to the first post...)

I think this is a somewhat tough topic for me to answer... But I think I fall into these areas:

As everything in life may have a useful purpose, I think most substances/etc. should be legalized. But if that was done for everything without knowing the implications, I'm sure we'd get into some real problems...? So I suppose it can be restricted in the same way as alcohol/weapons(?)/etc. Maybe with keep away from children labeling/etc. Assuming those people are much more likely to not be experienced enough to understand implications? -- And if parents let their child overdose on drugs knowingly, I assume that would fall into child neglect...(?) -- And in my opinion, depending on severity/danger where the parents don't show any remorse/whatever, it could lead to the child getting new parents.(?) (It's obvious that coming to get help about a marijuana problem would not fall into this category.) -  (Beyond a possibility of reassigning parents, which would only happen if deemed necessary, I have no idea what other punishments would occur, if any.)

I do think people should avoid smoking in public places when they can, though. At least where people (non-smokers), have to walk through.... including the area at the front door of buildings. I'd say walk a small distance further... (Doesn't have to be too far.. even going to your car/parking lot is fine.) ... Especially since you don't know who has asthma/lung problems.... etc.

So long as I don't have to smell it, I guess I'm okay.

On a lighter note, I don't think I'd be interested in seeing the majority of the people doing it, because then it makes it look like a big deal. (United Smokers of America, anyone?) So it'd be nice to also De-popularize it somehow... Even if we take in a concept where it is hard to get rid of an addiction unless you replace it... with say... something even better.


---
Quote
so I don't see how my private behaviour that affects nobody should be illegal.
Well, there is such a thing as third-hand smoking... (I forget if smoke smell is hard to get out of clothes?)  But I guess I won't go into that.


---
But yeah, after all those marijuana products being made in kid-attractive ways (Or did I forget, and that was some other drug or something?), I think it's time for a new drink. Mari-teajuana, anyone? (Reminds me of a girl's name: Tawanna)

Edit:  I don't smoke.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2015, 11:48:57 AM by Fox » Logged

Golden Sun Docs: Broken Seal - The Lost Age - Dark Dawn | Mario Sports Docs: Mario Golf & Mario Tennis | Misc. Docs
Refer to Yoshi's Lighthouse for any M&L hacking needs...

Remember kids! Before you go on that interview, remember to wash your hands in teawater! *Coughs on hand* (Excuse me, I just coughed up a little teawater, so they're still clean!) You wouldn't want that hiring manager to be unimpressed.

May the force be with you!
Shoo! Why does it smell in here?
Maybe that's the wrong kind of force. *smirk*
View Profile
Rolina
The Fulminous Witch
Jupiter Clan

Template maker turned lurker

Alchemist
*

Coins: 10
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
I am: wondering if we can get our clan position changed...
Clan Position: Grand Overlady of Jupiter
Posts: 6051

« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2015, 12:02:47 PM »

What is your stance on legalization? If legalized, what do you believe the regulations behind it should be? If not, what punishments should be enacted?

Legalization and regulation should be handled state by state.  Regulations discussed in next question.  For punishments, we should have more monetary fees and less jail time.  Prisons are crowded enough with minor drug offenders as is.


If you believe in legalization of marijauna, how do you think that the growth of recreational cannabis should be regulated?

Personally, I think that it should be handled much like alcohol - minimum age, no driving while high, sobriety tests.


What is your opinion on "stoner culture"? Do you think it positively or negatively impacts marijuana legalization? How large of a subset of marijuana users do you believe this subculture to be?

I find them annoying, but mostly harmless.  Whether or not they're a good or bad stereotype depends on who you talk to.  Personally?  I think they're a bad stereotype, and that they hurt their cause more than they help it.  But they're not a bad enough group that they cause harm to others, such as some of the more violent animal rights groups out there.  These guys are closer to the Humane Society than to the ALF.


Do you have any interest in indulging in marijuana, be it through smoking, edibles or otherwise?

Nope.  I avoid it for the same reason I avoid tobacco.  The stuff smells terrible.
Logged

View Profile WWW

Novice Member
*

Coins: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 31

« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2015, 02:30:52 AM »

Funny passing here when I have no time,

but now I must say, I will have a opinion very close to Rolina's sorry for no having a more diverse opinion.

What is your stance on legalization? If legalized, what do you believe the regulations behind it should be? If not, what punishments should be enacted?
I do agree to legalize marijuana, simply because we cannot control the consumption, but if can control the product, then we have a good chance to control the damage it does to the users. Banning it will lead to people consumming more dangerous Marijuana just like alcohol.

If you believe in legalization of marijauna, how do you think that the growth of recreational cannabis should be regulated?
I have nothing new to say, here, I agree with the opinion expressed by Rolina, minimum age, you smoke mari- you don't drive, and etc.

What is your opinion on "stoner culture"? Do you think it positively or negatively impacts marijuana legalization? How large of a subset of marijuana users do you believe this subculture to be?
 
I don't know anything about that...

Do you have any interest in indulging in marijuana, be it through smoking, edibles or otherwise?
I don't smoke,
I don't take any drugs,
because they are a danger to my health, just as I avoid milk.
Logged
View Profile
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Cbox
Yesterday at 08:44:56 PM
Fox: I must say... life can be complicated..... when you have question(s) (via email) ... and it seems like they sort of get ignored. :D ; Fun, (And sometimes, a person may respond, and completely not answer the question.... so like... 3-person conversation.) Hahahaha!!
January 15, 2018, 07:26:16 PM
Fox: (path) 1 text=(address) char=(address) free=(address) ; << Well, closer to this... but yeah... even if I do choose to have defaults in the code, I could still use this method for overrides.
January 15, 2018, 07:24:28 PM
Fox: So like (path) 0 text=(address) char=(address) len=(number) ; (path) 1 free=(address) ; Or something. But that's just a quick example.
January 15, 2018, 06:59:14 PM
Fox: Hopefully. I was wanting to make it so you could put in the addresses/etc. as one of the arguments in the path. Hm?
January 15, 2018, 03:37:07 PM
KyleRunner: Nice! I hope you'll add compatibility with others games (GS1, Mario Golf and Tennis) soon.
January 14, 2018, 11:40:09 PM
Fox: Okay. Posted (in Downloads section) an initial cutdown version for now, for my text compressor. Basically to separate the code from my Editor for anyone who wants to mess with it. It only supports GS2, because I still didn't add the addresses/etc. for the other games.
January 14, 2018, 05:01:00 PM
Fox: Okay! Going to need to think how I want it to work. Initial thoughts is maybe have a number of arguments in the filepath thing. And have a number of shortcuts (files) to be used as examples. Assuming there are no problems.
January 14, 2018, 10:38:24 AM
KyleRunner: Well... I'm used to editing text ina a text editor, so... yes! Thanks in advance!
January 13, 2018, 11:38:43 PM
Fox: (Text editor = Text Document like notepad.)
January 13, 2018, 11:38:21 PM
Fox: Would you prefer during the text editing in a text editor? (Like what gstoolkit lets you do?) I could probably make a separate tool or something to compress it.
January 13, 2018, 10:10:02 PM
KyleRunner: Ok. Once I finish my Lost Age translation, I'll try a Mario Golf one. Thanks. (But I'll need help).
January 13, 2018, 10:03:17 PM
Fox: If you want to make it "permanent" (part of a hack), then you'd edit code in the ROM that writes to this location of the IDs you'd want to change. (You can find these locations by using a breakpoint debugger like SDL-H or no$gba.)
January 13, 2018, 10:00:11 PM
Fox: Reload/switch = Recommended to be done through Debug mode/warp menu, ofcourse... since doors seem to appear as if they were disabled? ; 03001238:01 and B+Start to get to warp menu.
January 13, 2018, 09:55:39 PM
Fox: @Kyle Runner = It might be, but you'd have to use the correct addresses for Mario Golf, rather than for GS2 as I have it right now. ; @raijinken = Yes. 02000454 = ID of leader. (Change this and reload/switch room you are in, enjoy.)
January 13, 2018, 02:23:29 PM
raijinken: Hey guys, is it possible to somehow change the lead character on the map? Was wondering. I remember there was a cheat to use Jenna, but what if I wanted Isaac, or Piers?
January 13, 2018, 02:10:03 PM
KyleRunner: Hey, Fox *
January 13, 2018, 02:09:37 PM
KyleRunner: Hey, is your text editor compatible with Mario Golf (GBA)?
January 11, 2018, 08:33:13 PM
Fox: But if it isn't an oversight, I still can't imagine it being that useful.
January 11, 2018, 08:28:24 PM
Fox: part, ofcourse.
January 11, 2018, 08:28:15 PM
Fox: 0200274C = Hmm... Stuff happens here when you use Cyclone around bushes. (These cause tile replacements, and setting event 0 to those tiles.) - And I guess this kept here so it can be scanned after battle. (To re-update the map.) So here is my fun thought (assuming if it is even possible, or even convenient if so.) ... Are there any events from other maps that could be disabled do to using Cyclone on bushes + Retreat glitch? I'll need to do some testing to make sure this isn't an oversight on my

Affiliates
Temple of Kraden Golden Sunrise
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.128 seconds with 22 queries.