Mps1213

“The consequences of tobacco and alcohol ingestion, though similar in terms of potential detriment, are distinctively different in terms of what is generally regarded as overdosing  

Yes I know people who make moonshine. However the vast majority of people who consume alcohol purchase it from a regulated environment. Or they purchase kits sold by alcohol companies to make their own. Even the people who make their own alcohol are usually buying synthesis products that are regulated. 

That would happen with other drugs as well eventually. Most people who use drugs would absolutely rather have their product from a dispensary. 

Also you say we can’t stop stupid people from doing stupid things. That’s a part of my argument… people will always use drugs. We need to regulate their product so there is a steep drop off in the likelihood of overdose. As I’ve said many studies have shown that the number one cause of overdose is the toxic drug supply. If you want to stop overdoses, fix the drug supply so that it isn’t toxic and so if is predictable and regulated. If you do that, less people will die. That has been shown in Portugal. Where they didn’t legalize everything, but decriminalized all drugs and rolled out amazing infrastructure in terms of being able to test their substances. They had one of the highest overdose rates in Europe before their reform. Now they have the lowest by a mile. For comparison around 300 Americans out of 1,000,000 die from drug overdoses. That same stat for Portugal is 6 out 1,000,000 the data are very clear across many different types of evidence. If people know what they’re taking, even addicts, less people die. 

“In the UK; the availability of free rehabilitation programmes involving synthetic opiate provision, has not reduced the level of opiate related deaths. Nor has it reduced levels of addiction” 

Of course it hasn’t. Western rehab sucks, people don’t want to go and it almost never works. Which is why I brought up Swedens rehab practices where they administer the drug but it’s pure and they’ve seen a remarkable drop off in OD deaths. Free rehab does nothing to fix the main issue with drug overdose deaths, which is the toxic supply. I’m not sure how you’re equating the rehab thing to drug overdoses when we know it’s the toxic drug supply killing people. They’re separate things that have nothing to do with one another. As I’ve also pointed out, it’s not just drug addicts dying. It’s responsible users and first time users as well. A good metric for this is to look at the number of deaths in children that are under the age of 18. They’ve seen a dramatic increase in drug overdoses in recent years as the drug supply became more and more toxic. If you don’t know what you’re taking, there’s a much higher chance you will die. If you do know what you’re taking there’s a much lower chance you’ll die. That shouldn’t be surprising. It also shouldn’t be controversial to say we need to regulate the drug supply as much as possible. It will kill less people, we have many lines of evidence from that from independent sources and professions and even countries. 

“Well, tobacco kills more people because more people use it...Same with alcohol.”

That isn’t true. More Americans use opioids than cigarettes, cigarettes are responsible for about 90% of tobacco deaths. Also that line of thinking doesn’t make any sense. Less people use tobacco than alcohol, tobacco kills more people. Less people use alcohol than caffeine, alcohol kills more people. The amount of deaths a that will be linked to drugs will be directly related to the toxicity profile of said drug. Opioids are much less toxic than alcohol, at least classical opioids are. The more obscure ones like MPTP are different. 

Again your logic is inconsistent. Addiction potential 1: isn’t related to drugs at all 2: has never kept us from allowing people use alcohol or nicotine. You need a different reason than that because it’s immediately proven wrong when you consider the drugs that are already legal.

The number one cause of overdose deaths is the toxic drug supply. A very well done study out of Canada that was published a couple months ago went into great detail about this. To quell overdoses we need to regulate the drug supply. As I’ve mentioned, and you’ve yet to engage with it, this exact same thing happened during alcohol prohibition. People were being blinded, maimed, and killed due to methanol contamination in alcohol. That problem went away as soon as we started regulating the supply.

It shouldn’t be controversial to say that the drug supply needs to be regulated. There will never be a drug free America, ever. We should not pass laws that makes drug users ingest an unregulated supply because we have seen the results of this since 1970. It didn’t work with alcohol, it led to excess deaths. Of course it won’t work if we extend the number of prohibited drugs into the hundreds. The drug supply needs to be regulated. There is evidence everywhere that this would quell overdose numbers. Whether it’s the actual science of pharmacology and psychopharmacology or basing it off of drug supplies that are regulated. The results are clear, pure drugs kill less people. 

Sure there’s a difference between controlled therapy and uncontrolled use of a drug. However the point I’m making is that if they used the products that are available on the streets those patients would be dying just as often. Because they’re using pure products no one dies at these clinics. 

“Though are you certain that the legalization of addictive drug supply and usage, wouldn't encourage a wider level of participation.”

No I’m not certain of that, but I’m not convinced that’s something that needs to be avoided. Most people who use drugs face no serious consequences from their use, unless they don’t know what they’re taking. If the product is controlled, there’s quality control and it’s made by professionals I don’t think it would be a bad thing if more people were using opioids or amphetamines or psychedelics. Tobacco kills more than every other drug combined. More people use opioids in the US than cigarettes. These drugs are much safer than drugs we have no problem with millions of people using and I don’t see a reason to not apply that same level of acceptance to these other drugs. They’re less toxic and less deadly. 

Thank you for the thought out reply, truly 99% of the time I have this conversation it seems like my opponent doesn’t think about what they’re saying. 

I agree with your sentiment about addiction. However I should clarify my stance and it’s my fault I wasn’t clear. Obviously stuff like ACE inhibitors don’t really have addiction potential because they don’t change the state of mind of the user a noticeable way. I was speaking more about drugs they’re used recreationally solely due to their psychoactive effects. But I will also say that addiction and dependence are very, very different things. Which is why I explicitly just brought up ACE inhibitors. Dependence on those drugs is a necessary thing and dependence on drugs in general isn’t a bad thing that should be looked down upon. There’s no stigma to being dependent on caffeine, but there is stigma surrounding heroin dependence for example and I don’t think that’s logical nor does it make sense. 

Also, this idea of “6 months as a heroin user” is false. Or at least you need to describe it much more clearly than that for your statement to be true. For example if you’re taking heroin once a week for 6 months I guarantee you will have no withdrawal. If you take it once a day for 6 months you may not even experience withdrawal depending on the dose you were taking. I’ve experienced opioid withdrawal just to see what it was about. I took an opioid every day, twice a day, in relatively large doses but not enough to incapacitate me or anything. I abruptly quit and I felt a little weird, like I had a mild case of the flu. There were no changes to my mood, just diarrhea and a runny nose. Totally manageable. Now don’t think I’m saying all opioid withdrawal is like what I experienced. It is highly variable based on things like dose, how often it’s being taken, and for how long it was consistently taken for. 

But let’s compare even the worst heroin withdrawal possible which can lead to hospitalization due to the absurd amount of shitting the person will do. I can explain why that is, but I’ll assume you know unless you ask. If we compare that to alcohol or benzodiazepines, it’s nothing. Withdrawal from alcohol can kill you, by causing grand mal seizures. If you’d like to know why that is I can explain. So harping on heroin is a pet peeve of mine. It’s not what people think it is and only has a bad reputation because of bullshit news reporting and unscientific approaches to the drug. Nothing about its pharmacology is especially dangerous, addictive, or damaging. Same with fentanyl. Opioids toxicologically are some of the safest drugs on the planet. The vast majority of people who take them (if they know what they’re taking) face no serious side effects from doing so, even if they take them for years at a time. The withdrawal is easily avoidable and is avoided by most opioid users. 

“You're suggesting it isn't an addiction if society is set up so that said drug habit doesn't carry consequences?”

No that’s not at all what I’m suggesting I apologize if my phrasing was unclear. What I’m saying is that addiction isn’t caused by drugs. It’s caused by certain life situations or imperfections that lead to people needing to escape their environment or state of mind. This is why there are gambling addicts, porn addicts, sex addicts, etc. it has nothing to do with whatever activity they turn to for their escape, and that includes drugs. Addiction should absolutely 100% be looked down upon and avoided at all costs. I think we can agree there.

However most drug users do avoid addiction. 80-90% of them are not addicts. I also want to be clear about something, I am not doing this to enable addicts. But I will admit that there is a possibility that it would do just that. We do not have this problem with alcohol, addicts can buy as much as they want and no one is advocating for prohibition of alcohol again, because it failed and killed more people and led to organized crime, government corruption, police brutality etc. all of these things have happened again. It didn’t work with one drug, why on earth would we expect it to work when we extend the number of prohibited drugs into the hundreds? 

I’m advocating for this change to benefit the majority. I am a responsible drug user, basically all of my friends are too, and my parents and I bet you know a lot of people that are. Whether their drug of choice is cannabis, alcohol, tobacco, opioids, stimulants, psychedelics, etc. most people who use drugs are responsible with it. But these laws not only risk ending their life because their supply is unregulated, they’re also risking their life due to the possibility of prison. I have children, I’m in college, I have a high paying job, and a 4 bedroom house. My favorite drugs are opioids, I don’t like injecting or snorting anything so I wouldn’t use heroin even if it was widely available. But I should not have to risk losing everything I just mentioned because I enjoy Kratom or oxycodone. Especially while people can sit right next to a police officer and drink alcohol with no concerns. 

“But again, if only "those who need it" could buy heroin from the pharmacy, then street heroin would still exist for those who didn't get approved”

I’m not saying people have to be approved. Anyone over the age of 21 should be able to buy any drug they want to use. The drugs should be made by Americans, sold by Americans, and analyzed by Americans to ensure quality and purity. 

I also am completely understanding that the black market wouldn’t go away immediately. To be honest with you that isn’t my problem. Most people I know that use drugs would absolutely pay more for a regulated supply of drugs. People already do, in my home state of Arkansas the medical cannabis was very expensive compared to the street, but that didn’t stop us from making over $1B in revenue from it in this small state. An interesting thing to consider, I’m not necessarily saying this is directly applicable to drugs like heroin, but it’s interesting. The quality of street cannabis has increased dramatically since legalization took place. A similar phenomenon could unfold with other drugs as well. 

Another thing I’ll point out is that you have no evidence more addicts would exist if there was an increase in drug availability. I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong, but it’s hard to base an argument off of that when there’s just no evidence for it. The 10-20% of drug users are addicts statistic has been around since there 90’s. I read a book recently that was written by a psychiatrist in the 1990’s about addiction. They had much more loose definition of addiction than we use today, and even with that loose definition the 10-20% statistic was true, according to the data provided in the book. I’ll try to find it so I can give you the title and author name. Hundreds of studies have been done on rats and humans and the data are very clear that addiction is not a common outcome to drug use and that attractive alternatives almost always beat out the drug, even with addicts. Dr. Carl Hart with the NIH has some amazing studies on that specific aspect of addiction in particular. 

“Furthermore it would lower the psychological barrier to getting started, as the whole enterprise would feel "less risky" despite hardcore drug use being inherently risky.”

What exactly constitutes hardcore drug use? What is a hard drug? What is hardcore use? Drug use is risky, of course it is. We are allowed to do a lot of risky things in western culture. The presence of risk alone almost never constitutes banning an activity. It just calls for the government to pass regulations to make that activity less risky. That isn’t happening with drug use so of course people are dying. 

The last point I’ll make, I hope you read all of it im a writer so I’m long winded. The last point is that we need to consider what happens when drugs are ‘effectively’ removed from the street. People turn to other drugs. This is why fentanyl was introduced in the first place. It wasn’t illegal to purchase fentanyl or fentanyl analogs until relatively recently. You could order them directly to your front door. This comes from the research chemical market, the grey market, or the NPS market whatever you’d like to call it. The first scenario this took place in was MPPP back in the 80’s. It was sold as a heroin replacement. MPPP is a relatively safe drug that has been used medicinally. However, unless you’re a skilled chemist it is incredibly difficult to create MPPP without a byproduct called MPTP making it into the final product. MPTP is a neurotoxin that causes the permanent onset of Parkinson’s syndrome after one dose even if it is small. Thousands of people came down with Parkinson’s disease because they wanted an opioid high and their favorite drug was hard to come by. And MPTP wasn’t illegal at the time. This has happened so many times throughout history. MPTP, synthetic cathinones (bath salts), synthetic cannabinoids, fentanyl, now Xylazine. This is a direct result of prohibition that leads people to taking different drugs. These different drugs have different potencies, durations, toxicity profiles, etc. and many people aren’t drug knowledgeable so they just take it like they would the drug it’s serving to replace. This leads to death, and many other concerning things. 

It will always be a cat and mouse game, and every now and then the mouse is extremely dangerous in certain situations. Like fentanyl is right now, like MPTP was in the 80’s like bath salts were in the 2010’s. Prohibition never works. It causes more harm than good. It ends more lives than the drugs themselves do, and it ruins more lives than the drugs themselves do. 

Ive never said it would reduce reckless behavior. But it will reduce the probability of death by consuming opioids in particular exponentially. Tens of thousands of non addicted drug users die every year from contamination. It’s not just addicts, and to pretend that is the case is to lie and is not represented by the data at all.

Of course they can be safe. Alcohol is addictive, it can kill people from withdrawal alone. Yet I have a feeling you’d not say it’s impossible to safely consume alcohol. 

I have you a perfect correlation between a safe and regulated supply and less people dying. Hundreds of millions of people are prescribed to take opioids yearly in the US, it has dropped in recent years. Yet even at the peak of the prescriptions, less than 20,000 people were dying yearly from those drugs. Even though some of those people were addicts. 

Legalization will not quell addiction. However, it will lead to less overdoses. There is evidence everywhere from that. When you see that multiple studies have shown that the average number of drugs in a OD death system is 6, and then you see the results of street drug analysis the pattern is clear. People don’t know what they’re taking then we somehow blame drugs for that. If people knew what they were taking and they had access to clean and regulated drugs less people would die. As proven by the prescription opioid model. 

We can also look at Sweden who practices HAT (heroin assisted therapy) they administer heroin to heroin addicts up to three times a day. An extremely small percentage of those people die because the drug is pure and the dosages are known. Way less people die in those therapeutic treatments solely because the drug is pure. 

I’m also not advocating for these drugs to be sold at a gas station (even though alcohol and tobacco and THC products are which you probably don’t complain about) I want them sold out of pharmacies as most of them already are. Meth can be prescribed and is prescribed often under the name brand desoxyn. Fentanyl is prescribed in various forms, as is dilaudid. I just want the professionals able to sell the drugs to anyone over 21 that wants them. 

Also there’s no such thing as a drug that is “so addictive.” All drugs have the same addiction potential. Addiction isn’t caused by drugs. Addiction is an environmentally induced disorder not a molecularly induced disorder. Addiction has been relentlessly studied since about 1990. We know the determining factors that lead to people becoming addicts. Whether it’s gambling, sex, porn, drug, or even exercise. None of it revolves around the activity the person is choosing to engage with in a damaging way. 

The determining factors are poverty, job loss, trauma, PTSD, mental illness, unrealistic expectations put on people since they were children, divorce, etc. it is not a disorder caused by a molecule. Addiction doesn’t exist solely because the diacetylmorphine (heroin) molecule exists. Or any other molecule you can name. So that’s just a very unscientific and incorrect way of viewing pharmacology as a whole. That type of thinking and that type of approach to drugs is part of the reason so many people die from them. The drug education is abhorrent in this country, which will obviously lead to bad situations. If people weren’t properly educated how to drive safely and there were no regulations in place to keep drivers safe more people would die as well. If cars didn’t have to meet safety standards, if there weren’t seat belts, speed limits, or tests many more people would die. That’s the situation drug users are put in right now. 

Bad education and bad policies will obviously lead to bad results. Our drug education is basically only telling people they’ll die or become addicted if they use drugs like heroin or fentanyl or meth. That’s like only telling people about car crashes when trying to teach people how to drive. And it’s a great ability because most people who use opioids or amphetamine are not addicts, just like most people who drive cars never get in bad accidents. But with one of those topics we are only focusing on the worst case scenarios that is statistically unlikely and very easily avoidable with good education. 

Yes I am very realistic about the fact that legalization wouldn’t prevent addiction or quell that poor behavior. However you need to consider that less than 20,000 people die from heroin overdoses every year. Compared to 75k plus of multiple opioids at once. The reason people are dying from multiple opioids at once is the contamination issue you mentioned which absolutely would be stopped if we legalized drugs. The prescription opioid system is perfect evidence of that. Where the supply is regulated less than 1% of people die from those drugs, including fentanyl, dilaudid, morphine, oxycodone, hydrocodone, etc. 

Also less than 20% of drug users are addicts, that includes opioids. If we want to get in a source battle we can, but that statistic has been accepted for many years by multiple health agencies both governmentally funded and privately funded. If you look at specific drugs you’ll see higher percentages but that’s because those drugs are more available and cheaper, not because they’re more addictive. if you take the entire drug using population only 10-20% of them are addicts. Yet these laws make the80-90% of drug users face the same consequences as those addicts. They make them have to face the risk of death by contamination, going to prison, losing their homes, losing their jobs, losing their kids, etc. 

These laws do not help anyone. All they do is make drug use much more dangerous than it should be. It also gives the police force and our government a free pass to abuse anyone who may be using drugs, which happens repeatedly. 

It absolutely does make these drugs safer to consume. For example, when alcohol was illegal 10s of thousands of people died from poorly made and contaminated alcohol. People were being blinded and maimed by methanol contamination. This is what’s causing the massively high number of opioid overdoses today. No one knows what they’re taking. There are a few different labs that analyze street drugs in the US. The best one is drugsdata.org that is sanctioned by the DEA and funded by erowid. I will copy and paste the first three results for heroin results from that lab. 

“Fentanyl

So, I mainly started this to offer anyone on the site to come on my podcast to debate this topic with me. But I’ve also hit a slow point at work and have time to debate it on the forum as well. My podcast isn’t big at all only averaging about 30 views per episode with 15 subscribers atm. Anyone willing we will set up a date and have a long conversation about it. 

Other than that I’d love to discuss it on here and hear what you guys have to say about this topic. 

That was a real basic breakdown of the problems with that hypothesis, I didn’t proofread so If something isn’t clear ask about it.

“It's most likely that my drug (caffeine) cannot compete with yours (whatever it is).”

Lol my drug is working 13 night shifts brother. 

And look you’re a smart fella, and like i said im not well versed enough to really break down your argument the way I would need to. I just suggest you go talk to someone who is, with open ears. I don’t find it coincidental that basically everyone who studies this topic all comes to same conclusion, and that is CO2 has a warming effect on the atmosphere. It’s probably because they have very, very solid evidence to support it. Im not well versed enough to back it up perfectly, just because that’s not the type of geoscience I study in school. 

Go find someone who is willing to talk to you about this, they really would be happy too. Professors are generally cool people who just have their email on school websites for anyone to reach out to and they will respond. 

An easy to do this is to do the formula I posted (which all geoscience majors have to do) without the greenhouse effect implemented. Then do it without CO2 implemented. Then check each answer against the average temperature of the earth. You will see it is Lower than it should be unless you account for greenhouse gases and CO2. That alone is enough evidence to say with certainty that CO2 warms the environment and accounts for roughly 1/5 of the greenhouse effect. 

Nothing you just did disproves the fact that CO2 warms the atmosphere. 

Also “Speaking of clouds, a slight decrease in clouds could very easily account for the increasing temperature and be nearly impossible to quantify. How much less useful (politically) is "the clouds might be doing something, we don't know why".

This is very easy to calculate and it’s called the libido of the planet and yes it does have an effect on temperature. So does CO2. 

And how about we handle it this way. You can invite me to a rated debate with the resolution “CO2 does not wake the atmosphere.” We can settle it there and see whose evidence is more convincing. I’m kind of over arguing about this in DARTs equivalent to the YouTube comment section. Let’s have a rated debate about this or drop it. I’ve presented math, physics and chemistry. You’re denying basic laws of physics and easily provable math, it’s a pointless conversation. I’ll debate with you officially but not on here any longer. 

This is the part you need to disprove. 

“Now part two of the recipe: how hot will the extra CO2 make us? Most physics students, once they learn about radiative heat transfer (affectionately called sigma-T-to-the-fourth), are tasked with calculating the Earth’s temperature in radiative equilibrium with the Sun. If done “correctly,” the answer is disappointingly cold because the greenhouse effect is not incorporated in the simple calculation.

“Now matter how much warmer it gets it won't change the laws of physics. Carbon dioxide is not warming this planet.”

I have already provided plenty of backed evidence that laws of physics, math and chemistry explicitly show the opposite to this claim. 

You need to provide math, physics and chemistry that over rides the well established fact that CO2 warms the environment.

As ive already shown with out CO2 the planet would be cooler than it is now. I showed that in very simple and easy to read math. You need to provide math that disproves what I have said. 

“We? Show me how we have done that. Humans alone have done that? Maybe it's just a warming of the earth. We had a freeze of the earth. Was that caused by humans too? Why is the total temperature just simply caused by us?” 

Yes I’ve already provided plain mathematical evidence for this three times in this thread but I’ll do it again for you. 

“Now part two of the recipe: how hot will the extra CO2 make us? Most physics students, once they learn about radiative heat transfer (affectionately called sigma-T-to-the-fourth), are tasked with calculating the Earth’s temperature in radiative equilibrium with the Sun. If done “correctly,” the answer is disappointingly cold because the greenhouse effect is not incorporated in the simple calculation.

Actually this is a better way of putting it. All of your evidence is what’s called negative evidence. Basically saying “I don’t accept this claim because this graph shows this.” What you need to present is positive evidence, which is direct proof of your claim. You need math and physics and chemistry that directly prove that CO2 has no warming effect on the atmosphere. Stop quoting and responding to me, all of that is negative evidence and is literally never accepted in science. You need to come up with some math, that is actually accurate and provable, that directly proves your claim. I have already presented the math for my claim. I have also already presented the physics  and chemistry that is directly proving my claim. The only thing you have done is provide a two variable graph. That is easily explainable. 

You need positive evidence. Math, physics, chemistry. And what you present can’t go against basic laws of each subject. That’s all you need. 

Ok I’ll make it simple. 

You’re evidence is too uncertain to claim CO2 causes no warming. Using a two variable graph in this instance isn’t enough to make a claim with any level of certainty.

Compare that to the years of physics, chemistry, and math that does say CO2 warms the atmosphere. I need you to provide math, physics, and chemistry to explain why CO2 doesn’t warm the atmosphere. Without that you are anomaly hunting and trying to disprove laws of physics, basic understanding of chemistry, and easily provable math. 

Provide me with evidence of that quality. I’ve asked you to do that many times and you keep referencing a graph that does nothing to prove your point. That article I quoted about the math even addresses your point and acknowledges it. Find a way to disprove the formulas I just gave you. Which is going to be very hard because it is something done in literally every geoscience course. If you can’t disprove that math I presented earlier, you can’t prove CO2 doesn’t warnt he atmosphere. Simply because that math proves it does. So you have to disprove the math before you can move onto anything else. 

And I’d like to add, you can’t disprove math without math. So I need to see some equations and formulas on your next post or this argument is going in circles. 

Nothing you said disproves my final point. The earth is warming (likely naturally) we need to not aid that warming as much as possible. We have increased temperature by .8 kelvin from CO2 emissions alone. That is a very, very little amount. However we need to not continue to do that, because as it warms naturally, it will release more CO2 into the atmosphere that is stored by glaciers. 

We need to not be a piece in that equation if possible. So even though we have had very little effect as of now, doesn’t mean we won’t down the line. 

We can prove the warming caused by CO2 mathematically. Im not convinced by any articles written by journalists on any sort of scientific topic. They are wrong all of the time. I trust the data, math and evidence uncovered by scientists that never make it to journalistic magazines because it isn’t interesting enough. 

We need to stop emitting CO2 so we can lower our impact on a naturally warming world. I’m not sure what you’re arguing with. I never said anything about a DO event happening now, I was just explaining how fickle the climate can be when things start to warm. And yes of course temps have fluctuated, the LIA basically just ended and people are surprised the earth is warming. That’s supposed to happen and likely would’ve happened anyway. However we can’t pretend that adding more energy and heat to the system is something we should ignore. 

Would you like to have a rated debate on this topic? Resolution is simply “CO2 has been proven to warm the atmosphere.” After I asked you for evidence of the quality and caliber I provided in my most recent post, you went silent. Is it because you haven’t found any math or physics to compete with that last post? Or are you just tired of the conversation? 

Notice how the information I supplied also quixkly covers you’re entire argument. The lag between heat increase and CO2 release. it’s such a simple and well reported concept it only takes 1 sentence to adequately explain. So that right there covers your graphs and your questions and claims about what the data mean. 

Since I have left that way of thinking it is so easy to see how both the left and the right just use rage bait and disaster porn to keep their tribes alive. However I have seen more of a focus on culture warfare and just “anti-the other side” from the right lately. To be fair I also haven’t been paying too close of attention. It does seems that when trump was in office the left was doing that more, but trump set a standard for just combatting anything  the other tribe does, the right Kept running with it. The left has seemed to just let them run in circles and make a fool of themselves. 

With that said there is a lot of bullshit on both sides, both are focused on the wrong things. Politics is a useless thing to engage with in my opinion. Trump changed American politics. You can argue for better or worse but he changed it. The right has been able to hold onto the fact he was very good for the economy, and blame this current recession on Biden even though we know it’s mainly on COVID. So if Biden is able to pull the economy back together (or at least of the economy can recover while a democrat is in office) you’re right, the republicans lose their main source of ammunition. 

A lot of the Woke stuff is bullshit, but just let the bullshit be, let them look dumb and do it to themselves. The right also has their own for of “woke” the snowflakes on the right are just as bad the ones on the left. It’s all just a tribal warfare when they both have the same qualities. I’ve also noticed the loudest mouths  from the right on this site have not responded to this thread lol. 

Sorry for the long far reaching comment I’m just bored as hell and wanted to engage with someone lol

“Is it okay to be addicted to meth, heroin, or some hard drug if it leads to you stealing from other people to maintain your drug addiction?”

You are now stepping into my world. i have studied pharmacology and neuroscience for half a decade, conducted studies, self experimented etc. 

So first we need to establish, you are changing the goal posts from personal freedom to harming others. It is ok to be addicted to drugs but not to steal. That’s pretty simple. It also needs to be said that only 10-20% of drug users, including those drugs, are addicts. The other 80-90% are people like me. I use drugs often, but have a high paying job, raise two children to be respectful and kind, go to college, take care of my girlfriend, and respect my parents. I have used drugs very similar to Methamphetamine and heroin, not those two in particular but not because of any reason besides I don’t like buying drugs that are made by people I don’t know, especially when I can’t analyze them. 

So yes I am a proponent of drug legalization. There are already laws in place that punish people for thievery, abuse, robbing, murdering other people. There is no need to include drug possession, use or distribution as an illegal activity. It is dangerous, and can cause harm. However so can riding motorcycles, drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, sky diving, snowboarding etc. 

Simply not true. 

What about the earth Axial tilt is acidifying the ocean? What about the Earth Axial tilt is releasing particulate matter into the Air? What about the Earth Axial tilt is releasing methane and CO2 into the Air? What about the Earth axial tilt has caused a 68% drop in animal populations? What about the Axial tilt has made humans cut down forests and trees and drive animals to extinction? 

The earth Axial tilt Is one variable in the multi varied issue that powers our climate. however there are so many instances of that having nothing to do with climate changes. The Younger dryas was not caused by changes in the Milankovitch cycle. The little Ice age wasn’t caused by it, the Medieval warm period wasn’t caused by it. Etc. The list goes on forever. 

This is honestly the biggest over simplification of the climate sciences I’ve ever seen. There wouldn’t be entire degree plans and Thousands of scientists studying it if it was determined by one cycle that we’ve known about for a long time now. 

I don’t even think humans are the driving force of climate change, but the oversimplification of this topic on this website is hilarious. Coming from people who try to act like experts in every topic. So sit down Archie Bunker and stick to your rage bait politics. 

Do you have any form of mathematics, physics, or chemistry to say that humans have no effect on the climate? Because there is a lot of math, chemistry, and physics that points out very clearly that CO2 warms the atmosphere. I will paste that information below. If you can’t overcome this quality of evidence then you need to change your opinion from over simplification to actual consideration of how science and math works. I know there is no point in attempting to change your mind, so this is all I will stick with. You try to be an expert on everything which is why you’re arguments in this topic pick out one variable in the entire equation of climate sciences. I’ve been in school for this shit for 3 years, it’s much more complicated than the milankovitch cycle. Which is something you learn and prove in a legitimate introduction to geoscience class. Everyone knows what it does, and yes it’s a very powerful climate changer, but it certainly doesn’t power everything besides large scale glacial retreats and climate epochs. It does not control nor determine small intermediate climate changes between those types of events. Like I listed, the LIA was not a product of this, the MWP was not a product of this, the YD was not a product of this, the 25 separate Dansgaard-Oeschger events were not a product of this. Theres so many more that had nothing to do with this cycle. 

Below is evidence that uses Mathematics and basic physics to explain how CO2 warms the atmosphere and how we can prove it. Like I said Theres really no point in engaging with you so I know I’m wasting my breath. However, it’s worth st least trying to help you learn and make you humble yourself a bit to accept you’re not an expert in everything.

I won’t respond to you so say whatever over simplified foolish shit about this topic you’d like to. Just know that there’s a whole lot of evidence saying humans do impact the climate and also know that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about if You think the Milankovitch cycle is the end of the story when it comes to climate sciences and climate change. 

“Now part two of the recipe: how hot will the extra CO2 make us? Most physics students, once they learn about radiative heat transfer (affectionately called sigma-T-to-the-fourth), are tasked with calculating the Earth’s temperature in radiative equilibrium with the Sun. If done “correctly,” the answer is disappointingly cold because the greenhouse effect is not incorporated in the simple calculation.

Jordan wouldn’t be disappointed In you, that was a little harsh. Instead he’d be disappointed at the idea of you not listening and not deeply considering something you’re willing to make a claim about. He’s been very vocal about how much he dislikes that, even in his students when they write papers. 

You just said you’re not listening and it shows. For someone who has Jordan Peterson as their profile picture you do very little thinking. He’d be disappointed in you. 

I already explained why, but I’ll do again. Maybe you’ll listen this time. CO2 warms the atmosphere. when the earth gets too warm, it can do very unpredictable things. For example we can look at Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Where a feed back loop started and the earth slowly warmed up, until it got too warm. Then it would snap, causing 5-15 temperature raises globally in less than 10 years. Other events went the other way, where temperatures dropped by 18 degrees in some cases globally. We as a species need to make sure we are contributing to this issue as little as possible, by limiting our emissions, among other things, we can do that. Just because something isn’t a problem now doesn’t mean it won’t become one in the future. 

Also if you’re talking about temperature  change alone, then sure it may not change much. However if you look ocean acidification then our emissions play a huge role. If the oceans become much more acidified a lot of climate regulating life in the ocean will die, which will cause other problems. 

The US did not “run out of ammo” lol and war against Russia would easily be won if we put even half of our force on the front line against them. If we used the full power of our Navy, Air Force, Army, Marine Core and Delta force the war in Russia would be over in 6 months max. Probably a lot less. 

We have better equipment, better rifles, better tanks, better helicopters, better jets, better trained army. The only advantage they have is that they have more soldiers. That doesn’t mean much, when you’re dealing with a highly unorganized military as Russia has. 

Aren’t you the same person that says “increasing life” is the most important part of society not individual freedom? Aren’t you the person who said drugs shouldn’t be legal? 

I would say that is all very good news. However that doesn’t really change the fact the climate is changing. It can be argued that humans aren’t the driving force of it (I don’t believe we are) but it’s still something we need to be concerned over. The biggest mass extinctions in history have been caused by climate change. So it’s not something we need to ignore. We need to make sure as a species we are attributing the the changing climate as minimally as possible. The pattern that often pops up in the historical records, is that the climate changed generslly start off pretty slow, and then snap to an absurd amount of change in a very short period of time. For example 11,600 years ago temperatures rose 18 degrees in just a few decades. There are also 25 separate events called Dansgaard-Oeschger events where the temperature rose 5-15 degrees in less than 25 years. If that happens today our civilization will crumble. Unless we can find a way to prepare for it. 

Are you saying the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist? If so would you like to have a rated debate on the topic? 

How do you know “the original” translation? How do you know that’s the correct way to translate the word? 

Also basic geometry is knowing that a circle is 2-dimensional, meaning flat. 

I have actually discovered, thinking about it more, you’re also a perfect example of a person who isn’t worth engaging worth in 99% of conversations. I tried to engage with your ideas on this one and I never even found out what exactly they were lol. 

You’ve also said stuff such as “anyone liberal is brain washed” or something very close to that. Essentially saying anyone who disagrees with you is dumb and brain washed. So you’re really just a snowflake who likes to call others snowflakes. I fuck with people here and there, but even I said RM is intelligent, I just said he’s not as intelligent as he thinks he is. So you didn’t even comprehend that part of what I was saying. 

So I’m gonna go ahead and not talk to you ever again lol. Although I do truly love the “I won’t tolerate it” that almost makes you worth engaging with just for the laughs and stupidity.  take it easy man, hope your life is good and you’re happy, truly. No point in us really conversing anymore.  I’m sure you’ll wave a flag of victory even though you didn’t even state your opinion, but that’s fine. I’ll let you have your moment lol. Take it easy man. 

I love how any time anyone says something you don’t agree with, you have to insult or call them whiny lol. I haven’t whined about anything, I’ve asked questions you can’t answer and brought up a persons fraud charges and it set you off in a tirade. You literally can’t even tell me your opinion. I’ve asked for it 3 times now and haven’t heard one. That’s a little weird don’t you think? 

You are a perfect example of a right wing snowflake man. 

Ah, someone calling another person unintelligent but can’t even clarify their opinion on a topic. Call me whatever you please mate. At least when someone asks me a question about my own beliefs I have the intelligence to say something other than “google it or read this book.” As if the book or google will tell me your opinion on it… 

You’re the king of just saying random shit like “dunning Kruger” “genetic fallacy” etc without ever actually combatting anything anyone says. You hide behind a facade of intelligence using complex vocabulary that is almost always unnecessary. Can’t even state your opinion clearly, and then just insult someone and call them an intellectual coward even though I’m actively trying to engage with your ideas. 

Like I said I apologized to RM for being a douche. So I don’t know what else you want me to do I admitted i was wrong and apologized. You on the other hand can’t even have a conversation without spinning it completely out of control and not answering questions. So call me unintelligent all you please. I have openly admitted that outside of pharmacology and neurochemistry, I am not well versed And usually don’t even engage in the conversation. And of course the one time I try to the person I’m attempting to engage with can’t even state their own opinion on the topic. 

Ah thank you sir 

“I won’t tolerate it” lol you gonna do something about it mate. Through the internet gonna act like a tough guy. 

Also You’re saying im arguing the man, even though I have clearly said nothing about discrediting him or his opinions. I just said I don’t have interest in him, I was hoping you had the ability to clarify your opinion. Which is why I clearly asked “Are you claiming that blacks in America don’t present good education? Are you saying that blacks don’t learn as well? if you’re saying either of these things, what is the supposed cause of this disparity you’re claiming exists?” I was asking what exactly you were claiming. You said google it as if google would tell me what you meant. That’s why I’m confused. I was asking what you though and what you were trying to say because it’s not abundantly clear. 

Also that’s another reason I brought up reading comprehension because I’ve said the same thing literally 4 times now and you’re still trying to claim I’m discrediting him by bringing up his fraud, even though I’ve clearly stated that Im not. 

I wasn’t even trying to argue with you. I was just genuinely curious what you were trying to say so I could decide on whether or not I wanted to engage with you on the topic. You have yet to clarify your position and instead are defending someone you don’t know and trying to minimize the illegal activity he committed. And I don’t even care about the illegal activity I just brought it up as something in passing “yeah I know him, I’ve met him, I’ve talked to him, I also know he committed fraud” that doesn’t mean, even though I’ve said it three times it seems like it needs repeating, that his ideas are immediately wrong or discredited because of that. I just am not a fan of him, and don’t care to read his books. So I was asking for your opinion on the thread that you yourself started, and have never clarified. If you would’ve answered my question with your opinion (which is what I was getting after) we could be talking about that. I’m beginning to believe you don’t have an opinion or answer and just parrot whatever is in the book because you can’t form your own opinion. That may not be true, but someone who can form their own opinion would’ve stated it clearly when first asked about it. 

So “don’t tolerate it” all you want (whatever the hell that means on the internet) if you want to get aggressive and honestly just exhibit sad person behavior, I will have no want to engage with you any further. However if you want to clearly state your opinion we can discuss them, if I even disagree with them. 

Also i just realized you never addressed my point about the Bible being changed so many times even though that’s supposedly a mortal sin. How do you know you’re worshipping the right Bible? How do you know you’re not committing a mortal sin by reading and worshipping the mortal sins of others? How do you even know your god is the right god? Out of the thousands of gods that have existed what’re the chances you found the right one? 

Mate I don’t know if you can’t read or are just willfully trying to be annoying. I have said both time i brought the following both times I brought it. “That doesn’t necessarily prove everything he did wrong, argue the ideas not the man” you’re literally arguing with the wind. 

The only reason I brought it up was to explain that I know about this man, I have met this man, I have had long conversations with this man. He isn’t necessarily a shining beacon of light in the political realm. I read one of his books long ago, can’t remember which one, I’m sure if I look I can find it. I just don’t value him much, that doesn’t mean his wrong, it means I don’t find it valuable to me to read the book. 

I’m also not whining I’m stating a fact. You seem like you’re in a bad mood or are just in a weird state of mind at the moment. So I will leave this thread alone for a while lol. I’m not saying the book is poorly researched, I’m not even saying the book is wrong. 

I asked you to clarify what exactly you’re talking about in this thread and you said “read this book” I don’t want to read the book I just want you to clarify your position on a thread you voluntarily started. It’s like if I started my drug education thread and said “go read this textbook” that just defeats the purpose of engaging with you 

“Dinesh D’Souza attempted to illegally contribute over $10,000 to a Senate campaign, wilfully undermining the integrity of the campaign finance process. Like many others before him, of all political stripes, he has had to answer for this crime – here with a felony conviction.”

That is quite literally the definition of fraud. 

And I agree that doesn’t necessarily prove him wrong on everything. Attack the ideas not thr man. I agree. However I just have very little interest in politics of any kind besides drug policy. So I stay out of it and let you guys we’d through all the bullshit. 

Here is a link to the post

“That's a strong claim. Math, physics, chemistry please?” 

I have already provided that. CO2 absorbs infrared light (heat) once the electron is done being excited from the added heat to the system, the electron drops back down and shoots the heat out of the gas and back in a random direction. Some of that light reaches earth, some of it doesn’t. It shoots of in a quantum random way so it’s impossible to predict which way the light will aim. 

Some of that light will be absorbed by carbon sinks, some of it will bounce back off the ice, clouds, ground, etc. then the cycle repeats. 

It doesn’t take much complex math to see that the higher concentration of CO2 the more infrared photons will be absorbed and shot back in random directions.  

But I will copy and paste the math and physics behind this issue from a university website from the mathematics department. 

“Now part two of the recipe: how hot will the extra CO2 make us? Most physics students, once they learn about radiative heat transfer (affectionately called sigma-T-to-the-fourth), are tasked with calculating the Earth’s temperature in radiative equilibrium with the Sun. If done “correctly,” the answer is disappointingly cold because the greenhouse effect is not incorporated in the simple calculation.
The way it works is, the sun imbues a radiative flux of 1370 Watts per square meter at the position of the Earth. Given its radius of R = 6378 km, the Earth intercepts 1370 W/m² × πR² of the incident sunlight, since the Earth appears as a projected disk to the Sun. Most of this incident flux is absorbed in the oceans, land, atmosphere, and clouds, while the remainder is immediately reflected back to space so the aliens can see our planet. The absorbed part (70%) heats the earth surface environment and eventually is re-radiated to space as thermal infrared radiation, at wavelengths centered at about 10 microns—far beyond human vision (0.4 to 0.7 microns).
The law for thermal radiation is that a surface emits a total radiative power of A·σT4, where A is the surface area, σ=5.67×10−8 W/m²/K4 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and Tis the surface temperature in Kelvin. For instance, a patch of Earth at the average surface temperature of 288 K (15°C, or 59°F) emits 390 W/m² of infrared radiation. To figure out the temperature of the Earth, we demand that power in equals power out, and radiative transfer is the only game in town for getting heat on and off the Earth. If we did not have a balance between power in and power out, the Earth’s temperature would change until equilibrium was re-established. Hey—that’s what global warming is doing.  But let’s not get ahead of ourselves…
While the Earth intercepts a column of light from the sun with area πR², the Earth has a surface area of 4πR² to radiate. Considering that 70% of the incoming sunlight is in play, we have an effective influx of 960 W/m² onto one quarter of the Earth’s surface area (why not half? much of the Sun-side of the Earth is tilted to the sun and does not receive direct, overhead sunlight). So the radiated part must work out to 240 W/m², which implies an effective temperature of 255 K, or a bone-chilling −18°C (about 0°F). Incidentally, if the Earth were black as coal, absorbing all incident solar radiation, the answer would have been a more satisfactory 279 K, or 6°C, but still colder than observed.
We know that 255 K is the wrong answer; off by 33°C. The discrepancy is the greenhouse effect, and to this we owe our comfort and our liquid oceans. The greenhouse gases absorb some of the outbound infrared radiation and re-radiate in all directions, sending some of the energy back toward Earth. Two-thirds of the effect (about 22°C) is from water vapor, about one-fifth (~7°C) is from carbon dioxide, and the remaining 15% is from a mix of other gases, including methane.

That is the type of evidence I want from you. I want you to have math like this that shows the opposite. 

Ok just since I came off as rude I’ll continue to engage. I truly apologize, I’m just short like that most of the time. 

Look the reason I’m asking for concrete evidence outside of graphs that only show two variables in a highly multi varied system is simple. Your quality of evidence isn’t good enough. That’s it. The quality of evidence that supports CO2 warming the atmosphere is vast and backed by basic physics and chemistry. 

You saying the evidence you have provided is like a flat earther saying “the evidence I have provided is fine I don’t need math” or someone saying the same thing trying to debunk general relativity. It just doesn’t work that way man. Or like someone saying the earth is 6,000 years old, they have a lot of “evidence” for that, but the quality of it is terrible. For the debate of whether CO2 causes a warming effect, the quality of your evidence isn’t good enough to make a claim with any level of confidence. However, if you’re talking about whether humans are causing the climate to change, it is worthwhile to include your evidence in the debate. 

And look I have already said that CO2, right now isn’t really a problem. I’ve made that clear by saying I don’t think humans are powering the current climate change through their emission. However what I am arguing against you is that you can’t claim CO2 has no warming or greenhouse effect without evidence. And showing a lag between temperature and CO2 rising isn’t good enough. Because as I’ve said there are so many other variables that must be taken into account that could adequately explain that lag. 

So, please provide evidence through physics, chemistry, and physics to support your claim that CO2 doesn’t warm the atm. That’s all you need to do. Showing a graph just isn’t good enough. It’s like someone showing a picture of the earth from the ground and saying “see it’s flat.” There are so many other variables that your graph is not taking into account, and your claim is denying a lot of other sciences that all show this phenomenon. That’s my problem with your evidence. I’d you want to use the evidence you have provided to shine doubt on the idea that humans are causing the earth to warm right now then fine, that is acceptable. But that’s isn’t the debate. The debate is you claiming CO2 does not exert a warming effect. I have asked you to back that up in a very specific way and you won’t, or more likely can’t. As ive also said scientists, completely independent from one another, in different fields, studying this in different ways, have all come to the conclusion that CO2 exerts a warming effect. Using their methods of science. So what is more likely, that you are correct in your assumption, that has no math, physics, or chemistry to back it up, and that all of these scientists who do have all of this ammo backing their claim and data are dead wrong? Or is it more likely you are wrong? 

A graph that shows two variables (when talking about possibly the most complex system on earth) isn’t good enough to make a claim. It’s just not. Which is why if you read the IPCC reports they have hundreds of graphs all showing different variables and all giving a hypothesis into how much each variable is effecting the climate. 

I apologize for sounding rude, I tried to clarify and explain I’m not trying to be. 

No clay underneath a seal does not form a pot? Do you know what a deal is? It’s something they press down on wax or clay to imprint emblems in it. 

Also it is not a stretch to see that the Bible commonly calls the earth a circle. That is inaccurate, it is a sphere. If you can’t take the words of something literally they have very little value in my opinion. Granted I am very science oriented in my life. All of my life revolves around science so I view the world in a very reductionist literal way. So I find little value in words that can’t be taken literally 

And let me be clear I’m not even trying to be rude. It is just literally a waste of time to engage with some about a scientific topic who denies basic scientific facts. It’s like trying to convince a flat earther the earth is a sphere. To say that CO2 doesn’t exert a warming effect flies in the face of chemistry, math, physics, and hell even biology in some ways. So I find it pointless to try and change your mind on this topic using the science you’re so avidly denying. Go get a geoscience degree and take some high level chemistry classes. You’ll see show solid the science is. 

And like I said I’m no expert in this topic. However, I know enough to say that what you are claiming is literally in contrast to established math and physics and chemistry. Not the opinions of the people conducting the science, but the data and results the science they conduct reveals. Go have this conversation with an actual physicist or atmospheric scientist. All of them will tell you CO2 exerts a warming effect. Now the question after that is how much of a warming effect does it exert. But denying it causes a warming effect is as backwards as saying the earth is flat. Especially when you can provide no equations, chemical, or physical evidence of your claim. I keep harping on that because all three of those things usually all have to support the same answer before it is considered an established theory or law of physics. All three of those things support CO2 exerting a warming effect. You have done nothing to event attempt to challenge that part of the debate. All you are challenging is how much of a warming effect it induces. That’s not the claim you made. You claimed it has zero effect on warming. You need very strong evidence to support that claim and have provided none. This will be my last response to you on this thread unless you provide evidence that it causes 0 effect in warming. That evidence can’t defy basic chemistry, physics, or math. 

It should be easy to provide all three if you’re as right as you believe yourself to be.