Jake Ehlinger found dead near campus

[Hate 20095]

1 hour ago, tbone_ said:

Too high to hassle with acquiring oxy?

I could see some validity to this logic.

Lol, it’s not that at all. It’s that they can go to a store and request cannabis that has been specifically grown for pain relief. You can go to a dispensary now and request weed for specific needs such as energy, creativity, relaxation, or even for help sleeping.  It is s a much safer way of seeking relief than pills.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Hate

[bullet 1596]

On 10/25/2021 at 2:42 PM, tbone_ said:

Or no idea what fake shit they purposely put in it it or what fake label they put on it.

That happens in legal products.

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, Llogg said:

It's not a zero number.

There are actually quite a few deaths from synthetic pot.  You never know what's in it or how strong it is.

[bullet 1596]

4 minutes ago, bullet said:

That happens in legal products.

The conversation was about products from China.  Chinese manufacturers have frequently contaminated or doctored products.

[ousux 5581]

Lol, it’s not that at all. It’s that they can go to a store and request cannabis that has been specifically grown for pain relief. You can go to a dispensary now and request weed for specific needs such as energy, creativity, relaxation, or even for help sleeping.  It is s a much safer way of seeking relief than pills.

This is sort of irrelelvant to the topic, but according to family/friends who live in states with liberal cannabis laws...it's a crapshoot if what youre given does any of the things the person behind the counter claims. Of course it's the same for any drug, everyone may not have the same reaction. For example I'll use myself who was prescribed two weeks worth of Vicodin roughly 12 years ago for minor surgery...didnt do much for the pain, just made me light headed for an hour or so, and by day 3 or 4..constipated. I stopped taking them and switched to Advil before I used up my small supply...didnt miss them at all. On the flipside there are some people who would have used the 2 week supply in just a few days and be seeking more long before a refill is possible..if at all.

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, Augustus said:

TwiceHorn mentioned this and I thought I'd echo it.

Our first step in trying to come up with solutions, if we're gonna be at all realistic, is to recognize that drug/alcohol abuse and all the consequences thereof are never going away, can't be eliminated.  So the prohibition guarantees not only the emergence of a black market but also the Fortune 500 success of it.  Hell, there are plenty of multinational corporations that can only dream of the cartels' financial success.

And it's not just the addicts who are the consumers. In fact, the addicts may be at less risk than a great many purely recreational users given their familiarity with the product and their acquired tolerance for high doses of opioids, for example.

Decriminalization/legalization may offer more protection for someone like Jake than someone like myself.  If he could've legally purchased xanax--or score some off someone else who's old enough to buy it and purchased it legally--he's probably alive today.  Same is true for so many who die of fentanyl overdose after scoring the fake oxy/perc tablets that are pure fentanyl.  

In a world where opioid tablets, manufactured by Big Pharma and regulated by the FDA, are available just like alcohol, heroin use would almost certainly decline dramatically.  Perhaps nowhere near eliminated, but plenty of users would opt for a safe pill with a known dosage strength vs a powder off the street that could prove fatal.

I think objections to legalization entail, among other concerns, one big fear and one mistaken assumption:  The fear seems to be that  people who wouldn't otherwise have begun to use will start, thereby actually creating new addicts.  The misconception is that really is possible to limit/decrease the consumption by addicts (not a chance) and recreational users (perhaps some).  

Harm reduction becomes much more plausible when we get realistic about the fact that a certain percentage of the population is going to use addictively regardless of any other consideration under the sun.  

Sorry about being a bit long-winded here.  tl/dr:  leopards can't change their spots, so make the supply safer.

The rest is thoughtful, but the bold is just wishful thinking.  Along the line of your thoughts, leopards can't change their spots.  Some will always want bigger highs.

[Hate 20095]

Understood and agreed.  "Creativity" is subjective I suppose so how does it become defined as an affect of smoking a particular type of cannibas?  I do think there is something to pain relief as well as the help with insomnia or even anxiety.  I also think there are some strains that are more conducive to couch surfing than going out and getting things done. 

[Eskimohorn 5593]

Its much more than hereditary, or education or legal. We have a cultural and structural problem. We consume 80% of the world’s opiate supply (as of 2016).

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/27/americans-consume-almost-all-of-the-global-opioid-supply.html

And we have already had legalized opioids, expanded prescriptive use, feeding legal scrips into the black market supply chain. What should go to dying cancer patients, went to people getting wisdom teeth extracted. Or post partem pain management.

Our marketing and sales infrastructure for making money off of other people’s suffering is massive.

At the policy level, there’s too much to unpack here.

At the individual level, addicts come in all walks of life. And while hereditary plays a part, one’s current environment, support network, and core purpose/motivation greatly influence outcomes.

Legalizing opioids, whatever that looks like, would probably not work here in the US because of the structural, cultural, and general misery as a developed nation.

[Zeus 5923]

 

The "legal" method of distributing opiates has already resulted in big pharma skirting any ethical responsibility to push oxy everywhere they could, as much as they could, and having doctors prescribing it to people when it's clearly being bought and resold illegally. There's a show that dramatized this process I just cant think of it right now, but basically the cartels kind of enslave a bunch of people who are addicted to oxy to go to different dirty doctors and pharmacies all day and buy up a fuck ton of oxy for them to resell.  

Also 4 of 5 people injecting heroin started by taking oxy.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by Zeus

[Deej 76396]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

There are actually quite a few deaths from synthetic pot.  You never know what's in it or how strong it is.

No one would need synthetic pot if the real shit was legal.

[Zeus 5923]

35 minutes ago, Deej said:

No one would need synthetic pot if the real shit was legal.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/23/california-legal-illicit-weed-market-516868

The legalization experiment isn't working out too well for the dipshits in California. Don't know about Colorado but it seems like it may be a better system. Instead of just leaving people alone and allowing personal grow ops it's turned into a big corrupt shit show in Cali with government fucking it all up. Who would've guessed that would happen.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

No one would need synthetic pot if the real shit was legal.

Kind of.

Companies need to treat it like alcohol. Can be used outside of work, but not at work. I guess Amazon made that step forward, but I can tell you that the old white men that run the O&G industry in the US won’t change without a fight.

[Hate 20095]

Kind of.

Companies need to treat it like alcohol. Can be used outside of work, but not at work. I guess Amazon made that step forward, but I can tell you that the old white men that run the O&G industry in the US won’t change without a fight.

Just about every old white guy I know in the O & G industry is a stoner.

[Zeus 5923]

Yeah have you ever sat in a golf cart after a group of old OG huhwhite dudes got out? Roaches galore

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Just about every old white guy I know in the O & G industry is a stoner.

Not the companies I work at. Multinational engineering firms and oil companies. I have known a few, but by and large, nope. And not like “oh you would be surprised”. They oozed the disdain for it. I am sure many are indifferent though as these generation starts to die.

[Foosters 17688]

3 hours ago, Zeus said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/23/california-legal-illicit-weed-market-516868

The legalization experiment isn't working out too well for the dipshits in California. Don't know about Colorado but it seems like it may be a better system. Instead of just leaving people alone and allowing personal grow ops it's turned into a big corrupt shit show in Cali with government fucking it all up. Who would've guessed that would happen.

Since you want to go CR, here's this from your article:

Quote

 

"California’s cannabis law lets local officials decide whether to open the door to cannabis or slam it shut. So far, most are opting for the latter.

A whopping 68 percent of California cities ban cannabis retail, including wide swaths of the Central Valley. Other areas have imposed strict caps on the number of available licenses, limiting market growth."

 

So, the conservative parts of CA have pushed back against legalization and are refusing to allow dispensaries in their cities and counties. In Pasadena, it took almost a decade for city leaders to agree to a single, licensed dispensary because of pushback from concerned citizens over what a dispensary would do to their communities. Are you suggesting that the state of California force more conservative cities and counties into having dispensaries? Regardless, its a nuanced issue and that belongs in CR. But if you prefer to stick to soundbites about stupid libs and California big government, then I guess the football board is as good a place for that as any.

 

[CHIEF 5052]

1 hour ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Not the companies I work at. Multinational engineering firms and oil companies. I have known a few, but by and large, nope. And not like “oh you would be surprised”. They oozed the disdain for it. I am sure many are indifferent though as these generation starts to die.

I've never understood the disdain, especially in states where it is legal. It's very simple, treat it like alcohol. Can't be drunk on site, can't be stoned on site. Workers would sleep much better as well, and I'm in my 50s.

CHIEF

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I've never understood the disdain, especially in states where it is legal. It's very simple, treat it like alcohol. Can't be drunk on site, can't be stoned on site. Workers would sleep much better as well, and I'm in my 50s.
CHIEF

I don’t either. But that is my experience. And actually, it doesn’t matter if my experience or Hate’s is more valid or both true. Because of his experience is as such, it makes it worse in a way. These are the people that can start the change. Change the company policies. Imagine if Chevron stopped doing random hair tests of their employees…that would make a huge splash in the news. And that isn’t just for people in the field. That happens to office workers too.

But they won’t, for many reasons (even if those old white guys partake). One reason is control and another is perception.

[CHIEF 5052]

1 minute ago, Patricio Swayze said:

I don’t either. But that is my experience. And actually, it doesn’t matter if my experience or Hate’s is more valid or both true. Because of his experience is as such, it makes it worse in a way. These are the people that can start the change. Change the company policies. Imagine if Chevron stopped doing random hair tests of their employees…that would make a huge splash in the news. And that isn’t just for people in the field. That happens to office workers too.

But they won’t, for many reasons (even if those old white guys partake). One reason is control and perception.

Coming from the oilfield, I have multiple friends in big corporate oilfield companies, they all drink like fish but can't smoke pot. Many of them smoked before working oilfield jobs. Pot synthesizes through your body quicker and there are no hangovers. Think of the productivity lost.

CHIEF

[TOR 5354]

This keeps getting weirder.

[Hate 20095]

I don’t either. But that is my experience. And actually, it doesn’t matter if my experience or Hate’s is more valid or both true. Because of his experience is as such, it makes it worse in a way. These are the people that can start the change. Change the company policies. Imagine if Chevron stopped doing random hair tests of their employees…that would make a huge splash in the news. And that isn’t just for people in the field. That happens to office workers too.

But they won’t, for many reasons (even if those old white guys partake). One reason is control and another is perception.

I think a lot of it is that it is basically legal to them already. They aren’t going to be going to jail if they are caught with weed so it’s no big deal to them. They vote with their bank accounts, not on whether or not they can get legal weed.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I think a lot of it is that it is basically legal to them already. They aren’t going to be going to jail if they are caught with weed so it’s no big deal to them. They vote with their bank accounts, not on whether or not they can get legal weed.

Yeah, but I am not talking about voting. Enough large corporations, especially conservative ones, stop firing people for using marijuana and laws will follow. Especially in a backwards ass place like Texas.

[pyrohornIII 4783]

6 hours ago, Zeus said:

 

The "legal" method of distributing opiates has already resulted in big pharma skirting any ethical responsibility to push oxy everywhere they could, as much as they could, and having doctors prescribing it to people when it's clearly being bought and resold illegally. There's a show that dramatized this process I just cant think of it right now, but basically the cartels kind of enslave a bunch of people who are addicted to oxy to go to different dirty doctors and pharmacies all day and buy up a fuck ton of oxy for them to resell.  

Also 4 of 5 people injecting heroin started by taking oxy.

 

 

There were several seasons of both Justified and Goliath dedicated to this.  

 

[Zeus 5923]

50 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

There were several seasons of both Justified and Goliath dedicated to this.  

 

Yeah it was Goliath, when he turned into one of the slaves to go around buying the pills shit was sad

[tbone_ 14016]

Also a season of Bosch

[Zeus 5923]

1 hour ago, tbone_ said:

Also a season of Bosch

Bruh it was this I watched, he pretended his knee was fucked up and infiltrated it lmao. He looks like such a narc it wasn't too believable but I loved that show.

[Gaffords 755]

17 hours ago, bullet said:

There are actually quite a few deaths from synthetic pot.  You never know what's in it or how strong it is.

I knew someone who died from this just a few months ago...  It's a lot more common than most know.

[nnm 35899]

11 hours ago, CHIEF said:

Coming from the oilfield, I have multiple friends in big corporate oilfield companies, they all drink like fish but can't smoke pot. Many of them smoked before working oilfield jobs. Pot synthesizes through your body quicker and there are no hangovers. Think of the productivity lost.

CHIEF

I was formerly responsible for setting and enforcing these policies in a major O&G company. The issue isn’t old white men opposed to pot. There are two major, related differences between alcohol (and opiates) and pot.
The first is legal. DOT regulates interstate pipelines and interstate transportation. THC is illegal under federal law, and DOT regs. Anyone connected to O&G transportation, or emergency response, can’t pop positive for THC. Period. If they do, the individual and the company have a big problem. So until the DOT regs change, big O&G can’t change. 
The second, related issue is that THC metabolizes significantly different than alcohol, or most intoxicants. I’m a lawyer, not a scientist, so I may not have the terminology right.
With alcohol or most other intoxicants, a company can prohibit use while on duty. If there’s an accident, or a reasonable suspicion, or a random test, the test will tell you whether the person was impaired at the time of the test. 
Not so with THC. The testing hasn’t caught up with the legalization wave. All a positive THC test will tell you is whether the individual used sometime in the past 30 days or so. Not whether he/she was impaired at the time of the test. So until a better testing protocol is developed, companies are stuck. The only way they can be assured a user is not impaired by THC while on company business is to prohibit THC use. 
Most O&G companies, especially the majors, would appreciate being able to increase their talent pool, particularly in the field, by not excluding recreational pot users. But we (they—I’m retired from that career) can’t do that yet because the THC testing can’t differentiate yet.
So use those THC-enhanced surly brains of yours to improve the testing. 

[NoRagrets 1125]

26 minutes ago, Gaffords said:

I knew someone who died from this just a few months ago...  It's a lot more common than most know.

Me too

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I was formerly responsible for setting and enforcing these policies in a major O&G company. The issue isn’t old white men opposed to pot. There are two major, related differences between alcohol (and opiates) and pot.
The first is legal. DOT regulates interstate pipelines and interstate transportation. THC is illegal under federal law, and DOT regs. Anyone connected to O&G transportation, or emergency response, can’t pop positive for THC. Period. If they do, the individual and the company have a big problem. So until the DOT regs change, big O&G can’t change. 
The second, related issue is that THC metabolizes significantly different than alcohol, or most intoxicants. I’m a lawyer, not a scientist, so I may not have the terminology right.
With alcohol or most other intoxicants, a company can prohibit use while on duty. If there’s an accident, or a reasonable suspicion, or a random test, the test will tell you whether the person was impaired at the time of the test. 
Not so with THC. The testing hasn’t caught up with the legalization wave. All a positive THC test will tell you is whether the individual used sometime in the past 30 days or so. Not whether he/she was impaired at the time of the test. So until a better testing protocol is developed, companies are stuck. The only way they can be assured a user is not impaired by THC while on company business is to prohibit THC use. 
Most O&G companies, especially the majors, would appreciate being able to increase their talent pool, particularly in the field, by not excluding recreational pot users. But we (they—I’m retired from that career) can’t do that yet because the THC testing can’t differentiate yet.
So use those THC-enhanced surly brains of yours to improve the testing. 

Thanks for your input. The only problem is O&G office jobs (ones that never see the field) don’t have to be DOT compliant. Just like Amazon, they relaxed their stance for all non DOT jobs.

[Jkwellborn 6616]

Thanks for your input. The only problem is O&G office jobs (ones that never see the field) don’t have to be DOT compliant. Just like Amazon, they relaxed their stance for all non DOT jobs.

I know of places that still give their people DOT physicals.

[MotownHorn 1724]

22 hours ago, bullet said:

There are actually quite a few deaths from synthetic pot.  You never know what's in it or how strong it is.

Say it with me....

Synthetic pot is not pot and no one would ever buy it if they had legal access to pot.

[MotownHorn 1724]

 

23 hours ago, CHIEF said:

What could some of the possible legal ramifications be for a physician prescribing prescription drugs to an addict, or someone that doesn't really need the prescription? Or to a pharmacist that lets just anyone walk in off the street and buy a few hundred Oxycontin? Liability is the elephant in the room. Do you just put in vending machines and let people self prescribe?

CHIEF

 

 

1) Vending machines are a terrible idea, yet still a better idea than the status quo. Fewer people would die than do now imo.

2) I've always liked the idea of a "drug license." You'd have to go through government mandated training/education on your desired drug, its effects, associated dangers etc. After passing an exam you'd have a license to use that drug. If you ever drove under the influence of it, committed a crime under the influence of it, etc. your license would be suspended or taken away.

We'd allow law abiding adults to use the drug of their choice much like we allow law abiding adults to use guns. Both are powerful tools that can have both great benefits and terrible costs.

Sorry to get very in the weeds on drug policy. RIP Jake is the main thing. What a terrible, tragic, avoidable loss.

Edited October 29, 2021 by MotownHorn

[Jkwellborn 6616]

Say it with me....
Synthetic pot is not pot and no one would ever buy it if they had legal access to pot.

Man, people will chase a high on anything. If they thought it was better or different, they’d still get it. You might now have it developed initially, but it’s here now.

[Bobby Layne 266]

On 10/28/2021 at 11:18 AM, Huckleberry said:

Please provide supporting evidence for your claim that NORML's position was that if marijuana was legalized that all problems with all drugs would vanish.

  You used the word “all” twice in one sentence misstating my allegation that NORML was lobbying not making factual statements. 

[Bobby Layne 266]

On 10/28/2021 at 10:35 AM, BurntOrange&White said:

Quite ironic surly poster Bobby Layne's stance on this stuff vs real life Bobby Layne.

 More ironic than you know. My dad and I drank with Bobby. And his sons. 

[Bobby Layne 266]

On 10/28/2021 at 11:21 AM, RomaVicta said:

I've been around awhile. I've never heard it.

It sounds like a facile reversal of the notion that smoking pot would lead inexorably to heroin addiction.

I've never smoked pot. I don't find any moral satisfaction in that. It is idiotic that partaking or marketing that substance is illegal. The war on drugs is aimed at the supply side when it's actually a demand-side issue. 

At McCombs way back in my in my day, they taught in Econ 101 that supply and demand are related. Is this still so? 

[RomaVicta 29704]

15 minutes ago, Bobby Layne said:

At McCombs way back in my in my day, they taught in Econ 101 that supply and demand are related. Is this still so? 

I took 101 when the building was still the BEB. I was taught that they're related, but not the same. Professor Vrooman gave a great lecture about how limiting supply to an inelastic market only had the effect of raising the price of the product.

For our little story here, lets take the example of gasoline as a product in high demand. Using the product harms the air and causes health issues. Which do we do?

1. Limit the supply of gasoline

2. Lower the demand for gasoline

Number 1 raises the price, but people have shown they will pay high prices for something they need to run their cars and carry on with the business of their lives. People are out more money and the harm continues. The common good suffers

For number 2, let's say we change the demand for gasoline by improving mass transit, building electric cars, or encouraging work from home. In this case, not so much gasoline is used so harm to air and health are reduced for the common good.

In the case of drugs, you invest in curbing addiction, recognizing the inelastic market and decriminalizing the use of the substance. You save money on prison, you save money on the hopeless war on drugs, you may actually improve lives. 

You're welcome for the lesson

[Bobby Layne 266]

6 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I took 101 when the building was still the BEB. I was taught that they're related, but not the same. Professor Vrooman gave a great lecture about how limiting supply to an inelastic market only had the effect of raising the price of the product.

For our little story here, lets take the example of gasoline as a product in high demand. Using the product harms the air and causes health issues. Which do we do?

1. Limit the supply of gasoline

2. Lower the demand for gasoline

Number 1 raises the price, but people have shown they will pay high prices for something they need to run their cars and carry on with the business of their lives. People are out more money and the harm continues. The common good suffers

For number 2, let's say we change the demand for gasoline by improving mass transit, building electric cars, or encouraging work from home. In this case, not so much gasoline is used so harm to air and health are reduced for the common good.

In the case of drugs, you invest in curbing addiction, recognizing the inelastic market and decriminalizing the use of the substance. You save money on prison, you save money on the hopeless war on drugs, you may actually improve lives. 

You're welcome for the lesson

I believe in Econ they taught that supply and demand were inversely related. Nevertheless. #1 will lower demand when the price is high enough. #2 fails to account for HOW exactly that “clean” electricity is produced. For the drug analogy, I agree that money from prisons (we spend waaay too much ion prisons) would be better spent on best practices treatment of addiction. Which would save some prison dollars for only the incorrigible criminal actors.  We still need to reserve some funds for restricting countries that would “flood our zone” with bogus drugs to ruin young lives. Education and prevention efforts should be never-ending. Government control of nearly everything has a very poor track record. To wit: All those Lotto dollars haven’t quite seeped into improving our schools. Simple solutions seem to be really hard. Corrupt humans ruin everything. You’re welcome. 

[LTtxfan 48823]

😥