[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[garbon]

What those stats tell us that is that alcohol use is much more problematic than pot use 

Well yeah. Drinking things is pleasant while smoking things is gross.

On my way into work this morning, I got to see someone's vomit from last night. You know that was more than likely caused by alcohol. That shit be gross.

[Josephus]

I have never see anyone smoke a J and beat up his girlfriend.

[viper37]

I'm not sure why your ignorance should be given much weight as an argument.

which may occur through acute intoxication, chronic alcoholism, withdrawal, exacerbation of existing disorders, or acute idiosyncratic reactions

exactly what I said.  What part of drinking a fucking lot was not clear?

And this part:

Roughly 3% of persons with alcoholism experience psychosis

out of the 80% who drink regularly, you have a tiny proportion who become addicted to the substance.   Out of this tiny percentage, 3% of them will experience psychosis.

That's not much.

[viper37]

What those stats tell us that is that alcohol use is much more problematic than pot use 

Well yeah. Drinking things is pleasant while smoking things is gross.

yes.  And there's no such thing as second hand drinking. 

unless you count violence and car accidents

that kind of case was rejected out of hand by Malthus for pot smokers.  If we consider this for alcohol drinking, we must also consider this factor of risk for drug users, who represents a danger as big as drinkers.  Given the number of stoners driving vs the number of alcohol drinkers (close to 80% of the population drinks) driving while impaired, we can make a reasonable assumption that pot smokers, because they are harder to detect, are more numerous, since unlikely to get catched.

So, we have:
Driving while impaired + second hand smoking for pot.
We have:
Driving while impaired for alcoholics, a tiny proportion of all alcohol drinkers who represent close to 80% of the canadian population.

Again, given the number of people drinking and the low prevalence of problems, alcohol is harmless, pot is dangerous.

[viper37]

I have never see anyone smoke a J and beat up his girlfriend.

I've never seen anyone going from Dr Jekyll to Mr Hide after one shot of whiskey.

[crazy canuck]

I have never see anyone smoke a J and beat up his girlfriend.

I've never seen anyone going from Dr Jekyll to Mr Hide after one shot of whiskey.

Perhaps not but I have never seen someone smoking pot do that either.  I have however seen people who drink become extremely violent.

[garbon]

I'm not sure why your ignorance should be given much weight as an argument.

which may occur through acute intoxication, chronic alcoholism, withdrawal, exacerbation of existing disorders, or acute idiosyncratic reactions

exactly what I said.  What part of drinking a fucking lot was not clear?

Actually you specified that it needed to be overtime. Acute intoxication is not chronic alcoholism and that is why it is listed separately.

And this part:

Roughly 3% of persons with alcoholism experience psychosis

out of the 80% who drink regularly, you have a tiny proportion who become addicted to the substance.   Out of this tiny percentage, 3% of them will experience psychosis.

That's not much.

Here's a factsheet I found about drinking in US.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

Prevalence of Drinking: In 2013, 86.8 percent of people ages 18 or older reported that they drank alcohol at some point in their lifetime; 70.7 percent reported that they drank in the past year; 56.4 percent reported that they drank in the past month.

...

Alcohol Use Disorders (AUDs) in the United States:
Adults (ages 18+): 16.6 million adults ages 18 and older3 (7.0 percent of this age group4) had an AUD in 2013. This includes 10.8 million men3 (9.4 percent of men in this age group4) and 5.8 million women3 (4.7 percent of women in this age group4).

If 3% of 16.6 million alcoholics experiences a psychotic event, that's 500,000 people who have experienced one. Though again yes that's not casual drinking. But it does seem like it is easy to get classified as having an AUD.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders

Problem drinking that becomes severe is given the medical diagnosis of "alcohol use disorder" or AUD. Approximately 7.2 percent or 17 million adults in the United States ages 18 and older had an AUD in 2012. This includes 11.2 million men and 5.7 million women. Adolescents can be diagnosed with an AUD as well, and in 2012, an estimated 855,000 adolescents ages 12–17 had an AUD.

To be diagnosed with an AUD, individuals must meet certain criteria outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Under DSM–5, the current version of the DSM, anyone meeting any two of the 11 criteria during the same 12-month period receives a diagnosis of AUD. The severity of an AUD—mild, moderate, or severe—is based on the number of criteria met.

To assess whether you or loved one may have an AUD, here are some questions to ask.  In the past year, have you:

Had times when you ended up drinking more, or longer than you intended?

More than once wanted to cut down or stop drinking, or tried to, but couldn't?

Spent a lot of time drinking? Or being sick or getting over the aftereffects?

Experienced craving — a strong need, or urge, to drink?

Found that drinking — or being sick from drinking — often interfered with taking care of your home or family? Or caused job troubles? Or school problems?

Continued to drink even though it was causing trouble with your family or friends?

Given up or cut back on activities that were important or interesting to you, or gave you pleasure, in order to drink?

More than once gotten into situations while or after drinking that increased your chances of getting hurt (such as driving, swimming, using machinery, walking in a dangerous area, or having unsafe sex)?

Continued to drink even though it was making you feel depressed or anxious or adding to another health problem? Or after having had a memory blackout?

Had to drink much more than you once did to get the effect you want? Or found that your usual number of drinks had much less effect than before?

Found that when the effects of alcohol were wearing off, you had withdrawal symptoms, such as trouble sleeping, shakiness, irritability, anxiety, depression, restlessness, nausea, or sweating? Or sensed things that were not there?

If you have any of these symptoms, your drinking may already be a cause for concern. The more symptoms you have, the more urgent the need for change. A health professional can conduct a formal assessment of your symptoms to see if an alcohol use disorder is present.

However severe the problem may seem, most people with an alcohol use disorder can benefit from treatment. Unfortunately, only of a fraction of people who could benefit from treatment receive help. In 2012, for example, 1.4 million adults received treatment for an AUD at a specialized facility (8.4 percent of adults in need). This included 416,000 women (7.3 percent of women in need) and 1.0 million men (8.9 percent of men in need).

All the ones in bold seem pretty common for college students.

[Valmy]

What those stats tell us that is that alcohol use is much more problematic than pot use 

Well yeah. Drinking things is pleasant while smoking things is gross.

On my way into work this morning, I got to see someone's vomit from last night. You know that was more than likely caused by alcohol. That shit be gross.

I think you fundamentally misunderstood what I was saying. Drinking is more problematic because it is less unpleasant to do.

Geez people.

[garbon]

Maybe but as I said, there are a lot of unpleasant aspects to it as well.

[crazy canuck]

Now that the tight communications control over government scientists is over the media is following up on the research of those scientists.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/three-scientists-on-the-research-they-couldnt-discuss-to-media-under-harper/article27244717/

Also the Justice Minister was on a local radio show this morning where she announced the government appeal regarding the Niqab would be dropped today and that there was a comprehensive review under way to determine what other appeals should also be stopped.


And one other opinion piece in the Globe that I thought was particularly important in noting the effect the change in government has already had and will continue to have.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-new-foreign-policy-the-end-of-ideological-fantasies/article27248484/

[viper37]

Perhaps not but I have never seen someone smoking pot do that either.

Seen it, heard about it.  There was even a case where the defendant successfully pleaded smoking pot made him see the devil, and he had to kill him.  It happenned to be his roommate, but he was acquitted due to intoxication by pot.

I have however seen people who drink become extremely violent.

Never saw this myself.  I know it exists for extreme alcoholics, but I've never seen it myself or even heard about it.
But you need more than one shot of whiskey.  While people using drugs and becoming fucked up for life does happen.

[viper37]

Now that the tight communications control over government scientists is over the media is following up on the research of those scientists.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/three-scientists-on-the-research-they-couldnt-discuss-to-media-under-harper/article27244717/

That's a good thing.  Until someone contradicts Trudeau's vision of Canada, then his funding will be cut.

Also the Justice Minister was on a local radio show this morning where she announced the government appeal regarding the Niqab would be dropped today and that there was a comprehensive review under way to determine what other appeals should also be stopped.

That's just silly.  Certainly not the Canada I want to live in were extremists are welcome to spread their hatred of our culture and our people.

And one other opinion piece in the Globe that I thought was particularly important in noting the effect the change in government has already had and will continue to have.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-new-foreign-policy-the-end-of-ideological-fantasies/article27248484/

that's just bullshit.  the reality, proven time & time again is that Canada's place in the world hasn't really changed, except we were no longer constantly criticized by our NATO allies for not doing our part.
Most foreigners have no idea about Canada, they don't know the provinces or the people and in our friendly neighbour to the south, the vast majority of its people would not be able to name our PM.  Forget about the average Egyptian knowing who is Stephen Harper and what he has done.
As for losing our UN seat, it was pretty clear: unlike the previous Liberal government, Harper did not want to give "gifts" to the appropriate people.  This is how diplomacy is supposed to work, I know.  But I'd prefer losing something honestly than winning dishonestly.

As for the rest, we're back to where we were before Harper: the Federal government speaks for everyone and if you're not happy, shut the fuck up, I speak for you.

[viper37]

[Grey Fox]

Hahaha.

[viper37]

Our new science minister 

ome neurologists who treat MS patients are appalled, saying her lobbying calls into question Duncan's suitability as a neutral, dispassionate science czar. "This is the most curious appointment since Caligula named his horse as consul," scoffed McGill University's Dr. Michael Rasminsky, calling the Zamboni ideas "profoundly non-scientific."
Tim Caulfield, a health-policy professor at the University of Alberta, praised Trudeau for giving science a distinct place in cabinet when the Harper government seemed to diminish its role.
But he's concerned the job is being filled by an MP with no qualms about exerting "top down" political pressure on the scientific community. Duncan's refrain about close-minded researchers spurning cutting-edge work from "outsiders" also are worrisome, said Caulfield.
"The idea that there is some kind of scientific conspiracy to stop good research from happening ... is an unfortunate perception for someone who is now the science minister," he said.