General Discussion

SnakeEyes

(1,407 posts)

116. Dog whistle?

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 12:40 AM

Dec 2014

I'm not sure it means what you think it means.

I can't imagine any way possible that stating a preference for science and peer reviewed work is a dog whistle. Also, we all know the right wing doesn't trust science and believes peer review is somehow a politically biased scam.

Did Tom Hartman have peer reviewed scientists on or people with anecdotal stories? Because you do know anecdotal stories is not science nor does it necessarily prove anything due to a variety of possible factors, placebo effects, and other things that could create a false correlation. That's why you need controlled scientific studies and peer reviewed work that hold up those studies up to scrutiny from scientific peers in your field.

I'm actually really surprised I'm getting flack. I'd have expected respect for someone requesting scientific proof.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

121 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Marijuana Law [View all] Logical Dec 2014 OP

Get over it neo-cons, evolve with the times instead of fighting healthy change. Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #1

I wouldn't call it a "healthy change" SnakeEyes Dec 2014 #6

I would. Cha Dec 2014 #9

The numerous medical benefits of marijuana is very healthy indeed. Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #12

Science doesn't support "numerous" medical benefits SnakeEyes Dec 2014 #21

hey, I have a severely handicapped daughter who demigoddess Dec 2014 #24

I'm not sure whose post you were responding to SnakeEyes Dec 2014 #76

Yes, science does support numerous medical benefits Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #30

Says that guy. SnakeEyes Dec 2014 #75

It is healthy. Taken raw, not heated mj helps to heal the endocrine, nerve and immune functions. Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #37

Can you share the peer reviewed paper SnakeEyes Dec 2014 #74

can YOU show any peer reviewed DiverDave Dec 2014 #85

Dog whistle? SnakeEyes Dec 2014 #116

The studies are all locked up in JSTOR. Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #117

Did someone say "States' Rights?" Good, let the Feds stay out of it and the states will ruin their kelliekat44 Dec 2014 #121

Interesting case. Jesus Malverde Dec 2014 #2

A 10th Amendment defense, perhaps? Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #3

More like an 11th Amendment defense meow2u3 Dec 2014 #38

Yeah, that issue bugs me treestar Dec 2014 #96

They are arguing that federal law must be followed madville Dec 2014 #17

The Supreme Court can't make a state recriminalize marijuana. Comrade Grumpy Dec 2014 #18

Federal law supersedes state laws/constitution all the time. joeglow3 Dec 2014 #32

The feds can enforce federal law; they can't make Colorado recriminalize weed. Comrade Grumpy Dec 2014 #41

I agree. It may force the federal govt to decriminalize. joeglow3 Dec 2014 #53

President O could mandate to decriminalize the plant Sunlei Dec 2014 #80

Nebraska and Oklahoma aren't suing the federal government rollin74 Dec 2014 #68

Not how it works joeglow3 Dec 2014 #69

Colorado did not break Oklahoma law. avebury Dec 2014 #77

No the broke federal law, which supersedes all states joeglow3 Dec 2014 #81

Given the fact the the prison system is big business avebury Dec 2014 #82

They could litigate whether the feds have the power to criminalize it treestar Dec 2014 #97

True joeglow3 Dec 2014 #106

I eagerly await the folks that praise Aerows Dec 2014 #44

I remember when coming to Colorado meant buying cases of Coors postatomic Dec 2014 #4

And dump out their cans of reich-wing coors. Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #13

Real Coloradans don't drink Coors. We all know it's moose piss. Just for Fun Dec 2014 #86

Bear piss, actually. truebluegreen Dec 2014 #113

Colorado should counter sue the rest of the country to stop their ludicrous war on drugs world wide wally Dec 2014 #5

When I first came to Kansas in 1970, it was still a dry state. To have wine with a dinner party, tblue37 Dec 2014 #7

Wow, that is interesting, I live here and didn't know that story. Thanks! nt Logical Dec 2014 #10

Are you too young to have been around during that benighted period? nt tblue37 Dec 2014 #11

Moved here in 1992. Nt Logical Dec 2014 #14

Ah--I see. I came here in 1970, and the 1970s were Vern Miller's period in office. tblue37 Dec 2014 #16

Wow, the airplane story is interesting. nt Logical Dec 2014 #19

And the liquor cards we had to buy to have a drink at the clubs. And the 3.2 18 bars. Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #15

Whoa, Kansas had Prohibition that late? ButterflyBlood Dec 2014 #20

Kansas prohibited on-premises liquor sales until 1987! tblue37 Dec 2014 #22

My sister got married in LA in 1991 Aerows Dec 2014 #51

There's still lots of places that still have prohibition Major Nikon Dec 2014 #57

I lived in Kansas in the 50s and 60s demigoddess Dec 2014 #25

Right--but not regular beer, not wine, not hard liquor. tblue37 Dec 2014 #28

Kansas has allowed liquor stores since 1948 dems_rightnow Dec 2014 #79

Oh boo hoo.. Cha Dec 2014 #8

anyone else catch this? fizzgig Dec 2014 #23

So background checks for MJ edhopper Dec 2014 #47

Did it ever occur to them that there is an easy solution? Joe Worker Dec 2014 #26

But if it's banned it goes away. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #29

�draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems.� Rex Dec 2014 #27

As a Nebraskan, I agree with them joeglow3 Dec 2014 #33

Then those two states need to take it up with the federal govt. Rex Dec 2014 #35

That is how our legal system works joeglow3 Dec 2014 #36

Like the economic harm Aerows Dec 2014 #46

You are comparing apples and oranges. joeglow3 Dec 2014 #56

The feds has chosen NOT to go after Colorado or Washington in this matter. Just for Fun Dec 2014 #89

Not the way it works. The law still exists until it is overturn. joeglow3 Dec 2014 #104

Please show me economic harm when MJ is already all over your state, joeglow3 Just for Fun Dec 2014 #88

Not my job to prove economic harm joeglow3 Dec 2014 #103

Do you agree with them draining their treasuries Aerows Dec 2014 #45

Gay marriage is not against federal law joeglow3 Dec 2014 #55

It doesn't have to cost those states a single dime. NutmegYankee Dec 2014 #107

Legally, they are obligated to. joeglow3 Dec 2014 #109

I don't see the law enforcement in Colorado doing it. NutmegYankee Dec 2014 #111

Federal govt said they would allow it if 8 conditions were met joeglow3 Dec 2014 #112

No. They shouldn't be responsible for what people do after they buy it. NutmegYankee Dec 2014 #114

Post removed Post removed Dec 2014 #87

Difference is your blind tirade is based on emotion and not law joeglow3 Dec 2014 #101

He had me till the 'r'word. marble falls Dec 2014 #118

I get his personal feelings joeglow3 Dec 2014 #120

Nebraska, really? *cough*WHITECLAY*ahem* Brickbat Dec 2014 #31

Are alcohol sales against Federal law? joeglow3 Dec 2014 #34

No, but jurisdictions where Aerows Dec 2014 #42

I am speaking from a legal standpoint, not an ethical one. joeglow3 Dec 2014 #54

I used to live in Thuston county and we were a mini Whiteclay (Pender, Ne)to the Winnebago Res.... marble falls Dec 2014 #119

Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick, they are dummer than a sack of hammers Major Nikon Dec 2014 #39

Or handling their methheads Just for Fun Dec 2014 #90

"Do you have state's rights and state laws?" Aerows Dec 2014 #40

What about fireworks and strong alcohol? Renew Deal Dec 2014 #43

*ahem* Gay Marriage Aerows Dec 2014 #49

Are fireworks against federal law? How about strong alcohol? joeglow3 Dec 2014 #59

Not anymore.. Just for Fun Dec 2014 #91

It is still against the law joeglow3 Dec 2014 #105

So if this carries...which I don't think it will Horse with no Name Dec 2014 #48

And dozens of other things Aerows Dec 2014 #50

Great point. nt Logical Dec 2014 #52

Are those states violating federal law? joeglow3 Dec 2014 #58

Yes my darling. Horse with no Name Dec 2014 #60

And the law allows them to elect to use the federal exchange joeglow3 Dec 2014 #62

It's just a money-grab. True Blue Door Dec 2014 #61

Colorado should counter-sue Just for Fun Dec 2014 #92

Yup. Make the pricks pay a "WATB tax." True Blue Door Dec 2014 #94

Yeah, bring that shit on you clueless fucks.. SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #63

Hear ye! Hear ye! kentuck Dec 2014 #65

I'll be making my weekly run today at some point.. SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #66

And I'm stuck in New York Just for Fun Dec 2014 #93

Problem is federal law supersedes state law joeglow3 Dec 2014 #67

The Feds have already said they won't SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #70

Then the federal government needs to overturn the law joeglow3 Dec 2014 #71

Yeah they do.. SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #72

What. What a juvenile response joeglow3 Dec 2014 #73

Any and all harm here is fully self inflicted. They are not forced to incur them even if they TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #84

I agree the burden of proof is to show the economic harm joeglow3 Dec 2014 #98

Nobody is making Nebraska incur the expenses even if they can be proven. TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #108

Would you agree colorado has violated federal guidelines to sell pot? joeglow3 Dec 2014 #110

Yes and it is the Federal government that has standing to seek compliance or remedy not Nebraska TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #115

Let me ask you this: What economic harm has Nebraska and Oklahoma been suffering? Just for Fun Dec 2014 #95

Flawed logic. joeglow3 Dec 2014 #99

States like Oklahoma refuse to believe anything trumps their laws. avebury Dec 2014 #83

I never disputed that point joeglow3 Dec 2014 #100

ROFL alcibiades_mystery Dec 2014 #64

what do they want? more Americans Federal money to seize brownies and happy people? Sunlei Dec 2014 #78

But... Turbineguy Dec 2014 #102