![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 36 to 60 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by stjames on August 19, 2003, at 10:57:21
In reply to Lou's response to NikkiT2's post- RU, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 10:41:03
In the US, a psychiatrist is respected above football players and race-car drivers and rock musicians.
In 20 years I have seen 3 pdocs. None of them
had a problem with me smoking MJ.
Posted by zenhussy on August 19, 2003, at 10:58:26
In reply to Lou's reply to wendy b's post BD » wendy b., posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 8:05:50
...you continue on with your same propagandist viewpoint.
You refuse to even look at medical information regarding the usage of cannabis.
Any reason you choose to engage with other posters and ignore the information I *provided* for *YOU*? I posted that information so that you could rejoin this discussion armed with a more balanced look at the true issue of medicinal cannabis vs. the losing war on drugs.
I am not offended if you choose not to inform yourself of the facts before you continue on in your stance. It just shows a lack of respect for your fellow posters that you think so little of them to not even read what they have to say.
I too wonder along with Nikki as to why you return to this site after your lengthy blocks when it seems to bring about so much strife in your life? You, along with every other poster here, has the right to come here and play by Dr. Bob's rules.
Sometimes we try to change those rules to no avail and other times Dr. Bob surprises us and actually implements a change that was brought up by posters. (gasp! sorry Bob but the rarity of that brings about the gasp.)
But if by and large your usage of this site requires you to run in circles with your endless "please clarify what you meant" to other posters so that no true discourse takes place, I truly wonder how this site is useful to you.
Peace and good luck in this world Lou. You fight a tough battle.
zen
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 19, 2003, at 11:06:09
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post- RU, posted by stjames on August 19, 2003, at 10:57:21
Ah... but have you seen a Football player that has no problem with it??!! ;)
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 11:10:43
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post- RU, posted by stjames on August 19, 2003, at 10:57:21
stjames,
You wrote,[...20 years...none of my 3 psychiatrists had a problem with me smoking pot...].
The diagnosic manual of psychiatry does not accept the use of MJ products and describes the behavior of such. The fact that thses psychiatrists of yours have seen no problem with your use of MJ does not mean that it is accepted by the psychiatric community, for their manual describes such.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 19, 2003, at 11:18:17
In reply to Lou's response to stjames's post- psypot, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 11:10:43
I have seen 5 psychiatrists, and 2 psychologists. neither of these have had any problem with my smoking either.
neither have the 4 GP's I have seen.
Their manual may not say it is "authorised".. but it does seem individual psychiatrists have no problem with it.
Posted by zenhussy on August 19, 2003, at 11:37:00
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjames's post- psypot » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on August 19, 2003, at 11:18:17
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 11:37:40
In reply to Re: Lou's response to stjames's post- psypot » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on August 19, 2003, at 11:18:17
NikkiT2,
There may be a general acceptance to the use of MJ by some mental health professionals. But I believe that the acceptance of such is not to be equated with any concept that MJ is not harmfull and thearfore I am objecting to this site allowing posters to write of their illegal drug use and I am seeking change. I would like to see DR. Bob write after a post about illegal drug use by a poster something like this:
[...please do not write of your illegal drug use here...]
or
[...I know you like smoking pot, but our young people could be influanced to also do so by your acceptance of it, and I would not want our young people to statrt using illegal drugs...]
or
[...I as a psychiatrist do not endorse the use of illegal drugs including MJ and I am asking you to post somewhere else about your use of MJ...].
or
[...please do not advocate the breaking of laws in any way here...]
or
[...marajuana has been linked to serious psychiatric disorders and I would rather you not advocate that use of such in any way here...]
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 19, 2003, at 11:51:07
In reply to Lou's response to NikkiT2's post- psypot OK » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 11:37:40
I would be happy with this as long as it also covers all medication obtained without a prescription (Dr Bob doesn;t allow talk of how to obtain it, but he does of how to take it), of Alcohol (which causes many many psychiatric illnesses, addiction only on of them), ciggerattes as they cause cancer, glue as you can get high off that, the internet as you can be psychologically addicted to that, gas for the car (as people can die of asthma caused my pollution).. the list is endless.
I now bow out of this conversation. I will not be online again for maybe a week.
Nikki
Posted by shar on August 19, 2003, at 11:54:52
In reply to Lou's reply to wendy b's post BD » wendy b., posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 8:05:50
Posted by shar on August 19, 2003, at 12:13:58
In reply to Lou's response to Shar's post-PT2 » shar, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 9:16:56
> Shar,
> You wrote that you agreed with me about teens emulating heros.
> In today's society, the psychiatrist is held in the highest esteem by our society with the exception of, perhaps, a veternarian.......Lou, I would appreciate it if you could provide some empirical evidence that supports your claim that psychiatrists (and/or vets) are held in higher esteem by young people than celebrities, rock stars, movie stars, peers, garage bands, etc., and kids are more likely to be influenced by them to use drugs if they allow a discussion of drug use to take place.
.........And, I would appreciate some evidence (empirical, preferably, instead of personal) that NOT talking about drugs and suppressing information is more likely to prevent drug use than talking about drugs.
........I would also appreciate knowing if you differentiate between allowing a discussion to take place, and encouraging drug use?
........And, finally, I'd like to know your opinion about the fact that kids can die if they don't have accurate information about drugs. (It goes without saying that if information is suppressed, they won't have accurate information.) Given that suppression of information can lead to death or overdose or other bad things, how is that better than allowing discussions? Even discussions that DON"T encourage drug use, but merely mention it?
Thank you!
Shar
>
Posted by shar on August 19, 2003, at 12:20:57
In reply to Lou's response to NikkiT2's post- psypot OK » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 11:37:40
Lou,
I think it is so great and exciting that we live in a country, and have access to a website where we can openly state our preferences about what ought to be on it.And, others can disagree with those preferences, or believe they will do more harm than good, and say so.
Freedom of speech is such a blessing, and I'm grateful we have a forum for this.
Shar
> NikkiT2,
> There may be a general acceptance to the use of MJ by some mental health professionals. But I believe that the acceptance of such is not to be equated with any concept that MJ is not harmfull and thearfore I am objecting to this site allowing posters to write of their illegal drug use and I am seeking change. I would like to see DR. Bob write after a post about illegal drug use by a poster something like this:
> [...please do not write of your illegal drug use here...]
> or
> [...I know you like smoking pot, but our young people could be influanced to also do so by your acceptance of it, and I would not want our young people to statrt using illegal drugs...]
> or
> [...I as a psychiatrist do not endorse the use of illegal drugs including MJ and I am asking you to post somewhere else about your use of MJ...].
> or
> [...please do not advocate the breaking of laws in any way here...]
> or
> [...marajuana has been linked to serious psychiatric disorders and I would rather you not advocate that use of such in any way here...]
> Lou
>
>
Posted by stjames on August 19, 2003, at 13:08:49
In reply to Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-SMJ, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 8:39:57
The psychiatric manual describes this behavior.
Don't judge or cause others to feel put down.
and if people use an illegal drug on a regular basis, they would either have to go out each day and find someone to get the drug from, or have an amount handy that could last them many days or weeks or such. This could mean that the user would buy more than the amount that would be punishable by a fine, and could lead them to but ,perhaps, the amount that could land them in prison, even though they only smoked a small amount.Everyday ? Possision of under on ounce is a
misdemeanor & an ounce lasst for than several days.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 13:30:55
In reply to Re: Lou's response to NikkiT2's post-SMJ, posted by stjames on August 19, 2003, at 13:08:49
stjames,
You wrote,[...poosession under an ounce is a misdemeanor and an ounce lasts for several days....].
A misdemeanor is a crime that could be punished by a jail term. An ounce could last for a period of time that is determined by how much is used by the user. A user could buy many ounces and be subjected to harsher penaltys if caught, even though they may only smoke less than an ounce a day.
Here is another case that I know about.
A man was on probation for a minor offense that was not drug related. He then was arrested for possession of a minimal amount of MJ that carried a fine. But since he was on probation, he was charged with [probation violation] and that was punishable severly.
You see, I come here to help those that are not using illegal drugs to be informed of the traps that could put them in prison as a result of them using illegal drugs so that they can make an informed decision as to whether or not to use illegal drugs. I do not believe that an internet site, particularly one run by a psychiatrist, can allow posters to write about their illegal drug use. It is fine to discuss the pros and cons about anything, but there is a difference between talking about MJ and writing about their illegal use of it.
Lou
Posted by zenhussy on August 19, 2003, at 13:33:54
In reply to Lou's response to stjame's post-~lgl, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 13:30:55
I think that any discussion any of us had hoped would transpire here is obviously not occuring.
Anyone wish to join me in leaving this thread to die a natural and much needed death?
zenhussy
Posted by stjames on August 19, 2003, at 13:49:04
In reply to st james, shar, nikki, et al, posted by zenhussy on August 19, 2003, at 13:33:54
What A good idea !
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 13:49:55
In reply to God Bless America!! » Lou Pilder, posted by shar on August 19, 2003, at 12:20:57
Shar,
You wrote,[freedom of speech...I'm greatfull we have a forum for this...].
Freedom of speech and advocating the breaking of laws have to be looked at in the following light.
I beleive that it would be fine for people hear to talk about the pros and cons of the use of illegal drugs in relation to freeedom of speech. What I have been writing about in this thread is about the rules of the board that say that the site is not to be used to failitate any illegasl activities. So I would propose the following:
It would be OK to write:
MJ has good medicinal use for chemotherapy and gloucoma sufferers.
MJ causes distorted thinking
MJ has some anti- anxiety properties
It would not be OK to write:
You should try MJ to see if it is good for you
My psychiatrist says that MJ is OK to smoke
MJ is accepted by psychiatrists
and other relevant posts.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 19, 2003, at 17:19:26
In reply to Re: God Bless America!! » shar, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 13:49:55
One final word.. I may not pick up the rpely...
"You should try MJ to see if it is good for you
"Please let us know who said this, and please quote them, and add a URL.
Nikki
Posted by allisonm on August 19, 2003, at 19:55:45
In reply to Lou's request for a determination, posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2003, at 20:47:43
Everyone has heard this before, but I will offer it up anyway:
If someone in this community finds that particular threads or posts by particular authors upset them, I would suggest that they not read them. If they must read them because they cannot help themselves, then I suggest that they do not respond. When people respond to threads such as this one, it causes a back and forth that can be even more upsetting to some.
In the last few years, I have chosen not to read many posts for the above reasons. It's not worth the aggravation, energy, misspent emotion, etc. And I would like to think that if responses are not made to posts that some might consider upsetting, the upsetting posts might decrease.
Your choice, your energy spent, your sleepless night.
"In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments -- there are consequences." -- R.J. Ingersoll
Allison
Posted by Dinah on August 19, 2003, at 20:17:59
In reply to Re: God Bless America!! » shar, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 13:49:55
I'm not sure if you're still reading the Faith board, but I posted to you there.
I'd like to hear how you've been doing as well, and would be happy to carry on that discussion at Social.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2003, at 22:26:09
In reply to Lou--educated yourself on this subject before..., posted by zenhussy on August 19, 2003, at 10:58:26
> Your feelings are important here but your moral compass is not the one and only one so please refrain from trying to chart the course for the entire babblers based on your "feelings".
I'd like people to feel free to give me feedback and suggestions...
> Just read instead of asking for others to supply information for you.
And to ask others for information.
> please bring a bit more than anti drug propaganda to the discussion.
> You need to be a bit more informed before tossing about such stale propaganda.
> ...you continue on with your same propagandist viewpoint.
>
> It just shows a lack of respect for your fellow posters
>
> your usage of this site requires you to run in circlesPlease don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked, it was for 2 weeks, and I'm trying out a new way of determining the length of blocks:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030508/msgs/247960.html
so this time I'm going to make it for 6.
Bob
Posted by shar on August 19, 2003, at 22:26:12
In reply to Re: God Bless America!! » shar, posted by Lou Pilder on August 19, 2003, at 13:49:55
> Shar,
> You wrote,[freedom of speech...I'm greatfull we have a forum for this...].
> Freedom of speech and advocating the breaking of laws........ah, you've changed what I said. I simply was praising how wonderful it was to be able to engage in free speech, which, of course, includes disagreeing with the ideas of others.
> have to be looked at in the following light.
.......well, they don't HAVE to be looked at that way, but some people might want to look at it that way...
> I beleive that it would be fine for people hear to talk about the pros and cons of the use of illegal drugs in relation to freeedom of speech.
........that's nice. But, again, I wasn't talking about free speech in relation to using any kind of medication or drug. Just the fact that we may speak freely. Period.
>What I have been writing about in this thread is about the rules of the board that say that the site is not to be used to failitate any illegasl activities. So I would propose the following:
> It would be OK to write:
> MJ has good medicinal use for chemotherapy and gloucoma sufferers.......and for other diseases and conditions, as well, to be accurate...
> MJ causes distorted thinking
> MJ has some anti- anxiety properties> It would not be OK to write:
> You should try MJ to see if it is good for you
> My psychiatrist says that MJ is OK to smoke
> MJ is accepted by psychiatrists.....Again, due to free speech in general, you can write about what you think should be happening here. What people should and should not be allowed to say. Your ideas, opinions, etc. that you believe would improve the site. That's great.
........And, due to the same freedom of speech, others can completely disagree with you, hold different opinions, believe your ideas may harm others, or whatever.
So........God bless America!
Shar
> and other relevant posts.
> Lou
>
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2003, at 22:29:33
In reply to Lou's request for a determination, posted by Lou Pilder on August 18, 2003, at 20:47:43
> The following posters are portrying that they use marijuana, AKA, MJ.
> I am asking you to determine if their posts violate the code that you have established here, for you write,[...this site should not be used to facilitate any illegal activities...].By "facilitate", I mean more directly, by telling them where to buy MJ or something like that.
> there is great evidence that MJ is a very harmful drug
The board for issues like that is Psycho-Babble, so I'd like follow-ups regarding that topic to be redirected there.
Bob
Posted by shar on August 19, 2003, at 22:48:21
In reply to st james, shar, nikki, et al, posted by zenhussy on August 19, 2003, at 13:33:54
Yes, Zen, you are right--it's time to leave this thread. And, for me to avoid any further threads along these lines.
I hate it you were blocked, and I think it is for way too long. I've re-learned my lesson about passing up threads that I know will only hurt me and others.
I'll miss you!
Shar
Posted by paxvox on August 20, 2003, at 16:39:46
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » zenhussy, posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2003, at 22:26:09
Dr. Bob. I think, perhaps, that your block of Zen was a bit too harsh. I understand that you are in the process of revising your "blocking procedures", but I think ZH was the wrong one to impose such strict application against. I REALLY understand that the administration of these boards is a SERIOUSLY difficult and time-consuming process. Therefore,I would like to offer my services, much like you have used Dinah, to assist you in monitoring the boards. True, I know that I have been "blocked" myself from time to time. But I feel that THAT actually gives me a higher level of objectivity, as no one could say "he never has blocked Pax!". Anyway, just thought I would make the offer, you can be the judge of my ability to administer your guidelines. So, please do let me know if I can be of assistance to you.
PAX
Posted by jay on August 26, 2003, at 16:14:20
In reply to Pot, etc., posted by shar on August 18, 2003, at 23:24:37
Just to note, I think we must start taking into account different laws and cultrual norms in different countries. As my fellow Canucks know, possession of small quantaties of pot are not a *criminal* offence (well..in a number of provinces anyways...but it is being put through our federal government as I write this.) Similar types of laws can be found in Australia and many European countries. We also must not be 'ethnocentric', in that many practices and laws around the world are often quite different than America's. Yes, I *know* it is a private website, but I am sure Doc Bob understands the importance as a social scientist of not being ethnocentric. (And no...I am not saying he nor anybody is..:-)
Jay
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.