Friday, July 27, 2007

Cannabis and schizophrenia

As a courtesy to those who have succumbed to the reefer madness moral panic (which scientists could probably study as a phenomenon in itself), I am linking to this letter, which is a cogent discussion of the issue of overinterpreting studies linking cannabis use and schizophrenia. It's not far from my own position, which is much more sceptical than the screeching, bad journalism that the recent Lancet study has occasioned.

The key issue McLeod et al raise is that the increase in risk identified by metastudies is small, which should lead to caution in attributing it to cannabis, particularly when performing a metastudy of studies with very different methodologies. As I've noted, no study has ever shown a causal link between cannabis smoking and schizophrenia, nor is one ever likely to. The reason should be obvious: we have very little idea what schizophrenia is or how it is caused. It often has its onset in late teens/early twenties, so of course teen dopesmoking is often going to precede its onset. Schizophrenics -- and those with mental disorders as a whole -- are more prone to risky behaviour of all kinds. For instance, they use drugs of all kinds, including alcohol, at a higher rate than the general population. This fact alone should give reefer panickers some pause. Studies of heroin use that used the methodology of some of the studies of cannabis use would conclude that heroin use causes schizophrenia too, because the risk of schizophrenia would be higher in teens that use heroin.

The outcome of the moral panic will be to have cannabis classified as a class B drug. The health argument has simply been coopted to a political end, because those who hate drugs generally do so for political reasons (hating liberalness, in the main, because it is surely my own business if I poison myself) and not for any reasonable concerns about health. Were the health concerns real, the same campaigners would be urging the classification of the dangerous drug ethanol in class B too.

As a statist of sorts, I have no problem at all with regulation of drugs. While I would like to see all drugs legalised, that is not to say I would like them fed to children 24/7. I think the risk to children from legal cannabis -- should the link between it and schizophrenia ever be proven -- is similar to the risk to them of legal ethanol. We do not punish adults for drinking just because that makes booze available to kids.

As in most areas, education is far superior to prohibition. But this will eternally be the difference between the left and the right: the former believes that an informed population can be trusted to make the right choices; the latter that people are inherently childish and must be protected by authority. Strange that we, champions of participation, should be painted as haters of freedom, when we ultimately wish it and encourage it while they try to restrict it.

24 Comments:

At 11:40 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What does this mean?

"As I've noted, no study has ever shown a causal link between cannabis smoking and marijuana, nor is one ever likely to."

 
At 11:53 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More evidence for you to dismiss

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html

 
At 11:57 am, Blogger Dr Zen said...

I am aware of all the studies that links to. You need to read what I wrote. Or have someone read it to you if that's too tough.

 
At 12:11 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Studies from all over the world state there is a link between schizophrenia and weed yet you dismiss every single one of them, why? Because you do not want to believe it obviously. You are fixed and narrow minded.

 
At 12:13 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

I noted that there was a link, Gunt. I am disputing the nature of it. As do McLeod et al. Try reading their letter.

 
At 1:15 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regression models adjusting for observed and non-observed confounding suggested that daily users of cannabis had rates of psychotic symptoms that were between 1.6 and 1.8 times higher (P < 0.001) than non-users of cannabis. Structural equation modelling suggested that these associations reflected the effects of cannabis use on symptom levels rather than the effects of symptom levels on cannabis use.

What is structural equation modelling?

What does this mean?
"As I've noted, no study has ever shown a causal link between cannabis smoking and marijuana, nor is one ever likely to."


It means that while there could be some kind of a link, no study has been able to prove that marijuana is the cause, only that a link exists. As Zen points out, "Schizophrenics -- and those with mental disorders as a whole -- are more prone to risky behaviour of all kinds." Schizophrenia sufferers are known to drink, smoke cigarettes, and use drugs in greater percentages than the rest of the population, but is this because they're afflicted with the disease, or because those things can trigger it? No one knows. They only know that where one is, the other may be, too.

A

 
At 1:27 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

Structural equation modelling is a way of working out whether a causal model fits. The author suggests that one model fits better than another. But it's going to because of the hypothesis that was being tested (IOW, they did not study people with mental illness to see whether they are more likely to smoke cannabis but took a pool of undifferentiated kids).

 
At 7:37 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

boots sez:

Interesting perennial topic.

Funny thing about drug education, it doesn't answer the real questions that are being asked by potential users... "what does it do to your head" being primary. You can educate nearly forever and it's still words. Sure, the potential hazards are clear, but the possibility of door opening remains. The main group of new users seems to be those who are young, looking for answers and meaning in life. They want to know things, know more, understand it all at once. I just don't see drug education as being effective in terms of prevention.

Whatever. Personally I consider THC in its various forms to be harmless in-itself, though like many other substances it can open doors that should perhaps have been left closed.

Schizophrenia is now the major bugaboo, ain't that cute. Yes, I can see how those predisposed toward schizophrenia could have that edge made closer to their feet, certainly THC makes paranoia a more accessible state. But whether it is a cause or simply one of thousands of possible facilitators is another question entirely.

The self-righteous will do what they choose to do, as will we all, and everyone deals with the outcome.

It would, in my opinion, be best for governments to offer a supply of marijuana that potential users can be assured does not contain malathiaon or rat poison or any other chemical garbage. Beyond that, all I'd say is personally I may take a hit if the bong is passed, or not, depending on many factors such as who's passing it.

Government seems to be something definable as an instution that makes decisions for those unable to escape it.

 
At 1:31 am, Blogger Sal said...

Most users seem to smoke cannabis with tobacco; cannabis use can actually lead to initiation of tobacco use, reinforce toxic effects of tobacco, and make abstinence from tobacco more difficult. Moreover, in most jurisdictions, cannabis use exposes young people to risks of criminalisation that could have additional adverse consequences for their health.

OK. Shocking. The problem with cannabis use is that it leads to difficulties from associated tobacco use. An added problem with cannabis use is that it's illegal and so if you use cannabis you (a) have to get it from someone who has it illegally and (b) become a bit inured to the "it's illegal; don't do it" lay of law.

Personally, I think we should legalize drugs, starting with marijuana and leading on to heroin. How much has criminalization of drugs led to oh, say opium growing in Afghanistan and dope growing in NorCal. More dope is grown in NorCal, allegedly, than in the rest of the USA.

Illegal drugs, because of the inherent risks with avoiding legal ensnarement, are more expensive than the same drugs would be if they were legal. The competition from homegrown backyard crops would bring down the price even further.

Legalize the drugs. Provide the drugs to people who become addicted. Keep them out of my neighbor's house, stealing his big screen TV. (My TV's an little 15-incher and no one seems to want to steal it.)

We have a growing problem here with gangs fighting over turf, fueled by the drug trade in a given area and who's controlling it at any point in time. We have criminally (literally, the federal judges are considering sanctions) overcrowded prisons with a governor who thinks the solution is to build more. Question is, how many people are in the prisons either directly (caught selling or holding) or indirectly (gangs, thefts, robbery to raise money to buy drugs) due to illegal drugs.

The Congress is yammering on now about the farm subsidies bill. The biggest subsidy existing in this country is the help the feds and states give to the folks who act as middlemen for the illegal drug users, jacking up the prices far beyond what they would be if Joe Farmer, raising weed in Weed, CA, could come down to the farmers market with his crop.

Decriminalize drug use. Disembowel the criminal enterprise that's wrapped its tentacles around the marketplace. Provide aid when the drug use becomes a medical problem, just as we do for alcoholics. Get rid of this homebrew, violent business that wreaks such havoc on our population.

 
At 3:49 am, Blogger blurbees said...

www.youtube.com/citizenchong

 
At 5:01 am, Blogger The Janitor said...

[formerly posted as "efflux"]

"But this will eternally be the difference between the left and the right: the former believes that an informed population can be trusted to make the right choices; the latter that people are inherently childish and must be protected by authority."

I'm not sure how broadly you mean it, but this seems a little too sweeping of a statement. There are some issues (say the issue of gun control in the US) where there is a clear switching between the left and the right of the roles you have identified. There are other areas as well where I'd believe that the left would be be much more likely to favor regulation... but it's a bit difficult to extract because the statement seems to have conflated a few ideas (all of which it seems to be simultaneously asserting).

I don't mean to particularly pounce on this, though; it does seem *nearly* correct. The generalization is nonetheless hasty.

 
At 8:04 am, Blogger Dr Zen said...

It's a theme, not a law, dude, and it clearly conflicts with the Rousseauian theme that the communal will is superior to the individual will, which leads leftists to be statists and rightists to be fuckyoujackI'mallrightists.

 
At 11:56 am, Blogger Sal said...

re www.youtube.com/citizenchong

You can legalize drugs and criminalize um. dopers driving while they're under the influence. We do that with alcohol these days.

But say, Tommy wants to toke up on his deck. He's home. He's not driving. Why should we criminalize that?

I think the Puritan ethic in this country has a lot to answer for.

(... and no, I haven't smoked dope or dropped acid since the seventies, and boy, am I hoping the laws change some time in the next decade or so because it would make my twilight years so much mellower ...)

 
At 1:06 pm, Blogger blurbees said...

yes, i agree, Sal, but what a fucking idiot that Tommy Chong is, huh?

driving while stoned, apparently.

and getting into an accident, on top of it.

and then... YouTubing it, FFS.

i suppose that shows the effects of longterm dope smoking better than anything else that the loony puritans could ever possibly hope for.

 
At 1:15 pm, Blogger blurbees said...

BTW, your link formatting is as bad as Father Lukes.

 
At 1:43 pm, Blogger The Janitor said...

Zen:

Sorry, then, to have not quite parroted you close enough for your comfort, you touchy person.

I'm glad to see that you've focused you point, so I can more easily address it. As I've said, you had conflated several ideas, the least of which being attitudes towards education.

Moving then, to the issue of the communal versus the individual will:

My point is exactly that there's not even a tendency of the traditionally left or right political ideologies to follow along either of these lines. Your very example demonstrates it. You claim the left tends to be statists, yet in the case of "reefer madness" it is traditionally the right seeking state intervention in the name of the common good. The crux of the matter is that both the "right" and the "left" seek "protection by authority" for their particular causes (the one, gun control, environmental protection, consumer rights--the other, sexual taboos, reefer, abortion). Let's not begin to touch commerce regulations or handling of inmates. This theme you have identified weaves in and out of just about any political ideology (except perhaps libertarianism--which you should not confuse for liberalism), answering the question of statism one way for a particular issue, and the converse for others.

Furthermore, what exactly you mean "clearly conflicts with the Rousseauian theme", I don't have a clue. As it reads, one would think that either it's being a "theme, not a law" does or "the theme" does, which again "the theme" is at best there being an "eternal difference..." (funny how eternal difference is watered to "theme", isn't it--but, hey I suppose it's all for rhetorical effect, anyways, so why the hell should I expect you to mean what you say?). But how the existence of the eternal difference "conflicts" with anything I can't gather. Sure, it's probably not what you mean, but whatever you mean you sure as hell haven't said it.

I'd like to be a little more polite when on your blog, bud, but you sure do make it difficult.

 
At 2:16 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

"Sorry, then, to have not quite parroted you close enough for your comfort, you touchy person."

I like parrots.

"I'm glad to see that you've focused you point, so I can more easily address it. As I've said, you had conflated several ideas, the least of which being attitudes towards education."

Conflating ideas is the mark of a master writer. Getting confused about ideas is the mark of a poor reader.

Let's see.

"Moving then, to the issue of the communal versus the individual will:

My point is exactly that there's not even a tendency of the traditionally left or right political ideologies to follow along either of these lines."

You are simply wrong. That's an astonishingly wrong thing to say, actually.

"Your very example demonstrates it. "

You what?

"You claim the left tends to be statists, yet in the case of "reefer madness" it is traditionally the right seeking state intervention in the name of the common good."

No, in the name of the morality they personally ascribe to. The right does not care about "the common good" and often agitates for legislation that is not in the common good but serves narrow interests.

"The crux of the matter is that both the "right" and the "left" seek "protection by authority" for their particular causes (the one, gun control, environmental protection, consumer rights--the other, sexual taboos, reefer, abortion)."

This is a very poor analysis of how politics actually is. It sounds a lot like the Beltway journos' take on the political debate.

Think for a minute before answering. Gun control, environmental protection, consumer rights: these are all issues that affect the common people. The left takes positions that favour the common people.

Abortion, sexual taboos, reefer: these are all issues of personal or religious morality, which the left generally prefers to leave to the individual.

The only reason you can consider gun control to be an outlier is that you see it as a freedom issue, a matter of choice (no one outside America in the West would see it this way, maybe you're not aware). The left sees it as a matter of protecting the many from the few, which is the business of the state.

Dude, think. Stopping you from smoking reefer has the aim of preventing you from doing something I personally disapprove of but harms no one but yourself. Stopping you from having a gun has the aim of preventing you from harming others.

The left does not want to control guns because it has a distaste for guns.

"Let's not begin to touch commerce regulations or handling of inmates. "

Well, let's, if you think they'll help your very thin case, which I've just blown to pieces.

"This theme you have identified weaves in and out of just about any political ideology"

I have shown you to be incorrect, and if I had time, I would write you a long post that clearly showed it further. It's ridiculous to claim that both sides simply push personal issues with no underlying ideological theme.

"(except perhaps libertarianism--which you should not confuse for liberalism)"

I do not confuse libertarianism with liberalism, because for me, libertarians are simply rightists who hate authority and liberals are what intelligent, thinking people inevitably turn into.

"answering the question of statism one way for a particular issue, and the converse for others."

Dude, this simply isn't true, and perhaps shows a lack of understanding of what statism is.

If you were arguing that authoritarian systems are more statist than social democracies, then yes, that's true. Statism is a feature of the left, not its exclusive preserve. But rightists are more generally opposed to state intervention than for it, and generally only favour it in terms of imposing their personal morality on others.

"Furthermore, what exactly you mean "clearly conflicts with the Rousseauian theme", I don't have a clue."

Well, that's not my problem. Perhaps you should go and read Rousseau and it will become clear.

"As it reads, one would think that either it's being a "theme, not a law" does or "the theme" does"

This theme conflicts with the other, as that clearly says in English.

"which again "the theme" is at best there being an "eternal difference..." (funny how eternal difference is watered to "theme", isn't it"

They are not antonymous, dude. It is an eternal difference generally speaking -- thematically, IOW -- but it does not hold in every instance.

In science, one would say x tends to y, not that x is always y. But that x always and everywhere tends to y can be true without having to say that x is always y.

"--but, hey I suppose it's all for rhetorical effect, anyways, so why the hell should I expect you to mean what you say?"

Dude, it's the big difference between left and right. That doesn't say that on every single issue they will split on these lines, but that generally they do.

Because you tried to argue that I had said that it would always be the case that they differed in this way, which of course I had not, I explained that it was a theme, not a law. I'm mystified that you struggle to understand what I meant by that.

A theme is something recurrent, something that occurs over and over, and more generally speaking, something that characterises a thing. It's what a thing is about.

But of course ideologies, or political standpoints, are too complex to be included entirely in unitary themes. There are going to be outliers, particularly when one considers that whether a position fits the theme is sometimes a matter of interpretation.

This is rather like Don's saying "I'm not a rightist because I think pot should be legalised". I would answer him in the same way. He thinks he's disproving a law, but I have identified a theme, not a law. Ideologies do not come with checklists.

"But how the existence of the eternal difference "conflicts" with anything I can't gather."

The theme is that the left trusts individuals to make choices. This clearly conflicts with the idea that the general will is superior to the individual will. If you can't see why, I'm not sure that I can help you, because it's elementary.

"Sure, it's probably not what you mean, but whatever you mean you sure as hell haven't said it."

You mean you didn't hear it. That's different.

"I'd like to be a little more polite when on your blog, bud, but you sure do make it difficult."

I don't care about politeness. Feel free to be as rude as you like. I'd suggest not being so witless though, because that's not going to bring the rewards you hope for.

 
At 4:21 pm, Blogger The Janitor said...

Well, if point-by-point response is what this has devolved to, then so be it.
--

"I like parrots."
What's bad is you don't stand for much else.


"Conflating ideas is the mark of a master writer. Getting confused about ideas is the mark of a poor reader."

This is absurd. You and your "marks" of greatness. You have put together multiple ideas that do not belong together and abused them.

[snip]

""Your very example demonstrates it. ""

"You what?"
I'm sorry? What is the question?

"""You claim the left tends to be statists, yet in the case of "reefer madness" it is traditionally the right seeking state intervention in the name of the common good."

"No, in the name of the morality they personally ascribe to. The right does not care about 'the common good' and often agitates for legislation that is not in the common good but serves narrow interests."

Eeh. This is another abuse of sticking two ideas together that don't belong. Are we speaking about ideologies or the people that espouse them? And amongst those that espouse them, I imagine that we'd see both those seeking narrow interests and those that seek broader ones. No matter how wrongly the "Right" so often goes, I don't doubt for a second that there are many convinced that they act in a way to establish a greater social order.


""The crux of the matter is that both the "right" and the "left" seek "protection by authority" for their particular causes (the one, gun control, environmental protection, consumer rights--the other, sexual taboos, reefer, abortion)."

"This is a very poor analysis of how politics actually is. It sounds a lot like the Beltway journos' take on the political debate."

It's certainly a slip-shod analysis, I don't claim otherwise, but it is not a hair worse than yours! What I'm cautioning you against is making such broad generalizations about what you clearly don't know. Even such a fool as I am can see through it.

"Think for a minute before answering. Gun control, environmental protection, consumer rights: these are all issues that affect the common people. The left takes positions that favour the common people.

"Abortion, sexual taboos, reefer: these are all issues of personal or religious morality, which the left generally prefers to leave to the individual."

WTF? So we are contrasting "the left tak[ing] positions that favor the common people" with the right taking up issues of common morality? These are not mutually exclusive! Not that this even matters for my point to hold--the condition needed is actually far weaker--they only need not be mutually exclusive by the point of view of one of the ideologies in question.

"The only reason you can consider gun control to be an outlier is that you see it as a freedom issue"

No. Others see it as a freedom issue. I'm pro-control. But don't you see? That's the point. It hardly matters what I see as being the issue when what is being discussed is how an ideology comes down on the issue of statism (or, yet again, the issue of the common will). It is their rationale that matters for *that* question, no matter how fucking demented it is. Be a little clearer what it is you are addressing, eh?

"...a matter of choice (no one outside America in the West would see it this way, maybe you're not aware). The left sees it as a matter of protecting the many from the few, which is the business of the state."
And is the (albeit ridiculous) debate in America on gay marriage not the Right's attempt at protecting the many from the few, via the state?

"Dude, think. Stopping you from smoking reefer has the aim of preventing you from doing something I personally disapprove of but harms no one but yourself. Stopping you from having a gun has the aim of preventing you from harming others."

You are so on the wrong track. The correctness of the viewpoint isn't at issue. It is amazing that you seem unable to allow for the briefest moment that someone even *possesses* a differing viewpoint.


[snip]

"It's ridiculous to claim that both sides simply push personal issues with no underlying ideological theme."
I've done no such thing. I've simple said that the *particular* theme that you've identified doesn't fall nicely along the right/left allegiances at the present time.

[snip]

"I do not confuse libertarianism with liberalism, because for me, libertarians are simply rightists who hate authority and liberals are what intelligent, thinking people inevitably turn into."

This is a point that I can generally agree with.


""answering the question of statism one way for a particular issue, and the converse for others.""

"Dude, this simply isn't true, and perhaps shows a lack of understanding of what statism is.

If you were arguing that authoritarian systems are more statist than social democracies, then yes, that's true. Statism is a feature of the left, not its exclusive preserve. But rightists are more generally opposed to state intervention than for it, and generally only favour it in terms of imposing their personal morality on others."

Nice hand waving. The right "generally only favour it in terms of imposing their personal morality on others." That's a trick I need to learn. You dismiss that imposing one's personal morality on others can be an exhibition of statism, while simultaneously denying the possibility that the right's idea of morality can in any way connect with their idea of the good of society. What's key is that you've forced "personal" where (in the mind of a rightist) it doesn't belong.

""Furthermore, what exactly you mean "clearly conflicts with the Rousseauian theme", I don't have a clue."

"Well, that's not my problem. Perhaps you should go and read Rousseau and it will become clear."

I have read Rousseau, thank you very much. As much as you like to protest otherwise, your writing isn't always immediately clear. What exactly you meant to be the precendents for all the damn "it"s was a bit of a problem.

""As it reads, one would think that either it's being a "theme, not a law" does or "the theme" does"

This theme conflicts with the other, as that clearly says in English."

"It's a theme, not a law, dude, and it clearly conflicts with the Rousseauian theme that the communal will is superior to the individual will, which leads leftists to be statists and rightists to be fuckyoujackI'mallrightists."
Does not clearly state anything, not even in dickese.
Problem 1) is your use of "it". What you meant as a theme, what you meant conflicts. (It could indeed have meant "it's a theme, not a law" that conflicts. Generally, such ambiguities can be resolved as usually one alternative tends to make more sense. Sense here, however, is all around lacking; rendering that quite impossible).
Problem 2) is "Which", which could mean any number of things (the Rousseauian theme, the conflict, god knows?)

""which again "the theme" is at best there being an "eternal difference..." (funny how eternal difference is watered to "theme", isn't it"

"They are not antonymous, dude. It is an eternal difference generally speaking -- thematically, IOW -- but it does not hold in every instance."

this is disingenuous. Even you know there is a difference in their intensity.
Oh, and, being watered down and being antonymous are not synonymous, dude.

"In science, one would say x tends to y, not that x is always y. But that x always and everywhere tends to y can be true without having to say that x is always y."

Science, dude, is far more precise than this. "Tends to" would have a measure.

""--but, hey I suppose it's all for rhetorical effect, anyways, so why the hell should I expect you to mean what you say?"

"Dude, it's the big difference between left and right. That doesn't say that on every single issue they will split on these lines, but that generally they do.

Because you tried to argue that I had said that it would always be the case that they differed in this way, which of course I had not, I explained that it was a theme, not a law. I'm mystified that you struggle to understand what I meant by that."

I'm mystified that you fail to understand that my point goes much further (regardless of what you did in fact initially say). The only theme is the one you imposed.

"A theme is something recurrent, something that occurs over and over, and more generally speaking, something that characterises a thing. It's what a thing is about.

But of course ideologies, or political standpoints, are too complex to be included entirely in unitary themes. There are going to be outliers, particularly when one considers that whether a position fits the theme is sometimes a matter of interpretation."

Jesus Christ. Outliers. They are only outliers because *you* have marginalized them and ignored the rest. The theme you have chosen is a particularly bad fit, and you should realize that.

"This is rather like Don's saying "I'm not a rightist because I think pot should be legalised". I would answer him in the same way. He thinks he's disproving a law, but I have identified a theme, not a law. Ideologies do not come with checklists."

Do not come with checklists? Who is the one attempting to identify a measure that the right/left follows? I am surely not!

""But how the existence of the eternal difference "conflicts" with anything I can't gather."

"The theme is that the left trusts individuals to make choices. This clearly conflicts with the idea that the general will is superior to the individual will. If you can't see why, I'm not sure that I can help you, because it's elementary."

Taking this paragraph on it's own, it is clear what you mean. Unfortunately, it directly contradicts with your assertion that the left "tends to be statists". Please explain to me, however elementary it might be, however low your almighty must stoop to do so, how statists trust the indivuals to make choices. It would be much appreciated, because, I tell you, I'm not seeing it.

""Sure, it's probably not what you mean, but whatever you mean you sure as hell haven't said it."

"You mean you didn't hear it. That's different."

No, I mean that you haven't said it. Whether or not it was there to be heard is a quite different question that what I meant. This is a distinction you consistently have failed to recognize.

""I'd like to be a little more polite when on your blog, bud, but you sure do make it difficult."

"I don't care about politeness. Feel free to be as rude as you like. I'd suggest not being so witless though, because that's not going to bring the rewards you hope for."

You know, you probably don't care about politeness. I doubt you'd care if I called you a cunt as long as I said you were right. Well, you, your gracious, are dead wrong.

 
At 2:26 am, Blogger Sal said...

BTW, your link formatting is as bad as Father Lukes.

Mea culpa. Seldom happens. I'd put the link in brackets and then realized it wouldn't show up with the way the comments work and swopped to href and left things slithery.

Still was a pretty blue color, though, wasn't it? and the only person who can fix it is Zen. (Pretty please, Zen?)

Tommy has blissed his mind away as surely as Lindsay Lohan or any other long term heavy user of almost any mind altering drug. Sometimes people straighten their heads before they fall to far into the rabbit hole, sometimes not.

The more cynical amongst us say, "Supply them with their drugs. Cheaper that way. They'll die young and Social Security will stay solvent."

Take the car keys away, though. Don't leave children in their care. Don't let them operate heavy machinery or endanger others.

 
At 7:03 am, Blogger Arleen said...

(... am I hoping the laws change some time in the next decade or so because it would make my twilight years so much mellower ...)

LOL! Here, here!

 
At 12:21 pm, Anonymous bickerfest blurbees said...

Sal: Still was a pretty blue color, though, wasn't it?

oh yes.

very pretty.

and the only person who can fix it is Zen. (Pretty please, Zen?)

Zen has access to edit blogger comments?

he can delete them, yes. but can he edit them too?

do you guys have better blogger admin access than the rest of us poor folk?

say it isn't so.

 
At 12:24 pm, Blogger Dr Zen said...

It isn't so. Blogger doesn't permit editing comments. There used to be a workaround but it doesn't work in the new version.

 
At 2:51 pm, Blogger Sal said...

Blogger doesn't permit editing comments.

Oh. Too bad. HaloScan allows the blog owner to edit comments, so when someone (that would be me) leaves a screwy link, the blog owner can fix the href.

Oh. Well.

 
At 3:32 pm, Blogger blurbees said...

Sal:

HaloScan allows the blog owner to edit comments,

that's cool.

but does it alert the comment maker that their comment has been altered?

that would be cool. and right.

anyway, haloscan used to be the default comment thinger for blogger/blogspot.

i remember because one day on one of my old blogs, all of the haloscan comments just up and disappeared. and, IINM, i think that blog still uses the haloscan comments thinger.

what a bitch it is to have all your e-stuff zapped like that -- with no recourse whatsoever.

only in the oughties.

they never did name this silly decade yet, did they?

what slackers we've all become.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home