My answer to the woman didn't say to stop taking chemical meds. I gave my opinion that pot can help, and advised she check with a doctor (in case of adverse interaction).

You are dispensing advice. In effect, you are advising people to rely upon the prescribing doctor, and disregard all other sources of information. That nobody else has a right to say their opinion, no matter how much they have experienced or studied independently. You advise people to not listen to my advice, but offer no evidence to refute it. How do you know that MDs are the only ones qualified to have good opinions on this matter? How are you qualified to make that judgment?

The lady knew that none of the panelists are medical doctors. Yet she still valued our opinion. You disagree with her evaluation.
That's fine--for you. Nobody is coercing you to seek advice from non-MDs. Before you intervene in other peoples' interactions, why not meditate on your own affairs? Or at least contribute something of practical value to the conversation.

You don't know how I would react to research indicating negative side effects of weed. Why not do so, and know, instead of guessing? I might acknowledge negative side effects, but maintain they are minor relative to the benefits.

To say that people "need" to stabilize (with harsh chemicals) presumes a moral judgment. Who are you to say that people should take great risk, just to totally suppress their bi-polarism?
The world would be much worse off, without the contributions achieved in the manic phase.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease,
and people need to hear that. Pot may not totally dispel bi-polarism, but certainly can moderate it, and at much lower risk than the chemicals.

I've never heard of pot creating side effects like the ones listed for valproic acid. If there were such research, likely I would have heard of it by now (at the age of 60). Logic requires that you provide such evidence to support your charge that I gave bad advice. If you were to say that my advice "might" be bad, that would say nothing, since I have proven that "expert" advice has been bad in the past while you have proven nothing. Advice from anybody (except your mythical god-figure) "might" be bad.

I already tried sending Michelle my recent thoughts (post 9/11) but she didn't reply.
Though I still think the republicans were wrong to impeach Clinton over Monica Lewinski. (Bill is much better than Hillary, as a political leader and a person.)

I think Michelle is happier in DC, it's closer to TV studios in NYC. She makes a lot of appearances on Fox channel. Even Palin is on there now. Unfortunately I have just basic cable, but there are some highlights of Fox foxes on YouTube.

Yes, Seattle residents are a unique breed.
Many have moved here after doing research on desirability of weather and ecology. So there is a sifting process, a selection in favor of rationality. Seattle is large enough for bigtown amenities (world-class manufacturing, shopping, opera, etc.), yet small enough for smalltown community feeling.

Pretty right on the money here: "Seattle residents tend to be more educated, skilled, and uptight about political correctness."

Send Michelle Malkin some of your recent stuff on Muslims. She'll take you back.

I haven't given any scientific evidence because I am not dispensing any advice. You are. Badly.

And yes, all of the medications you mentioned have possible side effects for some people. But, do you have any clue what those medications are used for? (hint: it's not the possible side effects) Believe me, I've known more than a few pot smokers with mental issues, bi-polar included, and most of them needed different meds than pot to stabilize. I know that's hard for you to understand.

I'm confident that if you came across research that showed a potentially negative side effect of weed, you would hyper-focus on some perceived flaw in the study and choose to ignore it, just as you have hyper-focused on the possible negative side effects of the other drugs while ignoring their benefits.

I'm a great believer in science. But you haven't given me any scientific evidence. Only the accusations that the internet is a "giant garbage disposal" and that I am oblivious to some unspecified evidence. I suppose you would feel more comfortable if a few politically-correct guardians were stationed at the portals of knowledge.

When books had to be reproduced by hand, fewer books were published and fewer people read them.
When the printing press became available, many more books were published, more accurately and cheaply; and many more people read them.

This allowed the works of dissenters like Luther to be published. At the time, he was considered a crank. In many ways, he was. But he started a revolution in thinking that contributed to a re-birth of science and widespread learning.

The internet tends to break down the large publications and networks. Society is splintering into specialized groups. People tend to read what reinforces their pre-existing beliefs. Some people here are not used to my ideas, they freak out, and lump me together with anybody they don't like.

Dan Rather was fired because internet bloggers fact-checked his lies and distortions. He's now on a subscription digital channel reaching a small audience of true believers.

Here is a list of side effects of a specific harsh chemical routinely prescribed by modern-day witch doctors:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/mental-health-medications/complete-index.shtml\

Valproic acid may cause damage to the liver or pancreas, so people taking it should see their doctors regularly.

Valproic acid may affect young girls and women in unique ways. Sometimes, valproic acid may increase testosterone (a male hormone) levels in teenage girls and lead to a condition called polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS).11,12 PCOS is a disease that can affect fertility and make the menstrual cycle become irregular, but symptoms tend to go away after valproic acid is stopped.13 It also may cause birth defects in women who are pregnant.

Lamotrigine can cause a rare but serious skin rash that needs to be treated in a hospital. In some cases, this rash can cause permanent disability or be life-threatening.

In addition, valproic acid, lamotrigine, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine and other anticonvulsant medications (listed in the chart at the end of this document) have an FDA warning. The warning states that their use may increase the risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors. People taking anticonvulsant medications for bipolar or other illnesses should be closely monitored for new or worsening symptoms of depression, suicidal thoughts or behavior, or any unusual changes in mood or behavior. People taking these medications should not make any changes without talking to their health care professional.

I don't need to provide evidence for your racism. You have provided plenty. Take another look at that website you dig so much. It's a goddamn white power wonderland over there.

When white European nationalists like your friends get agitated about Muslims, they are upset about ARABS AND TURKS. That is RACE. Your deeply confused and stupid imaginings about how Islam works, which have absolutely nothing to do with the truth, exist only to obscure the real reason behind your fear: fear of dark immigrants.

It's the same shit you see in France, in Germany, in Holland, in Austria, in "Londonistan" (yeah, right), in all the parts of Europe where a formerly all-white society (aside from a few Jews or Gypsies who have survived the ethnic cleansings) has to deal for the first time with darker immigrants.

Dipshits like you with access to the internet and a very dim bulb to read it by have created an entire fantasy world where Europe is being "overrun" by wild-eyed Moozlims who are all building bombs in their tower block toilets. You think you've discovered something, something secret and scary, but those of us who are NOT paralytic on the floor with powerful dope recognize it straight off: xenophobia, racism, white nationalism, whatever you want to call it. But it's ALL BULLSHIT.

You know who's a real threat to Sweden? Serbs. A Serb shot and killed Anna Lindh, who was probably going to be their next PM. She was a liberal and a friend to immigrants, including Muslim immigrants. The Serb who shot her wasn't a Muslim.

When Yugoslavia fell apart, Slobodan Milosevic built a criminal state in Serbia, one in which the government was completely run by organized crime. Young Serbs have never lived in a state that wasn't wholly criminal in nature, and in the aftermath of the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, Europe is being flooded with violent Serbian criminals. They're a million times more threatening than the Muslims.

Why aren't you up in arms about them? Why aren't you answering harmless questions about "why no pot in Sweden?" with stories about murderous Serbs and their violent gangs? I'll tell you why. Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

And your natural impulses -- paranoia, conspiracy theory, pot-smoke clouds of interconnected dorm room bullshit, kook libertarianism -- are the perfect rooting medium for the new European right wing. There isn't a thing you've said here that couldn't have come out of the mouth of Jean-Marie Le Pen or Joerg Haider (no doubt your favorite "Austrian economist"), or Michelle Malkin for that matter. We've heard it before.

You should visit Malmo in August sometime. It's lovely. Then head on down to the seaside. I promise, you won't be subjected to Sharia hardly at all.

Violent criminals are only a small % of any population, but cause great harm and fear. I've been the victim of several armed robberies, and knowing my robbers are a small % does not make me feel better. When others hear about the violence, this causes terror among the general population.

I didn't say Islam was the only problem. If 95% of the population are state Lutherans, that is also a problem. Maybe even a greater problem, but at least the problem was stable. Individual Lutherans tend to be not as bad, but because they are more numerous their cumulative harm is great.

I haven't heard of any secular persons who favor the anti-drugs war. Probably because of lack of reason for prohibition. Although I suppose if you consider communism to be secular that would be an exception.

We cannot safely ignore the ideological underpinnings of the anti-drugs war. You can repeat "racism" like a mantra if that is your faith. But you have provided no evidence for your smear.

5% may not sound like much, but the Green Party got only 5.9% in the last election. The conservative "Moderate" party (formerly the "right-wing party") got their highest total since 1928 (26.2%). Although 5% is significant by itself, the effect is multiplied by the reactions of native Swedes.

In the US also, people tend to vote more conservative ("law and order") in reaction to violent crime. That's how Nixon got so popular.
Much of armed robbery is caused by prohibition,
which raises prices to windfall levels. So any increases in social conservatism among the natives or due to immigration, adds to pressure for more strict prohibition, which in turn increases violent crime, leading to a self-accelerating cycle.

So although strict prohibition in Sweden has reduced drug consumption in some years, the minority who remain are more hardcore and alienated from the general society. When outsiders come into such a homogenous society as Sweden, their disproportionate contribution to violent crime makes the natives restless.

Changes in such a stable society as Sweden tend to be incremental. But the trend is incrementally toward harshness, and coincides with incremental increases in the Muslim
population.

Sorry, Kevin, but this is alarmist BS. Swedish Muslims make up only 5% of the population; only small modifications have been made to their drug laws since 1980, which were tough long before that piddling number of Muslims showed up; your assertion that Muslim immigrants are the sole cause of Swedes voting conservative is outlandish and an obvious case of scapegoating; and your concern that Sweden is going to adopt Sharia law to combat drugs is ridiculous considering that Sweden is ranked #1 in the Economist's Democracy Index. Your sources are racist wingnuts, your "facts" are skewed, and your paranoid view of politics is repulsive. You have zero credibility.

Stop drawing baseless conclusions that boil complex issues down to one cause. Stop telling us what "we can expect" when you have no credible evidence to back it up. And stop reading those garbage websites. They're messing with your head.

Well it looks like I have allowed my taste for old Volvos, pickled fish, and Erik the Vampire to color my impressions of an entire country.

Dude, it's worse than you thought. There are EPISCOPALIANS RIGHT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD! They're probably peeping in your windows right this minute. And you know, you've been hearing about all these sex abuse scandals with the Pope and everything. Can't be too safe.

I think you should run out and set fire to some immigrants right now.

In that case, the answer might better have been stated: "Drying weed in the microwave is going to take a long, long, time, and running the microwave while your weed is in there isn't likely to speed up the process much." [Microwave ovens work by][1] using radio waves to excite water, fat, and sugar molecules, causing them to heat up. They don't warm the air inside and vent out the top like a conventional oven does.

Would you put clothes out of the wash in there when you're in too much of a rush to wait on the dryer or clothesline methods? I tried that with socks back around 1997, and it didn't work very well. I [sterilize sponges in a microwave oven][2], and they end up hot, steamy, and bacteria-free.

If I was going to ignore all the advice to wait things out by hanging weed in a dry, dark, place and instead experiment with drying technology, I'd try a [food dehydrator][3] before a microwave oven.

References:

[1]: http://home.howstuffworks.com/microwave.htm
[2]: http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/food-poisoning/news/20070124/microwave-kills-germs-sponges
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_dehydrator

Hey, great website. Chock full of facts. Like the "fact" that Obama is a mentally unstable Fuehrer in the making:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html

Have you signed the petition yet?

Pot makes me paranoid too. It's why I haven't touched the stuff in years.

"The internet is like a super Gutenberg Press,
the average person now has access to more
information than an average university 100 or
even 30 years ago."

The internet is also like a giant garbage disposal, where the average person can dispense quackery to the masses without any repercussions. And, access to information is not the same thing as comprehension of information, as you have repeatedly illustrated here.

You have your opinion, and no amount of evidence with contrary information will change it. You pick and choose facts that are convenient to your opinion, and ignore the ones that are not. Do you believe in science, Kevin?

Many come from Turkey, others come from Lebanon,
Palaestina, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, or Syria. The
point is, almost all are Muslims, who bring with
them the cultural values of their country of
origin and who resist assimilation to the host
country. Some are Persians, some Turks, and not
all are Arabs. So this is not about ethnicity.
In fact, many are descendants of pagans or Jews
who survived the cultural cleansing of Jihadist
conquest, only by "converting" to Islam.

The political values of these countries of origin tend to not favor personal freedom, such
as liberal pot laws. This is apparent by an
examination of examples of Islamic governments;
this question cannot be decided axiomatically.
Since they tend to not assimilate well, why do
you assume they have adopted liberal values?

I also oppose Sweden's state Lutheran church;
most members of said church are ethnically
Scandinavian. Does that make me an
anti-Scandinavian racist? The Lutherans are at
least equally at fault for illiberal pot laws, but could be influenced in the other direction
under a different set of circumstances.

The gutter language and swearwords you
frequently employ, in a personal manner to those
who dare dissent from your pontifications, do not
speak well of your temperament and do not
contribute to the believability of your claims.

You may wish to believe in multi-culturalism,
that all cultures have equal validity. Yet not
all cultures are equally receptive to liberalism
in pot laws. Your assumption is "a priori", that
is, prior to factual evidence.

Here are some facts:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Fjordman50506.htm

The increased levels of violent crime, coming
disproportionately from Muslim immigrants, are
causing a backlash among native Swedes. They
tend to react by voting more conservative, and
this adversely affects the pot laws. By denying
the reality of the new crime levels, you play
into the hands of conservatives who do not
believe your denial. It's better to acknowledge
the concerns of native europeans, but re-direct
them in a different political direction.

Dear dipshit: it is a truism amongst right-wing dipsticks both in Europe and here that Muslim immigrants are taking over and shitting all over our freedoms, yadda yadda yadda. People with brains, on the other hand, are capable of making distinctions between fucking Dubai and Sweden. SWEDEN! I ask you.

Sweden, despite your idiotic fears, is not at risk of adopting Sharia anytime soon, with a couple of hundred thousand Muslims out of nine million people. Most of those Muslims have nothing to do with Sharia anyways.

But you still keep to your stereotypes. You're doing a terrific job of reinforcing one of your own, that of the boob who's reduced his brain to the consistency of molasses through overuse of the kind herb.

You're completely wrong about Swedish Muslims, by the way; they're not "most Muslims in Sweden". The most numerous groups of Swedish Muslims are Iraqi, Irani, former Yugoslavs, Somalis, Moroccans -- all sorts. Imagine that. But your obsession with Turks, which is widespread amongst explicitly racist creeps in France, Germany, and Holland, IS ITSELF RACIST.

I'm done here; arguing with you is like arguing with mud. Your understanding of what's going on in Europe, whether you know it or not, is wholly right-wing and racist and most importantly STUPID AS FUCK.

Two trends are at work in Europe, one native the other Muslim immigrant.

In many cases, native Europeans, including Swedes, are reacting against Muslim immigration by voting conservative. This has a side effect of more socially conservative laws and policies in relation to pot. The native social conservatives aren't necessarily conspiring with the immigrant social conservatives, even though they tend to agree on that one issue. The result is unintended, in the sense that the native europeans who voted in the conservatives, weren't necessarily intending to make pot laws more conservative. By a quirk of history, those politicians most hostile to Muslim immigration tend to be also the most socially conservative.

Also, as Muslim voters become more numerous in Sweden, we may expect Swedish pot laws to become more like those of Turkey (the country of origin of most Muslims in Sweden).

In Sweden, I think the positive correlation between the trend toward social conservatism in drug laws, on the one hand, and increased numbers of Muslims (who tend to be socially conservative), is instructive. But as I have said, that is the result of voting patterns of both natives and immigrants (and the two interact).

You are free to disagree, and believe that Muslims really tend to be socially liberal
and not socially conservative, and are not causing a conservative counter-reaction in Europe. The chances of both being true are approximately zero.

This is not about race. This is about culture.
Religion is not genetically determined, and to suppose otherwise is sheer ignorance. To equate resistance to Sharia law with racism, is to rule out criticism of sharia law. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it, and be hoisted on your own petard.

We cannot automatically assume that all cultures
are equal in terms of their liberalism. That would fly in the face of overwhelming evidence.
For instance, a tourist was imprisoned for four years in Dubai, for a speck of pot stuck on the bottom of his show. That is not due to the genetics of Dubaians, but because of their sharia law.

Contrary to what has been arrogantly claimed,
the drug laws in Sweden have changed in the past 30 years. Things were fairly liberal in the sixties, until 1968. Things have gotten mostly worse since then. I copy/paste an article which outlines the changes:

http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Sweden
In the 80's and 90's, lawmakers continued to make smaller modifications of the drug laws, expanding their coverage, increasing maximum sentences, altering early release rules, and introducing treatment options as an alternate to imprisonment to be used at the court's discretion.

In 1980 came another step in the gradually tighter practice for withdrawal of the prosecution for smaller drug crimes. Contract treatment for drug abuse was introduced as an alternative to imprisonment was implemented in the law. Contract treatment is a possible consequence of a clearly drug related crime, a possible option for any Swedish court; the option is not limited to special Drug courts. If the person misbehaves, the sentence can be transformed into a prison sentence.[22][23].

1981 Imprisonment in the ordinary course of crimes increased from max. 2 to the max. 3 years. Imprisonment at the serious crime increased from minimum 1 to minimum 2 years.

In 1982 came the Misuser Act (LVM), which made possible for municipalities to place very serious drug dependent in mandatory treatment with restrictions for a number of months. The same type of law had earlier only been used for very serious alcoholics. Mandatory treatment according to this law has since 1982 been used for a number of hundred people per year; in 2007 was it 330 with serious drug problems and 219 with both alcohol and drug problems.[24]

In 1988, all use of drugs, even in very small quantities, became a criminal offense, punishable with fine, under The Narcotic Drugs Penalty Code of 1968. In the same year, a special form of probation, contract treatment, became available as an alternative to imprisonment in cases of alcohol or drug related crime. This treatment was available only to offenders willing to undergo the drug or alcohol treatment as decided by the courts.[25]

In 1993, the maximum sentence for illicit use of drugs was raised to 6 months in prison though the normal punishment remained a fine. The reason for raising the maximum penalty for drug use to 6 months' imprisonment was to make it legal for police to conduct a body search. Such may, in accordance with Swedish law, only be implemented if someone is suspected of a crime carrying at least 6 months' imprisonment as the maximum punishment.

In the same year the law was amended to allow for early release of all prisoners, not only those convicted of drug crimes. Between 1983 and 1993, in principle, prisoners were released after serving half the time. For those who were convicted after July 1, 1993, the rule became a 2/3 term imprisonment. After 1999, the early release became conditional.

1995 Jan 1. Sweden becomes a member of the EU. One effect of EU's rules is a radical reduced control of illicit drugs at the borders. The Swedish customs authority stop making random controls on the traffic and passengers upon entering from EU countries; the number of employees in the Swedish customs authority is reduced.[citation needed]

Surveys of illicit drug use last month show an almost doubled drug use among 16-year-old boys (from 5% to 10%, most cannabis) in year 2000. The level had previously been low and essentially stable since 1983 (below 5% last month for boys and 2% for girls).[21][26]

2000-2001 Professor Johannes Knutsson, Oslo concludes after a study of drug use and drug policy in Sweden that the "stricter enforcement contributed to Sweden by international standards has a lower percentage of young people who tried drugs."[3][27]

You have not established there is a conflict
between pot and the chemicals prescribed for
bi-polar. If there were such a conflict, a
doctor would know that, and I advised to seek a
doctor.

If the doctor were to claim that the harsh
chemicals were better than pot, and the two were
not compatible, I wouldn't necessarily follow
the doctor. You can find many different opinions
among doctors and different kinds of doctors.

But this is a hypothetical, and addresses a
different question than the one posed.
Two questions were asked: is pot good for
bi-polar and is there a conflict with the
chemicals.

I addressed only the first question, and
referred to a doctor for the second.
Everything else I said was in response to your
comments, not the original two questions.

The specific qualifications of the panelists
were listed, and the questioner still valued our
opinions. You are free to disagree, but you
haven't stated your opinion, only that I am not
qualified to give mine. You are intervening
between consenting adults, slaying the dragon to
rescue a damsel in distress.

Experts are no longer the gatekeepers to truth,
and you are certainly not, anymore than priests
are gatekeepers to heaven. Literate people can
read and make decisions for themselves.
The internet is like a super Gutenberg Press,
the average person now has access to more
information than an average university 100 or
even 30 years ago. As a result, the world
benefits from another reformation.

You are looking for some kind of parent or
priest figure, all-knowing and all-wise.
I never claimed or aspired to be that, and I'm
not going to recant because I don't meet your
standards.

Print newspapers are going out of business, now
anyone can be a columnist. That means,
there is a lot more noise, but also a lot more
diversity of opinion. People are not not
children, they need to take responsibility for
their own health, and seek out information from
a variety of sources.

Sometimes an amateur can scoop an expert. Do you
think it's OK that many psychiatrists routinely
prescribe harsh chemicals that can cause
permanent neurological damage, such as Tardive
Diskenesia? Better to obey and suffer, eh?

I'm not saying that the specific medications
mentioned will tend to cause these problems.
But readers have a right to know that
psychiatrists aren't always right. Nor am I
saying that psychiatrists are always wrong.
I'm sure some could be found who would recommend
pot, and some will not; people have to decide
for themselves based on what they know from a
variety of sources, and/or have experienced.

And now you get an email with every new salvo! Bwaa haa ha ha!!!!

*optimistically*

Perhaps by "rapes" Kevin meant Skåne's booming rape (rapeseed) industry ...?

Important notes:
1) current institutional THC/cannabinoid treatments tested are mainly intratumorial injections of THC - i.e. not smoked.
2) Brain cancer has a typical prognosis of TWO MONTHS, untreated - and only 10 months with Radiation & drugs. If a 40yo or even 50yo brain cancer warrior should be so lucky as to make it to 57, and die from lung cancer, the church would call it a miracle of the heavens. i.e. Lung cancer is very much the least of your worries if you have a Glioma or grade IV brain tumor.

3) virtual trials, that is, the various things that individuals try to combat brain cancer on their own and outside the institutional setting- ARE showing good signs that smoking pot does stabilize and in one case even shrink GBM tumors. I'd have to show you an MRI from UWMC to prove my point, but it's true.

Wow, this is quite the flame war. Hurray for the internet!

Disclaimer: I'm not against pot at all. My stepfather smoked several times a day, and died of lung cancer at 57. Pot smoke is still smoke.

"Such opinions affect real lives, even more than my opinion on medical uses of pot."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and expressing said opinion is the purpose of community forums like this. It's helpful to exchange ideas with others, but what we say here is generally inconsequential in terms of, for example, enacting actual health care legislation. That, it should be noted, is the job of legislators.

What you did was advise someone who currently takes meds for a potentially serious condition to take your drug of choice instead. And yes, one side of your mouth said to seek the advice of a naturopath, but the other side said to take whatever doctors say with a grain of salt.

Please also keep in mind that you are sitting on an "expert panel". In my opinion, this means your advice, for better or worse, carries a bit more weight than some random schmo. You have our attention, so please use it wisely and show some responsibility.

I was going to mention that, Elenchos. These pesky Muslims are the Right's arch-enemy, but they work together to lock in those marijuana laws. Fascinating how conspiratorial minds work. Maybe it's all that near-death experience.

All of the Muslims in Sweden are immigrants or descendants of immigrants from places whose peoples are visibly not Swedish. They are also, shockingly, not all welfare layabouts, rapists, or murderers. By continuing to harp on that stereotype you are, in fact, PERPETUATING RACISM.

Your understanding of Islam, in Sweden and elsewhere, is extraordinarily limited and prejudicial. Basically, you know nothing, except what you've heard from a handful of sensationalist news reports, at least some of which appears to be copied verbatim from right-wing hate sites like "Jihad Watch" (one of Michelle Malkin's favorites).

Islam, despite the 300 articles you, uh, scan each day, is a vast, varied historical and cultural phenomenon. Hirsi Ali (who lives in Holland, not Sweden) faces no threat from the many Bosnian Muslims in Sweden, for instance.

But that's neither here nor there. The question wasn't "are Muslim rapists running riot in Dear Old Svenska?", it was "why no pot in Sweden"? The answer has nothing to do with Muslims.

The "narrow circle of your friends" comment is pretty rich coming from a guy who can't see beyond the fringes of his cloud of pot smoke. You know nothing about Sweden, and you know less than nothing about Muslims.

If you will read my answer to the original poster's question, you will see concepts that are unfamiliar to you: nuance and awareness of cultural differences chief among them.

Stick to the hydroponics, doper. You're out of your depth here. I don't care how many articles of bullshit you scan every day.

So when the Muslims in Sweden are not busy raping and robbing their neighbors, or spreading antisemitism, they are working closely with Swedish conservatives to keep the drug laws as retrograde as ever? They're sort of integrated with the Swedish Right, but alienated from the Swedish non-rapist, non-robber, non-antisemite community?

It's like a dual role they play in that culture.

Oh me, oh my, what a lot of funny things go by. Some are sad. Some are bad. Some are very, very bad. Don't ask me why, go ask your dad.

Islam is not a race. Some people have been born to Muslim parents, and left the religion (risking a death penalty per Sharia law). Ask Hirsi Ali, who has 24/7 security guards after receiving death threats from the gang that assassinated Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh for his film critical of Islam.

I didn't lay all the blame for Sweden's illegal drug laws on Muslims. Swedish society was already socially conservative on this issue; the recent immigrants reinforce this and make reform more difficult.

Now let's do a thought experiment. Imagine instead social conservatives immigrating to Sweden, that social liberals were immigrating.
Don't you think that Sweden's pot laws would by now be more liberal? This isn't rocket science,
it's time to get off the high horse and consider what other people are saying, people with a different viewpoint than the narrow circle of your friends.

I'd never heard of "Bruce Bawer", but thanks to Fnarf, now I have. I read dozens of articles each day, and scan 200-300, many from a co-founder of the CIA's anti-terrorism center.

I've never taken crack cocaine, or any kind of cocaine or similar harsh drug. I also like gaming, but wouldn't rely on a handful of gamers for my sole source of information on this topic.
The information is readily available, I can lead you to the internet but can't make you think.