The movement by politicians and state governments to legalize Marijuana is a monumental crime against society, the younger generation and is nothing more than a political grab for increased tax revenues. The effects on future generations will lead to increased dependence and drug addiction, increased unemployment because employers will terminate and not hire employees found to be on drugs, increased health insurance costs, increased crime to support drug addiction, and eventually increased death rates. States that move in this direction will be facing yet untold liability for legalizing marijuana and states and individual politicians will be found personally liable for their actions.
The legalization of alcohol has lead to all those things. It generates tax revenue, creates dependence (to a much higher degree than marijuana), increased unemployment (employers will terminate and not hire employees that show up drunk), increased health insurance costs (cirrhosis of the liver, various cancers, alcohol related injuries), increased crime to support alcohol addition, and increased death rates (drinking yourself to death and terminal alcohol related accidents).
Does that mean that states that moved in the direction of supporting the repeal of the 21st amendment have faced “yet untold liability” with “personal liability” assumed by the politicians?
Varying degrees of risk associated with various drugs completely invalidates your extension of legality of alcohol to ‘all’ drugs.
August 16, 2017 at 11:08 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Actually, assuming you are a true liberty and freedom loving Conservative, it does not.
I have never heard a true Conservative want the government do more that what is Constitutionally required. Please cite the part of the Constitution that says it is the government’s job to protect the citizens from causing themselves harm.
August 10, 2017 at 5:24 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob, the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology just published a study that shows regular pot smokers are three times more likely to develop hypertension/heart disease, strokes than non pot smokers. The risk grows with each year they smoke it. How is marijuana a health benefit? Inquiring minds want to know.
That same study said one of the limitations in their analysis was they have no idea how much any participant smoked, or even if they had used it at all after trying it for the first time.
The study’s conclusions basically results in this sentence: If you smoke one joint your entire life, or if you smoke one joint every hour for your entire life, each group has the exact same increased risk of dying from hypertention.
Not sure why you are responding… stoners gonna lie about the facts reported in a scientific study.
If ‘science’ suits Liberals Global Warming Hoax, why does ‘science’ not count as regards pot use? Inquiring minds not clouded by decades of pot use want to know.
August 15, 2017 at 8:03 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I guess that makes you a stoner PBR – I got the study’s limitations directly from the study itself, the one you linked in another thread. And in that other thread, I literally just copied and pasted their own words supporting what I just posted.
August 15, 2017 at 8:12 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Your conclusions are not correct. The once in a lifetime use is not a valid conclusion… you are extrapolating incorrectly.
August 15, 2017 at 8:14 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
The study did not say they have ‘no idea’, but rather, that the use levels are not captured and tallied. Very significant difference. There is an average level of use that can be assumed from a study with a significant number of users sampled… using other studies of avg use levels.
August 15, 2017 at 8:17 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
If I sample MLB players with a career of 5 or more years played, I can assume they had more than 1,000 at bats during their career. I can’t assume they had 1 at bat over 5 years. I can’t assume the survey had ‘no idea’ of how many ABs the players had over 5+ years … if there were 100+ players sampled.
August 15, 2017 at 7:45 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
U R grasping at straws to attempt to discredit a valid study. “No idea”. Really?! No idea?!
Your attempt to re-state the ACTUAL conclusion of the study shows the lengths stoners and supporters of pot are willing to lie to defend their agenda.
I dare you to post the link to that study in this thread so I can do another copy and paste to support what I said was actually something they admitted was a problem with their analysis. Ready…steady…GO
August 15, 2017 at 8:18 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
You have the link.. repost it at your leisure.
August 15, 2017 at 9:32 am
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
He said “Ready. Steady. Go.” Yogi. Come on, you know the rules, that means you have to do it.
Ignore the conversation and pivot. Ready. Steady. Go.
August 16, 2017 at 9:02 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
C’mon, Doug, you know Yogi only posts sources that fit his narrative.
August 15, 2017 at 9:23 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Your baseball analogy is flawed too. Just because they’ve been in the league 5 years is insufficient to say they had 1,000 at bats. Variables include: maintance days off, time spent on injured reserve, platooning of players dependant on opponants starting pitchers, were they ever sent to the minor leagues, etc.
Back to the study which said “Participants reported the age when they first tried marijuana and this was subtracted from their current age to calculate the duration of use.”
FLAWED ASSUMPTION! Not everyone who tries marijuana once becomes a regular user for the rest of their lives.
I know people who tried it once and never used it again. I know some who stopped after a few years and others who only use it on the weekend. And yes, some use it every day, but not everyone.
The study needed to tell us what groups those participants fell into to validate their conclusion. What about other variables, such as “were these people obease?” That would increase their risk for hypertention too, right?
The study’s assumption that “when you first tried marijuana is when you started using it all the time” is flawed. Their conclusion cannot be taken seriously with such a flawed assumption and lack of control for other variables (such as BMI).
I do not contend that ALL sampled players had 1000 at bats, but rather, that MOST of them did, assuming a credible sample size of 100 players, or 200 players, or more.
That compares to a study of stoners, some of whom might have used it only once. The OVERALL sample will include mostly continuous users.
The thought that those who use or have used have done so on a regular basis is simply false. Many use only on occasion. Not every day, not every week, not even every month. But, the same people who share this false narrative are perfectly okay with caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine, all of which are body and mind altering and much more typically used on a daily basis. Classy.
The movement by politicians and state governments to legalize Marijuana is a monumental crime against society, the younger generation and is nothing more than a political grab for increased tax revenues. The effects on future generations will lead to increased dependence and drug addiction, increased unemployment because employers will terminate and not hire employees found to be on drugs, increased health insurance costs, increased crime to support drug addiction, and eventually increased death rates. States that move in this direction will be facing yet untold liability for legalizing marijuana and states and individual politicians will be found personally liable for their actions.
The legalization of alcohol has lead to all those things. It generates tax revenue, creates dependence (to a much higher degree than marijuana), increased unemployment (employers will terminate and not hire employees that show up drunk), increased health insurance costs (cirrhosis of the liver, various cancers, alcohol related injuries), increased crime to support alcohol addition, and increased death rates (drinking yourself to death and terminal alcohol related accidents).
Does that mean that states that moved in the direction of supporting the repeal of the 21st amendment have faced “yet untold liability” with “personal liability” assumed by the politicians?
No.
The legalization of breathing air has led to more crime than in societies where citizen’s air is shut off.
See how ’cause & effect’ works to support any agenda?
I can’t tell what you are trying to say exactly.
I agree that you can’t tell what I am actually saying.
PolarBeaRepeal,
Thank you for your support to legalize ALL drugs. The fact that something may be harmful to oneself is no reason to make it illegal.
Varying degrees of risk associated with various drugs completely invalidates your extension of legality of alcohol to ‘all’ drugs.
Actually, assuming you are a true liberty and freedom loving Conservative, it does not.
I have never heard a true Conservative want the government do more that what is Constitutionally required. Please cite the part of the Constitution that says it is the government’s job to protect the citizens from causing themselves harm.
Bob, the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology just published a study that shows regular pot smokers are three times more likely to develop hypertension/heart disease, strokes than non pot smokers. The risk grows with each year they smoke it. How is marijuana a health benefit? Inquiring minds want to know.
He was saying increased health costs not decreased.
That same study said one of the limitations in their analysis was they have no idea how much any participant smoked, or even if they had used it at all after trying it for the first time.
The study’s conclusions basically results in this sentence: If you smoke one joint your entire life, or if you smoke one joint every hour for your entire life, each group has the exact same increased risk of dying from hypertention.
Not sure why you bother responding. Trolls gonna Troll.
Not sure why you are responding… stoners gonna lie about the facts reported in a scientific study.
If ‘science’ suits Liberals Global Warming Hoax, why does ‘science’ not count as regards pot use? Inquiring minds not clouded by decades of pot use want to know.
I guess that makes you a stoner PBR – I got the study’s limitations directly from the study itself, the one you linked in another thread. And in that other thread, I literally just copied and pasted their own words supporting what I just posted.
Your conclusions are not correct. The once in a lifetime use is not a valid conclusion… you are extrapolating incorrectly.
The study did not say they have ‘no idea’, but rather, that the use levels are not captured and tallied. Very significant difference. There is an average level of use that can be assumed from a study with a significant number of users sampled… using other studies of avg use levels.
If I sample MLB players with a career of 5 or more years played, I can assume they had more than 1,000 at bats during their career. I can’t assume they had 1 at bat over 5 years. I can’t assume the survey had ‘no idea’ of how many ABs the players had over 5+ years … if there were 100+ players sampled.
U R grasping at straws to attempt to discredit a valid study. “No idea”. Really?! No idea?!
Your attempt to re-state the ACTUAL conclusion of the study shows the lengths stoners and supporters of pot are willing to lie to defend their agenda.
I dare you to post the link to that study in this thread so I can do another copy and paste to support what I said was actually something they admitted was a problem with their analysis. Ready…steady…GO
You have the link.. repost it at your leisure.
He said “Ready. Steady. Go.” Yogi. Come on, you know the rules, that means you have to do it.
Ignore the conversation and pivot. Ready. Steady. Go.
C’mon, Doug, you know Yogi only posts sources that fit his narrative.
Your baseball analogy is flawed too. Just because they’ve been in the league 5 years is insufficient to say they had 1,000 at bats. Variables include: maintance days off, time spent on injured reserve, platooning of players dependant on opponants starting pitchers, were they ever sent to the minor leagues, etc.
Back to the study which said “Participants reported the age when they first tried marijuana and this was subtracted from their current age to calculate the duration of use.”
FLAWED ASSUMPTION! Not everyone who tries marijuana once becomes a regular user for the rest of their lives.
I know people who tried it once and never used it again. I know some who stopped after a few years and others who only use it on the weekend. And yes, some use it every day, but not everyone.
The study needed to tell us what groups those participants fell into to validate their conclusion. What about other variables, such as “were these people obease?” That would increase their risk for hypertention too, right?
The study’s assumption that “when you first tried marijuana is when you started using it all the time” is flawed. Their conclusion cannot be taken seriously with such a flawed assumption and lack of control for other variables (such as BMI).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170809073246.htm
I do not contend that ALL sampled players had 1000 at bats, but rather, that MOST of them did, assuming a credible sample size of 100 players, or 200 players, or more.
That compares to a study of stoners, some of whom might have used it only once. The OVERALL sample will include mostly continuous users.
The devil is in the details.
The thought that those who use or have used have done so on a regular basis is simply false. Many use only on occasion. Not every day, not every week, not even every month. But, the same people who share this false narrative are perfectly okay with caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine, all of which are body and mind altering and much more typically used on a daily basis. Classy.