This latest study is a crushing defeat to those stoners hoping to use medi-pot as a stepping stone to legalization of recre-pot. I expect a few down votes, but no replies to my post because there isn’t any weaknesses in the recent study cited in the article, by CREDIBLE researchers, that dispels prior lies about medi-pot preventing abuse of opioids or other risky pain relief meds. Those prior studies were not conducted in an unbiased manner, thus their conclusions were tainted.
Note especially, stoners, this excerpt from the article: ” The researchers analyzed more than 57,000 responses to the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Participants were asked about medical and non-medical (“inconsistent with doctor’s instructions”) use of prescription drugs. ”
Note, also, this excerpt: ” Previous studies have reported that states where medical marijuana is legal have lower rates of medical and non-medical prescription drug use and related harms—including opioid overdose. “These reports have led many to believe that use of medical marijuana is a protective factor against non-medical prescription drug use,” Caputi comments. “However, individual-level inferences cannot be made using the ecological studies cited frequently in the debate over medical marijuana.”
Finally, if stoners read the entire article, they will notice it has replies and comments that point out the lack of full credibility of the study cited. Stoners who want to have an adult conversation should use those comments to reply to my post, or make independent comments to support their positions. I suspect many stoners will simply ‘down-vote-and-run’.
This study is far from definitively proving causation and has plenty of weaknesses.
From the article:
“Rather than being at lower risk, people who use medical marijuana MAY be at higher risk for non-medical prescription drug use”
“However, an accompanying commentary questions whether medical cannabis is the CAUSE of higher prescription drug use, or whether other factors explain the association.”
“Caputi notes the lack of large-scale follow-up data on whether patients are using cannabis together with or in place of prescription drugs.”
“Our findings don’t prove a causal connection between marijuana and opioid use, but they do suggest physicians can use medical marijuana as a marker for high risk of non-medical prescription drug use.”
“Given that people who take medical cannabis and those who do not are likely to have different underlying medical conditions, it is possible that medical cannabis use reduces prescription drug use yet prescription drug use remains relatively high in that group,”
“In other studies, people who take medical marijuana consistently report substituting cannabis for other prescription and illicit drugs. Dr. Bachhuber and coauthors conclude: ‘To fully understand the effect of medical cannabis on the use of other drugs, prospective longitudinal studies randomizing patients to cannabis versus other treatments are urgently needed.’”
Nobody on this site has ever claimed it’s harmless or that it has no long-term negative impacts. You and I have already been over this. Do you have any interest in responding to the points Ron or I made, or you cool with just posting your Straw Man argument as a “reply”?
It isn’t a “Straw Man” argument – we don’t know much about the long term impact of marijuana, but there are lots of signs it is damaging.
That’s a fact, Jack. Not a “straw man” argument.
You can speculate all you want. I have read multiple studies about the omninous signs that THC is damaging to the brains of young people, that it doubles the chances of mental illness, that it causes brain damage for children in the womb for mothers who smoke while pregnant.
But you go ahead and pretend legalization is groovy. Check back with me in 20 years when reality sets in for everyone.
April 24, 2018 at 6:27 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
7
2
Craig,
Why don’t we make everything that has been proven to have long term adverse effects illegal? Cigarettes, alcohol, processed foods, soda, etc.
The government needs to get out of the business of protecting us from ourselves and focus on protecting us from others.
April 24, 2018 at 6:46 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
Again — I’m not arguing that marijuana is completely safe and has no long-term negative effects.
You continue to argue that point, which nobody here has ever made. That is the textbook definition of a straw man argument whether you want to admit it or not.
“A straw man is a common form of argument….based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.“
April 25, 2018 at 5:23 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
@Ron; the govt needs to protect us from stoners on our roads, and in other public places where their actions while stoned may harm innocent citizens. Please note that public intoxication is a misdemeanor offense before you make the typical, lame, and expected-from-stoners reply about alcohol being a dangerous drug.
April 25, 2018 at 5:37 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
Yogi,
We have laws against stoned driving and lewd and lascivious behavior, whether stoned, drunk, or sober. The government already affords us these protections.
April 25, 2018 at 6:19 pm
CCC says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Polar,
We already have laws “protecting” from the scenarios you describe.
That said, a majority of Americans disagree with you that we need Big Government to “protect” us from a plant, through federal prohibition of said plant:
Ignoring the contradiction you posted in the first and last paragraph, here’s a reply explaining the study’s limitations and why the conclusion reached isn’t an end-all be-all point of argument.
1) Small sample size: out of 57,000 people surveyed, only 1.36% said they used medical marijuana. Less than 2% of a study group is not a sufficient sample size of said group.
2) No followup analysis on the data: “Caputi notes the lack of large-scale follow-up data on whether patients are using cannabis together with or in place of prescription drugs” I mean – how can one argue there may be an increased risk if the study didn’t bother asking “is that the only med you’re taking, or are you on something else?” If all they’re doing is smoking marijuana, there is ZERO increased risk of using prescription drugs because none of the people are taking anything else. If people are supplementing marijuana with other drugs, the study should’ve indicated what the ‘script usage rate is for the group.
3) Study simply indicated there’s a correlation. “Our findings don’t prove a causal connection between marijuana and opioid use” No connection = can’t posit that the results actually prove the conclusion.
4) No details on underlying medical condition (e.g. were the 1.4% people who smoked marijuana suffering the same pains and ailments as the non marijuana group, or were they in better or worse condition?) “Given that people who take medical cannabis and those who do not are likely to have different underlying medical conditions, it is possible that medical cannabis use reduces prescription drug use yet prescription drug use remains relatively high in that group,” Dr. Bachhuber comment
Those are 4 points why I have an issue with the study. None of which came with a downvote to your post. I look forward to your reply on these 4 items for further discussion should you be willing to discuss this without insults, attacks, hyperbole and straw man arguments.
I posted the last paragraph to try to help stoners to reply with substantive details, and not just down vote and run.
I’ll reply later, when I’m not pressed for time.
1. Statistical credibility of a sample is based on a number, not a percentage of a sample of a larger population of study subjects.
2. follow up analyses take time… to set out the approach, collect the refined dataset, and analyze the new dataset against a benchmark.
3. causal connections are rarely provable. That is a basic tenet of statistics using an open set or universe of risks with multiple independent variables that are known or suspected to influence the dependent variable. Example: flip a coin and get 50% heads, 50% tails. Flip a coin lying on a table ONCE and get the opposite side with 100% certainty; e.g. with heads facing up on a coin lying on a table, flipping the coin once (i.e. turn it over onto the other side) and you get tails with 100% certainty.
4. There is no need to determine the underlying conditions if it can safely be assumed there are a wide variety of such conditions. With about 800 medi-pot users, it can safely be assumed there are a variety of medical conditions within that group. If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it to the attention of the researchers and inform them that their analysis is invalid. Otherwise, you cannot invalidate research by mentioning possibilities that are normally thin when 800 subjects are sampled. That said, I’d expect there might be a slightly higher percentage of medi-pot users with greater ailments than the norm. But that doesn’t invalidate the study’s results…. i.e. medi-pot users are subject to greater chances of moving onto opioids and other non-scrip meds.
4.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my points. A follow-up to your comments:
1) fair enough
2) I wasn’t talking about follow-ups that take time to get the data. The item I specifically referenced could’ve been obtained simply by asking a follow-up question which would allow us to really understand what the patients are reporting and if using marijuana actually caused them to use other drugs or not.
*The study didn’t bother asking “is that the only med you’re taking, or are you on something else?” If all they’re doing is smoking marijuana, there is ZERO increased risk of using prescription drugs because none of the people are taking anything else. If people are supplementing marijuana with other drugs, the study should’ve indicated what the ‘script usage rate is for the group.
3) I infer from your response on this point that you agree the study didn’t find any causation between marijuana use and use of other non-prescription drugs. Excellent.
4) That’s your opinion based on your assumption. Without actually knowing why the patients were treating with conventional medicine vs. marijuana would be huge in my opinion. I get there are HIPAA concerns with asking that question, but I don’t feel comfortable saying “those 800 people had similar medical conditions to the other 56,200 folks.”
There are too many medical conditions that could be treated in these patients to accurately state there’s an overlapping group of “similar medical conditions: one group is treating with marijuana and the other group isn’t”
I notice you never say this to Planet, whom you often agree with, when he says Faux News.
Fake news is totally garbage, but Faux News isn’t apparently. Faux news has been said since I was in Highschool in 2003, and I have never seen a large resistance to it. Suddenly someone says Fake news, and it’s a big deal.
It has to do largely with people like you, being lop sided in your defenses and what triggers you.
Get on the other side. You believe you’re going after the side with less resistance. You’re not. You are going with the flow. Work on it.
April 26, 2018 at 3:40 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Poor wording, I should say whom you agree with often, and who also says Faux News quite a lot, and you believe still has credibility.
Funny how saying Fake News removes all credibility, whereas saying Faux News all the time doesn’t.
April 26, 2018 at 4:15 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
bob – I think you’re missing the point on this part of the thread (although it’s possible you hadn’t read the next 3 posts below).
Ron posted a link that PBR discredited solely because it was posted on CNN. You told Ron to “Get on the other side.”
Well, he did – he linked to the same story as reported by Fox to alleviate PBR’s concerns with the source, that CNN = Fake News.
PBR then discredited the report NOT because of the content or the new source, but because of the author.
Pretty sure you should be getting on PBR’s case for shifting the goalposts — first dismissing the article SOLELY because it was on CNN then, when confronted with the same report from Fox, dismissing the story because of the author without providing anything substantive to prove he actually read the article.
April 26, 2018 at 5:48 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
I did not miss the point. At all.
There are numerous times here in which leftists use this debate tactic, and he has accepted it.
You’re missing my point.
You, and Ron, are both bad at debates. Polar happens to be worse, but you’re both bad at it. I only put out this particular comment because it happens to be something I’ve seen happen here a lot. When I debated UW for months, this was his go to. Who was credible and who was not.
When you two debated me you also did poorly. I know you don’t see it that way, you did. I’m on both of you because you suck at debating, and most your points are essentially: I’m better than you.
You might think I debate like that, I don’t.
I don’t like a few things about you guys. It’s also why I tend to leave not long after posting, and then I see your idiotic comments about me shotgunning an argument, instead of directing my points (don’t think just because I didn’t respond I didn’t see your stupid comments).
I just don’t have time for this right now. I’m pointing out your guys’s issues mostly at the moment. You do have them. Severely. Severe blind spots to the left, severe overconfidence in your research, severe over confidence in your morality.
I’ll use this current argument for example because all I have to do to blow you both out of the water is this:
With drugs, do we approve them so long as someone doesn’t prove harmful affects? Ron’s first post is pretty pointless. If there is even a remote chance that making a drug wide spread available to the public will have negative consequences, and lead to stronger drug use, it shouldn’t be approved. The drug should be regulated. But here the two of you are arguing the negative essentially, that is he hasn’t proven it unsafe. That’s not how a drug should work, and the supplement industry abuses this method to HUGE degrees of harms. Have you seen those lawsuits that come into affect later on based on your and Ron’s idiotic methodology?
But I know why you two are taking this debate.
1. Arrogance. Both of you believe you have to prove polar wrong because well, you’re better than him.
2. You both have an affinity and bias in your mind to think that pot as a drug has been over condemned, and you need to balance it out because it’s not that bad.
Whether you’re willing to admit point 1 and 2 or not, it is a factor here.
And I don’t have time to debate with people with that low of an operating standard with their own logics.
MARCH 12, 2018 AT 4:31 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Boring, boring, boring. Your act is getting very old. Take a hike. No one wants to read your total rubbish.
April 25, 2018 at 1:00 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
APRIL 9, 2018 AT 2:28 PM
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
2
Sounds like you don’t have any original thoughts
Polar, have seen an ad on TV listing a 1-800 number for those who are addicted to drugs. They offer help to stoners and other hard drug users. Wonder how many call it.
Who would down vote this sentiment? You’d rather people stay addicted. Whomever you are, you are sick and need help yourself. I hope you get it. I’ll pray for you and I have a good idea who I am praying for.
Re-Posted as a means of defeating STONERS’ attempts to censor factual data and analyses:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 4
Thumb down 16
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
This latest study is a crushing defeat to those stoners hoping to use medi-pot as a stepping stone to legalization of recre-pot. I expect a few down votes, but no replies to my post because there isn’t any weaknesses in the recent study cited in the article, by CREDIBLE researchers, that dispels prior lies about medi-pot preventing abuse of opioids or other risky pain relief meds. Those prior studies were not conducted in an unbiased manner, thus their conclusions were tainted.
Note especially, stoners, this excerpt from the article: ” The researchers analyzed more than 57,000 responses to the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Participants were asked about medical and non-medical (“inconsistent with doctor’s instructions”) use of prescription drugs. ”
Note, also, this excerpt: ” Previous studies have reported that states where medical marijuana is legal have lower rates of medical and non-medical prescription drug use and related harms—including opioid overdose. “These reports have led many to believe that use of medical marijuana is a protective factor against non-medical prescription drug use,” Caputi comments. “However, individual-level inferences cannot be made using the ecological studies cited frequently in the debate over medical marijuana.”
Finally, if stoners read the entire article, they will notice it has replies and comments that point out the lack of full credibility of the study cited. Stoners who want to have an adult conversation should use those comments to reply to my post, or make independent comments to support their positions. I suspect many stoners will simply ‘down-vote-and-run’.
Reply
That has been debunked by many studies. Do some users turn to different drugs? Yes. But that is not because of the marijuana use, it is already ingrained in them.
Legalizing would provide the following benefits:
1. Reduce opioid use/abuse
2. Provide relief to chemotherapy and pain sufferers
3. Reduce spending on enforcement, courts, and jail
4. Less government involvement in the private lives of its citizens
5. Increase revenue in the form of taxes
6. Reduce laced marijuana through regulation
7. Take away revenue from cartels
There are more, but this should be reason enough for a freedom and liberty loving, anti-big government Conservative to support legalizing the consumption of an unaltered plant.
“That has been debunked by many studies. Do some users turn to different drugs? Yes. ”
You disagree, then turn around and agree. You usually don’t contradict yourself like that. A blue Moon tonight?
BTW, I do agree with all 7 of your points.
Im not a big supporter of Rec Use. Maybe its just cause I’m old school. But to each his own. You want to smoke it for fun, have at it. I’ll politely decline.
Just like Health Insurance, they stick their nose in it, the price will climb.
I also find it funny that people think there is research that needs to be done. American Indians were using it when the pilgrim’s arrived. So, 200+ years of time has passed with pot being used, but yet we need more research…. .
BTW, my friend that used a pot based home brew has been diagnosed terminal brain cancer.
He got a good 2.5 years from his home brew. Appears he has 6 -8 weeks left. RIP my friend. See you on the other side.
Getting this news and spending the night in the ER with my mom has me a little off my game today.
Man alive, FFA…sorry to hear about your friend. I can’t believe that we have more technology in our iPhones than was used to put a man on the moon but we still haven’t figured out how to completely wipe out cancer. I’ve lost many friends and family to it. I hope he doesn’t suffer.
absolute best of luck to you…You’re due for something good to happen. Stay strong!
He was first diagnosed terminal about three years ago. Gave him 3-6 months. Then he came up with concoction with pot & ever clear and one other ingredient. After three months, the doc declared him 99% cancer free. Doc didn’t want to hear a word about the formula. I haven’t seen him for a few months and then get message on FB.
At the very least, he got an extra 2.5 years.
Based on this, Med Pot needs to be researched & legalized for Cancer patients.
April 24, 2018 at 8:00 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
FFA,
I did not disagree, then agree. Did you miss the last sentence of that paragraph? It ties it all together to point out that if someone goes from marijuana to harder drugs, it is not because of the marijuana use. That is an important distinction.
Hope that clears that up for you.
You said, ” You want to smoke it for fun, have at it. I’ll politely decline.” That is exactly what supporters of legalization say. We are not looking to force people to use marijuana, just get the government out of the business of those who wish to. For the record, I have never used nor have any desire to do so.
Point by Point:
1. Nonsense. There is no evidence of this. It is all based on state-wide statistics that are so broad as to be meaningless speculation. Opioid abuse has multiple causes and one of the trusted research projects around show that most people do fine on tylenol/ibuprophen in place of opiods. Will marijuana replace opiods? Only when the pain is really not so serious as to require opoids in the first place.
2. True.
3. Delusion. Overwhelmingly, people in prison on pot charges are there because they pled down from more serious charges, and they are there for dealing, not using. Think selling pot to kids is cool? Well then change that law.
4. By definition, legalizing pot puts the government in our lives in a big way. Cops stopped enforcing pot laws for users in nearly all states a long time ago. Silly argument
5. True. But the taxes collected are always less than projected by the Pro-pot folks. Seems your neighbor can undercut the high-cost legal stuff with the stuff he grows in his garage.
6. Laced Marijuana? Seriously? Are you talking about 1980? Today’s pot is so potent it needs no additives; everyone knows this.
7. Cartels moved on to heroin. They aren’t stupid. (Yeah, that’s better than cartel pot . . .)
Now how about telling us why legalization might be a bad thing? Or can you only think like a partisan?
He’s proven he sticks to things he believes just as much as you.
You haven’t argued your point well enough is the issue.
April 26, 2018 at 4:12 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Such immaturity out of you Planet.
April 26, 2018 at 5:58 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Please provide me with “facts” that disprove my points about marijuana.
This is an article about the negative effects of marijuana and you and all the Pot Fans spend time and energy trying to discount it.
And then you and Rosenblatt tell me I am the one who isn’t open minded on the issue.
Hear that laughter?
April 27, 2018 at 8:21 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Craig,
When you can prove ANYONE on IJ has EVER said marijuana is harmless, we can start debating the facts again.
Until then, I am not wasting any more time trying to educate you.
April 24, 2018 at 7:11 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
7
FFA, this article confirms what I have been saying for years about Marijuana being a gate way drug leading to more harmful drug use. Stoners don’t see it that way, but they are divorced from reality and lost in their foggy world. They also become Recreational after trying the Medical. That often leads to Meth, Heroine and Cocaine and can’t get off the drugs. The jails are full of them.
Agent, Don’t know what your bed is like, but this new bed we got is already paying off. She has had solid sleep since we have had it. She no longer tosses and turn through the night. I cant be sure of this, but I think she woke up in the same position this Am as she fell asleep in. Not once has she woken me up crying in pain since we have had it. Solid sack time has brought a better attitude – almost a calming effect – on the entire house. Its been less then a week and things have improved for everyone in the house.
The adjustable base is the key. .They deliver the new brain box on Friday to replace the broken one. Once we get back to the correct side for us, it will only get better. I hope… Its worth looking into. .
I have to disagree with it being an absolute “gateway drug”. I had many classmates who dropped LSD and never smoked. One of my friends from high school became addicted to cocaine and never smoked. Not even cigarettes. Some people want uppers and some want downers. Some people hate the idea of smoking anything, but still want to get off somehow. If anything, I say alcohol is the gateway drug. I’ve seen THAT with my own two eyes. Crazy what liquid courage can motivate.
Maybe Bob got tired of handing you your head on several hundred articles for the past several years. You are as hard headed as Confused and voted wrong for President several times in a row. How could you possibly be so wrong in voting for a committed Progressive Socialist? Massive failure.
Pot does have medicinal and pain relief benefits.
The problem is that the pot advocates used the fig leaf of legalizing the stuff for medical purposes to cover their recreational use many years ago. It might have seemed a good idea at the time but IMO all that did was to set legitimate use of pot back just as many years with lots of damage done along the way.
As a result, pot still has a stigma that causes many millions to be opposed to its use.
It should be legalized for medical use ONLY, with prescriptions given out by doctors like any other medicine for treatment of certain conditions and diseases. There should be limitations on doses as with any other scrip and then legitimate pharmacies should be the only facilities allowed to dispense the prescriptions.
It should in short be legitimate, regulated, controlled and used to help those poor souls who would benefit from its proper use.
For transparency, my wife and I are users of medical pot. We both have medical conditions that are better served by pot as opposed to opiods. We hate the stigma attached to it even living in a state that has legalized medical pot. We both hate that and wish people would just try and understand that we aren’t looking to get high but just want some relief from chronic pain as well as glaucoma-we aren’t hurting anyone and it makes our lives better-we’d probably both be on disability if we had to live with our conditions without some relief from the pain-AND we don’t use at work or when driving or any other physical activity like grass cutting btw.
Please let us have what we need to live.
The perception is changing. 2 years back, no way our Gov would consider it. Now, he is for Med Pot. Seems to be just a matter of time before she can get it legally.
I’ve inherited over 5000 sports cards from my Father In Law. What are the odds of one of them being a Mickey Mantel rookie card?
I’ve seen some Negro League Cards in the pile. Wondering how much they are worth…
Most of what I checked into end up being under $1.00 on E Bay.
unfortunately, the market for sports cards fell out a long time ago. They’re still cool to keep, though.
April 26, 2018 at 2:34 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
I seen an article recently that a 1959 Mickey Mantel in mint condition sold for over $2.5mil…. Crossing my fingers… got a lot to look through.
April 26, 2018 at 12:09 am
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
Hey Pot Fans:
Read about how THC damages your brain. From CNN back in 2014.
Read the comment at the bottom from the woman who did the research that is being reported on in the Journal of Neuroscience. “Holes in your brain.” OOPS! (On second thoughts, I think I’ll have a Budweiser instead . . .)
Now read the Los Angeles County 10 year report on the use of marijuana. Lots of scary stuff from the Department of Public Health. What’s your favorite? Mine is the footnote about the decline in IQ and increase in mental illness. Cool. Yeah, that seems worth the risk. (I’m not so keen on the large negative impact on the African American community, though). Maybe Jimmy Kimmel and John Oliver can make some more pot jokes to convince everyone how safe it is . . .
Ron – Craig and I already went over that earlier in this thread just 2 days ago. I suggest leaving it alone and just moving on (I know – easier said than done). It’s clear there’s not much we can say to him that will actually sink in.
Once again Craig, neither I nor nobody else on this site has ever denied there are serious negative effects to smoking marijuana. You’re beating a dead horse. (see Ron, I told you it was easier said than done! :).
April 26, 2018 at 12:51 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Exactly, Ron. Here are other things that are not harmless: Alcohol, sugar, saturated fats, tobacco, high fructose corn syrup, uncooked meats, sprouts, anhydrous ammonia, caffeine, asbestos, certain Chinese drywall, aspartame, BPA plastics…Maybe Craig and Sean Hannity the welfare king can discuss those dangers along with those of marijuana. Again, not instead of making this a “whatabout” argument. But rather, in conjunction with so everyone can understand the decisions they make everyday are not harmless, including those who choose to partake in marijuana.
It’s not about equivalency, it’s about the government determining what is best for us instead of letting the people decide for themselves. You know, freedom and liberty.
April 27, 2018 at 10:52 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Nope, sugar and tobacco might be worse. I don’t personally “hit the bong”, but I do choose to stay away from sugar. Unlike our Opiod czar Kellyanne, I don’t think you can combat drug addiction with “ice cream and the french fry”. I also believe people should have the liberty to choose to eat Snickers and pull a tube. I thought you were a champion of freedom, Craig? Evidently, I had you mistaken.
April 26, 2018 at 1:33 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
There have been studies for centuries documenting the bad effects of pot. Anyone pay attention in High School Health Class?
Why do we need more studies about the side effects? They are well documented.
The studies that need to be done relate to medical use.
“You can’t triple stamp a double stamp, Lloyd! You can’t triple stamp a double stamp, Lloyd! Lloyd! LLOYYYYDDDD!!!”
–pretty much every debate in the comments section of the IJ, which is why we all keep coming back for more. Happy Friday to Agent, Polar, Cap’n Planet, Rosenblatt, Ron, Craig, Confused, FFA, bob, and everyone else out there!!!
“Several studies suggest a link between adolescent cannabis use and schizophrenia.” This is a direct quote from one of the links in your 60 Reasons to Legalize Marijuana.
The study goes on to say that perhaps marijuana is causing people to become schizophrenic because they already have a family history of schizophrenia.
Well, golly, Gomer! That’s great news. People become schizophrenic after using pot. And now we can say pot only triggered something already in their genetic code. (But not that they would have become schizophrenic without pot. The article left that part out. But for thinking people, that is pretty obvious.)
Sounds like schizophrenia is a good thing. And your link is a joke.
Only for those with a truly open mind (and not one that only looks at silly lists of the reasons for legalization that leaves out the reasons voters are ignorant of the dangers and so have voted in the dark):
WHAT? You mean people who suffer mental health issues caused solely by THC never completely recover? Yikes. 91% of addicted teens are addicted to pot? Yikes.
Now, why didn’t the Pot Fans advertise these outcomes when they were pushing for legalized “recreational” pot? Gee, open minded? Stoned? What’s your guess?
The good news: the pot fans will weed themselves out of positions of responsibility over time by smoking pot. Natural Selection at work. (Too bad for the ignorant teenagers . . .)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
This study is far from definitively proving causation and has plenty of weaknesses.
From the article:
“Rather than being at lower risk, people who use medical marijuana MAY be at higher risk for non-medical prescription drug use”
“However, an accompanying commentary questions whether medical cannabis is the CAUSE of higher prescription drug use, or whether other factors explain the association.”
“Caputi notes the lack of large-scale follow-up data on whether patients are using cannabis together with or in place of prescription drugs.”
“Our findings don’t prove a causal connection between marijuana and opioid use, but they do suggest physicians can use medical marijuana as a marker for high risk of non-medical prescription drug use.”
“Given that people who take medical cannabis and those who do not are likely to have different underlying medical conditions, it is possible that medical cannabis use reduces prescription drug use yet prescription drug use remains relatively high in that group,”
“In other studies, people who take medical marijuana consistently report substituting cannabis for other prescription and illicit drugs. Dr. Bachhuber and coauthors conclude: ‘To fully understand the effect of medical cannabis on the use of other drugs, prospective longitudinal studies randomizing patients to cannabis versus other treatments are urgently needed.’”
I like where you went with your reply :)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Nobody on this site has ever claimed it’s harmless or that it has no long-term negative impacts. You and I have already been over this. Do you have any interest in responding to the points Ron or I made, or you cool with just posting your Straw Man argument as a “reply”?
It isn’t a “Straw Man” argument – we don’t know much about the long term impact of marijuana, but there are lots of signs it is damaging.
That’s a fact, Jack. Not a “straw man” argument.
You can speculate all you want. I have read multiple studies about the omninous signs that THC is damaging to the brains of young people, that it doubles the chances of mental illness, that it causes brain damage for children in the womb for mothers who smoke while pregnant.
But you go ahead and pretend legalization is groovy. Check back with me in 20 years when reality sets in for everyone.
Craig,
Why don’t we make everything that has been proven to have long term adverse effects illegal? Cigarettes, alcohol, processed foods, soda, etc.
The government needs to get out of the business of protecting us from ourselves and focus on protecting us from others.
Again — I’m not arguing that marijuana is completely safe and has no long-term negative effects.
You continue to argue that point, which nobody here has ever made. That is the textbook definition of a straw man argument whether you want to admit it or not.
“A straw man is a common form of argument….based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.“
@Ron; the govt needs to protect us from stoners on our roads, and in other public places where their actions while stoned may harm innocent citizens. Please note that public intoxication is a misdemeanor offense before you make the typical, lame, and expected-from-stoners reply about alcohol being a dangerous drug.
Yogi,
We have laws against stoned driving and lewd and lascivious behavior, whether stoned, drunk, or sober. The government already affords us these protections.
Polar,
We already have laws “protecting” from the scenarios you describe.
That said, a majority of Americans disagree with you that we need Big Government to “protect” us from a plant, through federal prohibition of said plant:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/07/fox-news-poll-support-for-legalizing-marijuana-hits-record-high.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2017/10/25/poll-legal-marijuana-support-at-record-high-in-u-s/#3867e18143ff
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/05/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/
Ignoring the contradiction you posted in the first and last paragraph, here’s a reply explaining the study’s limitations and why the conclusion reached isn’t an end-all be-all point of argument.
1) Small sample size: out of 57,000 people surveyed, only 1.36% said they used medical marijuana. Less than 2% of a study group is not a sufficient sample size of said group.
2) No followup analysis on the data: “Caputi notes the lack of large-scale follow-up data on whether patients are using cannabis together with or in place of prescription drugs” I mean – how can one argue there may be an increased risk if the study didn’t bother asking “is that the only med you’re taking, or are you on something else?” If all they’re doing is smoking marijuana, there is ZERO increased risk of using prescription drugs because none of the people are taking anything else. If people are supplementing marijuana with other drugs, the study should’ve indicated what the ‘script usage rate is for the group.
3) Study simply indicated there’s a correlation. “Our findings don’t prove a causal connection between marijuana and opioid use” No connection = can’t posit that the results actually prove the conclusion.
4) No details on underlying medical condition (e.g. were the 1.4% people who smoked marijuana suffering the same pains and ailments as the non marijuana group, or were they in better or worse condition?) “Given that people who take medical cannabis and those who do not are likely to have different underlying medical conditions, it is possible that medical cannabis use reduces prescription drug use yet prescription drug use remains relatively high in that group,” Dr. Bachhuber comment
Those are 4 points why I have an issue with the study. None of which came with a downvote to your post. I look forward to your reply on these 4 items for further discussion should you be willing to discuss this without insults, attacks, hyperbole and straw man arguments.
I posted the last paragraph to try to help stoners to reply with substantive details, and not just down vote and run.
I’ll reply later, when I’m not pressed for time.
**waiting patiently**
1. Statistical credibility of a sample is based on a number, not a percentage of a sample of a larger population of study subjects.
2. follow up analyses take time… to set out the approach, collect the refined dataset, and analyze the new dataset against a benchmark.
3. causal connections are rarely provable. That is a basic tenet of statistics using an open set or universe of risks with multiple independent variables that are known or suspected to influence the dependent variable. Example: flip a coin and get 50% heads, 50% tails. Flip a coin lying on a table ONCE and get the opposite side with 100% certainty; e.g. with heads facing up on a coin lying on a table, flipping the coin once (i.e. turn it over onto the other side) and you get tails with 100% certainty.
4. There is no need to determine the underlying conditions if it can safely be assumed there are a wide variety of such conditions. With about 800 medi-pot users, it can safely be assumed there are a variety of medical conditions within that group. If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it to the attention of the researchers and inform them that their analysis is invalid. Otherwise, you cannot invalidate research by mentioning possibilities that are normally thin when 800 subjects are sampled. That said, I’d expect there might be a slightly higher percentage of medi-pot users with greater ailments than the norm. But that doesn’t invalidate the study’s results…. i.e. medi-pot users are subject to greater chances of moving onto opioids and other non-scrip meds.
4.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my points. A follow-up to your comments:
1) fair enough
2) I wasn’t talking about follow-ups that take time to get the data. The item I specifically referenced could’ve been obtained simply by asking a follow-up question which would allow us to really understand what the patients are reporting and if using marijuana actually caused them to use other drugs or not.
*The study didn’t bother asking “is that the only med you’re taking, or are you on something else?” If all they’re doing is smoking marijuana, there is ZERO increased risk of using prescription drugs because none of the people are taking anything else. If people are supplementing marijuana with other drugs, the study should’ve indicated what the ‘script usage rate is for the group.
3) I infer from your response on this point that you agree the study didn’t find any causation between marijuana use and use of other non-prescription drugs. Excellent.
4) That’s your opinion based on your assumption. Without actually knowing why the patients were treating with conventional medicine vs. marijuana would be huge in my opinion. I get there are HIPAA concerns with asking that question, but I don’t feel comfortable saying “those 800 people had similar medical conditions to the other 56,200 folks.”
There are too many medical conditions that could be treated in these patients to accurately state there’s an overlapping group of “similar medical conditions: one group is treating with marijuana and the other group isn’t”
Just my $0.02
PolarBeaRepeal,
Another take from years of research:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/24/health/medical-marijuana-opioid-epidemic-sanjay-gupta/index.html
CNN = Fake News. (This is MY version of a down vote and run)
Only being able to discredit the source = zero credibility
I notice you never say this to Planet, whom you often agree with, when he says Faux News.
Fake news is totally garbage, but Faux News isn’t apparently. Faux news has been said since I was in Highschool in 2003, and I have never seen a large resistance to it. Suddenly someone says Fake news, and it’s a big deal.
It has to do largely with people like you, being lop sided in your defenses and what triggers you.
Get on the other side. You believe you’re going after the side with less resistance. You’re not. You are going with the flow. Work on it.
Poor wording, I should say whom you agree with often, and who also says Faux News quite a lot, and you believe still has credibility.
Funny how saying Fake News removes all credibility, whereas saying Faux News all the time doesn’t.
bob – I think you’re missing the point on this part of the thread (although it’s possible you hadn’t read the next 3 posts below).
Ron posted a link that PBR discredited solely because it was posted on CNN. You told Ron to “Get on the other side.”
Well, he did – he linked to the same story as reported by Fox to alleviate PBR’s concerns with the source, that CNN = Fake News.
PBR then discredited the report NOT because of the content or the new source, but because of the author.
Pretty sure you should be getting on PBR’s case for shifting the goalposts — first dismissing the article SOLELY because it was on CNN then, when confronted with the same report from Fox, dismissing the story because of the author without providing anything substantive to prove he actually read the article.
I did not miss the point. At all.
There are numerous times here in which leftists use this debate tactic, and he has accepted it.
You’re missing my point.
You, and Ron, are both bad at debates. Polar happens to be worse, but you’re both bad at it. I only put out this particular comment because it happens to be something I’ve seen happen here a lot. When I debated UW for months, this was his go to. Who was credible and who was not.
When you two debated me you also did poorly. I know you don’t see it that way, you did. I’m on both of you because you suck at debating, and most your points are essentially: I’m better than you.
You might think I debate like that, I don’t.
I don’t like a few things about you guys. It’s also why I tend to leave not long after posting, and then I see your idiotic comments about me shotgunning an argument, instead of directing my points (don’t think just because I didn’t respond I didn’t see your stupid comments).
I just don’t have time for this right now. I’m pointing out your guys’s issues mostly at the moment. You do have them. Severely. Severe blind spots to the left, severe overconfidence in your research, severe over confidence in your morality.
I’ll use this current argument for example because all I have to do to blow you both out of the water is this:
With drugs, do we approve them so long as someone doesn’t prove harmful affects? Ron’s first post is pretty pointless. If there is even a remote chance that making a drug wide spread available to the public will have negative consequences, and lead to stronger drug use, it shouldn’t be approved. The drug should be regulated. But here the two of you are arguing the negative essentially, that is he hasn’t proven it unsafe. That’s not how a drug should work, and the supplement industry abuses this method to HUGE degrees of harms. Have you seen those lawsuits that come into affect later on based on your and Ron’s idiotic methodology?
But I know why you two are taking this debate.
1. Arrogance. Both of you believe you have to prove polar wrong because well, you’re better than him.
2. You both have an affinity and bias in your mind to think that pot as a drug has been over condemned, and you need to balance it out because it’s not that bad.
Whether you’re willing to admit point 1 and 2 or not, it is a factor here.
And I don’t have time to debate with people with that low of an operating standard with their own logics.
Do you prefer this source?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/04/20/420-and-medical-marijuana-now-s-time-to-unleash-power-pot.html
No, I don’t agree with Dr. Manny, whose opinions do not represent the consensus opinion of FoxNews.
In my first post you complained about the source, so I provided a different one. Now your complaining about the author.
At what point do you display any ability to be convinced by facts presented from multiple sources?
Uh, that’s called never, Ron. Facts do not matter, only opinions and the Hannity narrative. Those are the marching orders, after all.
Polar, “Purge the Scourge” Still not tired of winning.
MARCH 12, 2018 AT 4:31 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Boring, boring, boring. Your act is getting very old. Take a hike. No one wants to read your total rubbish.
APRIL 9, 2018 AT 2:28 PM
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
2
Sounds like you don’t have any original thoughts
Polar, have seen an ad on TV listing a 1-800 number for those who are addicted to drugs. They offer help to stoners and other hard drug users. Wonder how many call it.
I would sincerely hope anyone who cannot control whatever addiction conversely controls them would find the help they need.
Who would down vote this sentiment? You’d rather people stay addicted. Whomever you are, you are sick and need help yourself. I hope you get it. I’ll pray for you and I have a good idea who I am praying for.
Re-Posted as a means of defeating STONERS’ attempts to censor factual data and analyses:
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 4
Thumb down 16
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
This latest study is a crushing defeat to those stoners hoping to use medi-pot as a stepping stone to legalization of recre-pot. I expect a few down votes, but no replies to my post because there isn’t any weaknesses in the recent study cited in the article, by CREDIBLE researchers, that dispels prior lies about medi-pot preventing abuse of opioids or other risky pain relief meds. Those prior studies were not conducted in an unbiased manner, thus their conclusions were tainted.
Note especially, stoners, this excerpt from the article: ” The researchers analyzed more than 57,000 responses to the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Participants were asked about medical and non-medical (“inconsistent with doctor’s instructions”) use of prescription drugs. ”
Note, also, this excerpt: ” Previous studies have reported that states where medical marijuana is legal have lower rates of medical and non-medical prescription drug use and related harms—including opioid overdose. “These reports have led many to believe that use of medical marijuana is a protective factor against non-medical prescription drug use,” Caputi comments. “However, individual-level inferences cannot be made using the ecological studies cited frequently in the debate over medical marijuana.”
Finally, if stoners read the entire article, they will notice it has replies and comments that point out the lack of full credibility of the study cited. Stoners who want to have an adult conversation should use those comments to reply to my post, or make independent comments to support their positions. I suspect many stoners will simply ‘down-vote-and-run’.
Reply
Its been know for a long time that pot is a gateway drug. I learned this all the way back in High School. Seen it with my own two eyes.
So, lets study it until we get the results we want, eh?
FFA,
That has been debunked by many studies. Do some users turn to different drugs? Yes. But that is not because of the marijuana use, it is already ingrained in them.
Legalizing would provide the following benefits:
1. Reduce opioid use/abuse
2. Provide relief to chemotherapy and pain sufferers
3. Reduce spending on enforcement, courts, and jail
4. Less government involvement in the private lives of its citizens
5. Increase revenue in the form of taxes
6. Reduce laced marijuana through regulation
7. Take away revenue from cartels
There are more, but this should be reason enough for a freedom and liberty loving, anti-big government Conservative to support legalizing the consumption of an unaltered plant.
“That has been debunked by many studies. Do some users turn to different drugs? Yes. ”
You disagree, then turn around and agree. You usually don’t contradict yourself like that. A blue Moon tonight?
BTW, I do agree with all 7 of your points.
Im not a big supporter of Rec Use. Maybe its just cause I’m old school. But to each his own. You want to smoke it for fun, have at it. I’ll politely decline.
Just like Health Insurance, they stick their nose in it, the price will climb.
I also find it funny that people think there is research that needs to be done. American Indians were using it when the pilgrim’s arrived. So, 200+ years of time has passed with pot being used, but yet we need more research…. .
BTW, my friend that used a pot based home brew has been diagnosed terminal brain cancer.
He got a good 2.5 years from his home brew. Appears he has 6 -8 weeks left. RIP my friend. See you on the other side.
Getting this news and spending the night in the ER with my mom has me a little off my game today.
Man alive, FFA…sorry to hear about your friend. I can’t believe that we have more technology in our iPhones than was used to put a man on the moon but we still haven’t figured out how to completely wipe out cancer. I’ve lost many friends and family to it. I hope he doesn’t suffer.
absolute best of luck to you…You’re due for something good to happen. Stay strong!
He was first diagnosed terminal about three years ago. Gave him 3-6 months. Then he came up with concoction with pot & ever clear and one other ingredient. After three months, the doc declared him 99% cancer free. Doc didn’t want to hear a word about the formula. I haven’t seen him for a few months and then get message on FB.
At the very least, he got an extra 2.5 years.
Based on this, Med Pot needs to be researched & legalized for Cancer patients.
FFA,
I did not disagree, then agree. Did you miss the last sentence of that paragraph? It ties it all together to point out that if someone goes from marijuana to harder drugs, it is not because of the marijuana use. That is an important distinction.
Hope that clears that up for you.
You said, ” You want to smoke it for fun, have at it. I’ll politely decline.” That is exactly what supporters of legalization say. We are not looking to force people to use marijuana, just get the government out of the business of those who wish to. For the record, I have never used nor have any desire to do so.
Point by Point:
1. Nonsense. There is no evidence of this. It is all based on state-wide statistics that are so broad as to be meaningless speculation. Opioid abuse has multiple causes and one of the trusted research projects around show that most people do fine on tylenol/ibuprophen in place of opiods. Will marijuana replace opiods? Only when the pain is really not so serious as to require opoids in the first place.
2. True.
3. Delusion. Overwhelmingly, people in prison on pot charges are there because they pled down from more serious charges, and they are there for dealing, not using. Think selling pot to kids is cool? Well then change that law.
4. By definition, legalizing pot puts the government in our lives in a big way. Cops stopped enforcing pot laws for users in nearly all states a long time ago. Silly argument
5. True. But the taxes collected are always less than projected by the Pro-pot folks. Seems your neighbor can undercut the high-cost legal stuff with the stuff he grows in his garage.
6. Laced Marijuana? Seriously? Are you talking about 1980? Today’s pot is so potent it needs no additives; everyone knows this.
7. Cartels moved on to heroin. They aren’t stupid. (Yeah, that’s better than cartel pot . . .)
Now how about telling us why legalization might be a bad thing? Or can you only think like a partisan?
Craig Cornell,
You have proven time and time again that you will not change your position, regardless of facts, data and studies.
Enjoy your life of ignorance.
Oh SNAP!
That’s pretty much you, kiddo.
He’s proven he sticks to things he believes just as much as you.
You haven’t argued your point well enough is the issue.
Such immaturity out of you Planet.
Please provide me with “facts” that disprove my points about marijuana.
This is an article about the negative effects of marijuana and you and all the Pot Fans spend time and energy trying to discount it.
And then you and Rosenblatt tell me I am the one who isn’t open minded on the issue.
Hear that laughter?
Craig,
When you can prove ANYONE on IJ has EVER said marijuana is harmless, we can start debating the facts again.
Until then, I am not wasting any more time trying to educate you.
FFA, this article confirms what I have been saying for years about Marijuana being a gate way drug leading to more harmful drug use. Stoners don’t see it that way, but they are divorced from reality and lost in their foggy world. They also become Recreational after trying the Medical. That often leads to Meth, Heroine and Cocaine and can’t get off the drugs. The jails are full of them.
“this article confirms what I have been saying for years about Marijuana being a gate way drug leading to more harmful drug use”
yeah …. except that’s not what the article was about at all ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• APRIL 5, 2018 AT 3:00 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
7
Shows you don’t have a clue what is going on.
Agent, Don’t know what your bed is like, but this new bed we got is already paying off. She has had solid sleep since we have had it. She no longer tosses and turn through the night. I cant be sure of this, but I think she woke up in the same position this Am as she fell asleep in. Not once has she woken me up crying in pain since we have had it. Solid sack time has brought a better attitude – almost a calming effect – on the entire house. Its been less then a week and things have improved for everyone in the house.
The adjustable base is the key. .They deliver the new brain box on Friday to replace the broken one. Once we get back to the correct side for us, it will only get better. I hope… Its worth looking into. .
I have to disagree with it being an absolute “gateway drug”. I had many classmates who dropped LSD and never smoked. One of my friends from high school became addicted to cocaine and never smoked. Not even cigarettes. Some people want uppers and some want downers. Some people hate the idea of smoking anything, but still want to get off somehow. If anything, I say alcohol is the gateway drug. I’ve seen THAT with my own two eyes. Crazy what liquid courage can motivate.
I would honestly like bob to way in on this one. Say you what you want about him (he hates my guts), the man does his research.
dangit…WEIGH in, not “way in.” WEIGH in. sal-culpa.
Maybe if finally came to the realization that he was being proven wrong more than he could handle.
No need to be rehabilitated when the facts are on your side.
Maybe Bob got tired of handing you your head on several hundred articles for the past several years. You are as hard headed as Confused and voted wrong for President several times in a row. How could you possibly be so wrong in voting for a committed Progressive Socialist? Massive failure.
Pot does have medicinal and pain relief benefits.
The problem is that the pot advocates used the fig leaf of legalizing the stuff for medical purposes to cover their recreational use many years ago. It might have seemed a good idea at the time but IMO all that did was to set legitimate use of pot back just as many years with lots of damage done along the way.
As a result, pot still has a stigma that causes many millions to be opposed to its use.
It should be legalized for medical use ONLY, with prescriptions given out by doctors like any other medicine for treatment of certain conditions and diseases. There should be limitations on doses as with any other scrip and then legitimate pharmacies should be the only facilities allowed to dispense the prescriptions.
It should in short be legitimate, regulated, controlled and used to help those poor souls who would benefit from its proper use.
For transparency, my wife and I are users of medical pot. We both have medical conditions that are better served by pot as opposed to opiods. We hate the stigma attached to it even living in a state that has legalized medical pot. We both hate that and wish people would just try and understand that we aren’t looking to get high but just want some relief from chronic pain as well as glaucoma-we aren’t hurting anyone and it makes our lives better-we’d probably both be on disability if we had to live with our conditions without some relief from the pain-AND we don’t use at work or when driving or any other physical activity like grass cutting btw.
Please let us have what we need to live.
The perception is changing. 2 years back, no way our Gov would consider it. Now, he is for Med Pot. Seems to be just a matter of time before she can get it legally.
whatever it takes, friend. Nobody should have to endure that much pain if there’s something out there that can help with it.
Only the best to you and her. Start playing the lotto, you’re due for a win.
I’ve inherited over 5000 sports cards from my Father In Law. What are the odds of one of them being a Mickey Mantel rookie card?
I’ve seen some Negro League Cards in the pile. Wondering how much they are worth…
Most of what I checked into end up being under $1.00 on E Bay.
unfortunately, the market for sports cards fell out a long time ago. They’re still cool to keep, though.
I seen an article recently that a 1959 Mickey Mantel in mint condition sold for over $2.5mil…. Crossing my fingers… got a lot to look through.
Hey Pot Fans:
Read about how THC damages your brain. From CNN back in 2014.
Read the comment at the bottom from the woman who did the research that is being reported on in the Journal of Neuroscience. “Holes in your brain.” OOPS! (On second thoughts, I think I’ll have a Budweiser instead . . .)
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/16/casual-marijuana-use-may-damage-your-brain/?hpt=hp_bn13
Now read the Los Angeles County 10 year report on the use of marijuana. Lots of scary stuff from the Department of Public Health. What’s your favorite? Mine is the footnote about the decline in IQ and increase in mental illness. Cool. Yeah, that seems worth the risk. (I’m not so keen on the large negative impact on the African American community, though). Maybe Jimmy Kimmel and John Oliver can make some more pot jokes to convince everyone how safe it is . . .
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/sapc/MDU/MDBrief/MarijuanaBriefFinal.pdf
NOBODY HERE HAS EVER SAID MARIJUANA IS HARMLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ron – Craig and I already went over that earlier in this thread just 2 days ago. I suggest leaving it alone and just moving on (I know – easier said than done). It’s clear there’s not much we can say to him that will actually sink in.
“Holes in Your Brain”. Directly from the researcher cited in the Journal of Neuroscience.
I am sure you already knew that . . . sure you did.
Once again Craig, neither I nor nobody else on this site has ever denied there are serious negative effects to smoking marijuana. You’re beating a dead horse. (see Ron, I told you it was easier said than done! :).
Exactly, Ron. Here are other things that are not harmless: Alcohol, sugar, saturated fats, tobacco, high fructose corn syrup, uncooked meats, sprouts, anhydrous ammonia, caffeine, asbestos, certain Chinese drywall, aspartame, BPA plastics…Maybe Craig and Sean Hannity the welfare king can discuss those dangers along with those of marijuana. Again, not instead of making this a “whatabout” argument. But rather, in conjunction with so everyone can understand the decisions they make everyday are not harmless, including those who choose to partake in marijuana.
don’t forget about sodium chloride and dihydrogen monoxide – too much of the latter could cause hyponatremia!
Sugar and marijuana and tobacco are equivalent? What? Sugar won’t damage your brain. It will make you fat.
Are you hitting the bong again?
It’s not about equivalency, it’s about the government determining what is best for us instead of letting the people decide for themselves. You know, freedom and liberty.
Nope, sugar and tobacco might be worse. I don’t personally “hit the bong”, but I do choose to stay away from sugar. Unlike our Opiod czar Kellyanne, I don’t think you can combat drug addiction with “ice cream and the french fry”. I also believe people should have the liberty to choose to eat Snickers and pull a tube. I thought you were a champion of freedom, Craig? Evidently, I had you mistaken.
There have been studies for centuries documenting the bad effects of pot. Anyone pay attention in High School Health Class?
Why do we need more studies about the side effects? They are well documented.
The studies that need to be done relate to medical use.
Have you seen the side effects of many prescription drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, processed foods, trans fats, and many other legal substances?
Many medical studies cannot be done because marijuana is still a Schedule I narcotic.
Yes. And I believe what I see. I know all about Steroids & Opiads
My point is that the research / studies that need to done on this topic are the ones that relate to medical use.
“You can’t triple stamp a double stamp, Lloyd! You can’t triple stamp a double stamp, Lloyd! Lloyd! LLOYYYYDDDD!!!”
–pretty much every debate in the comments section of the IJ, which is why we all keep coming back for more. Happy Friday to Agent, Polar, Cap’n Planet, Rosenblatt, Ron, Craig, Confused, FFA, bob, and everyone else out there!!!
But sal, according to the map – we’ve only gone 4 inches! :) Work-shopping off your comment, I hoping everyone here has a nice weekend!
Only for those with an open mind…
https://ivn.us/2018/04/24/60-reasons-legalize-marijuana/
“Several studies suggest a link between adolescent cannabis use and schizophrenia.” This is a direct quote from one of the links in your 60 Reasons to Legalize Marijuana.
The study goes on to say that perhaps marijuana is causing people to become schizophrenic because they already have a family history of schizophrenia.
Well, golly, Gomer! That’s great news. People become schizophrenic after using pot. And now we can say pot only triggered something already in their genetic code. (But not that they would have become schizophrenic without pot. The article left that part out. But for thinking people, that is pretty obvious.)
Sounds like schizophrenia is a good thing. And your link is a joke.
Only for those with a truly open mind (and not one that only looks at silly lists of the reasons for legalization that leaves out the reasons voters are ignorant of the dangers and so have voted in the dark):
“http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5642917/Nine-ten-teens-drug-clinics-treated-marijuana-use.ht
WHAT? You mean people who suffer mental health issues caused solely by THC never completely recover? Yikes. 91% of addicted teens are addicted to pot? Yikes.
Now, why didn’t the Pot Fans advertise these outcomes when they were pushing for legalized “recreational” pot? Gee, open minded? Stoned? What’s your guess?
The good news: the pot fans will weed themselves out of positions of responsibility over time by smoking pot. Natural Selection at work. (Too bad for the ignorant teenagers . . .)
APRIL 19, 2018 AT 2:53 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Thanks, third grader!
Craig,
Obviously, that article was not meant for you.
Or you either.
YOU CAN’T TRIPLE STAMP A DOUBLE STAMP, LLOYD! YOU CAN’T TRIPLE STAMP A DOUBLE STAMP, LLOYD! LLOYD! LLOOYYYYYYDDDD!!!
Does anyone know a good market for International Risks? Manufacturing that does foreign trade shows?