Craig, is it any wonder why Employers can’t find good, drug free employees to hire, particularly in the legalized Recreational states? Some have said on this blog that Recreational use does no harm and it is no problem. They deny that Marijuana is a gateway drug leading to Meth, Cocaine and Opiates. This survey confirms what I have been saying for years now. Progressives are the ones pushing every legalization election under the guise of Medical needs. Then, they push for Recreational use and watch disaster unfold before their eyes.
I read a study recently released that followed marijuana users for 30 years. They said their brains are permanently affected by it’s use. It’s use results in depression and suicide rates are high among it’s users. Not many people want to hear it though. I think it’s replacing anti-depressives for many people. Why not go about life as a sane human without alcohol and drugs? Is it that hard? I’m certain it has medicinal properties because a lot of God’s creation does have medicinal properties. Wish it could be legal in all states for a doctor to prescribe it in it’s medicinal form.
“Some have said on this blog that Recreational use does no harm and it is no problem.” Nobody here has ever said that, no matter how many times you and Craig post that nonsense.
Craig Cornell says:
(Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.)
First we legalize it. Then we find out what it does. In the meantime, let’s pretend it won’t have any long term negative impact, just for fun.
Craig Cornell says:
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.
…
But you go ahead and pretend legalization is groovy. Check back with me in 20 years when reality sets in for everyone
Craig Cornell says:
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.
Craig Cornell says:
Hey Pot Fans: Read about how THC damages your brain. … Maybe Jimmy Kimmel and John Oliver can make some more pot jokes to convince everyone how safe it is
There’s a few more times in that comment section where you tried to argue posters here were claiming it was safe, but I don’t think I need to quote you anymore to support my argument.
May 10, 2018 at 8:32 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
See the down votes for “perplexed”. She states the truth about studies connecting marijuana and depression and higher rates of suicide.
She then advocates for medical marijuana.
Now explain to me why anyone would vote down her very reasonable comments unless they think marijuana has no downsides.
“Now explain to me why anyone would vote down her very reasonable comments unless they think marijuana has no downsides”
Thanks for saying that, Craig. I’ll add that comment to the list of posts where you clearly imply you believe there are people here who think marijuana has no negative effects.
May 11, 2018 at 1:04 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
Rosenblatt, you are in complete denial. Stoners on this site have repeatedly said there was no harm to Recreational use just as they were about to light up again.
Please cite those quotes. If it has been repeated, they should be easy to find.
May 11, 2018 at 1:35 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
So prove it Agent — provide the quote(s). I provided 4 direct quotes from Craig to prove what I said was true. Now I ask you to do the same.
I’ll gladly apologize and admit you were right and I was wrong if you can simply find one quote from anyone here that said marijuana had no side effects and/or was completely harmless. Put up or shut up.
May 11, 2018 at 1:37 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Hello Mike,
You are sadly in denial. Most on here who argue for legalization do not argue about this idea it is completely harmless. That is a blatantly false statement, as is yours about most on here “repeatedly” talking about the idea of it being a harmless substance. It is not true, but Rosen did call out Craig on his misleading statement about past behavior. Again you use anecdotal evidence which is the wrong way to prove points.
May 15, 2018 at 12:52 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
MARCH 8, 2018 AT 12:42 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
I see that you and your comrade have been puffing a little too much weed and you are Scromiting all over this site.
May 10, 2018 at 10:40 am
sapient says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
I’m not a marijuana user, nor was I back in the ’70’s, when weed was as common as beer on my college campus. Yet I think it’s a good idea to legalize weed, both for medical and recreational purposes. You don’t have to think it’s harmless to be willing to allow other adults to choose for themselves what to do with their brains and bodies.
Employers in states where weed is legal are getting more nuanced about how and when they test, knowing that a urine test says something about past use, but nothing about present impairment. There are many responsible recreational users, and employers are getting smarter about retaining good employees regardless of what they chose to consume over the weekend.
I would love to see a test developed that is more like breathalyzers or blood tests for alcohol, one that is far more specific to current impairment at work.
Sounds great. What are the downsides to legalization?
What have we learned from Colorado? About car accidents? About teenage addiction?
What have we learned about the black market? Has it really shrunk after legalization?
What has the impact been on homelessness in Denver, according to authorities?
Tax receipts? As predicted?
How has legalization played out as expected and how has it not done so?
In coordination with legalization. We can use the tens of billions of dollars saved from enforcement, courts and incarceration and/or tax revenue to cover the costs.
May 11, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Not sure what you are trying to prove. You and I both know the Pro Pot crowd generally likes to avoid discussion of the science that shows marijuana to be dangerous, and when I link to legitimate scientific research proving same, NO ONE admits they learned something new or that the science even exists.
They just attack me, the messenger.
Did I ever say EVERYONE on the IJ comments section pretends marijuana is harmless? Never. Are there many who avoid admitting the truth? Many.
I’m trying to prove you had no justification for attacking my credibility. You said I wasn’t being honest, so I posted 4 times when you said what I claimed you did. Instead of acknowledging this, you ignored me.
I mean, even now, you continue to imply what you originally claimed you never said! It would be nice if you would admit you were wrong when you attacked my credibility and that I was being truthful when I called you out. That’s all … just admit I WAS being honest about what I claimed you said.
is not a conclusive study. It is very informative (which I agree after reading up on this specific study), but when one goes into the study and looks at the other cases (that attempt to replicate the study) which discuss this there are many factors that they left out due to the institute who oversaw the research. One of the main ones was the socioeconomic factor, which has been had multiple studies on how this is the missing link between the slight correlation found within the study. I agree the dangers need to be explored further, but currently that study you use frequently is not
How about the one published in the Journal of Neuroscience, where the researcher summarized her findings by saying that marijuana causes “holes in the brain”.
Or the one based solely on statistical analysis that finds consumers of THC double their chances of becoming bipolar or schizophrenic. That study is actually more conservative; some surveys of pot users compared to non-pot users put the chances of becoming seriously mentally ill as 3 times higher for pot users.
Or how about the 3 studies that show infants in the womb exposed to THC from using, pregnant women suffer brain damage at a slightly higher rate than do infants in the womb exposed to lead poisoning.
Should I go on? Or are you a pot user who is going to deny the truth no matter how much evidence is put in front of you? Because I could give you about 20 studies that would scare you away from THC.
Below is directly from the link you sent. Note that the study only focused on 20 users and 20 non-users. In other words, statistically pointless. Note also that the study you linked downplayed their own findings as “only at one point in time”.
“The researchers found that cannabis users had more gray matter density in the left nucleus accumbens and left amygdala, as well as differences in the shape of the left nucleus accumbens and right amygdala. The left nucleus accumbens also tended to be slightly larger in users. They concluded that recreational cannabis use might be associated with abnormalities in the brain’s reward system.”
Gee, sounds like something is going on in the brains of users. Perhaps you are a user who isn’t processing clearly . . .
May 14, 2018 at 6:57 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Below is copied directly from the Scientific American report you linked. It is at the bottom of the article.
REALITY CHECK—CANNABIS USE HAS BEEN FOUND TO:
• Cause dependence, at some point in their lives, in about 9 percent of people who try it.
• Impair various aspects of cognitive function, particularly memory. Impairments can remain for several days. One study showed that performance returns to nonusers’ levels after 28 days of abstinence, but evidence is mixed about how long the impairments last.
• Potentially reduce the volume of the hippocampus, which is critical for memory—but only after heavy and prolonged use. The evidence linking cognitive impairments to specific brain changes is inconclusive, and the degree to which such changes are reversible is hotly debated. —S.M.
May 15, 2018 at 8:01 am
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“Perhaps you are a user who isn’t processing clearly . . .”
It would actually be you who isn’t processing clearly. After posting the link, he wrote “The issue I see is that they are poorly executed leading to misrepresented information.” He already acknowledged the issue you’re claiming he’s not aware of in that study.
But go ahead and point fingers and insult people, that’s always a great way to be taken seriously (not!)
May 15, 2018 at 10:41 am
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Craig,
I never said it was harmless, but the issue is there are other issues present in those in it. The number is statistically insignificant, which means the study is not without bias and can be taken with a grain of salt. I bring this point up because it discusses the study you mentioned that creates holes within the brain. You just admitted the study was poorly executed and statistically insignificant, so the results cannot establish a link.
I am processing clearly the studies that have bias within them. You play to your own points within the study, but it does state that the study has bias and they admit to it. There needs to be more research again.
Also stop insulting those and pushing an agenda that they are high, it is childish.
As an actuary, studies can be helpful if they are executed properly. That is why it is important to look at the conditions and parameters used in each. If the study has bias (leaving out factors that could influence the results) and has not been replicated successfully yet, the study is not effective way to draw conclusions. Once a study can be replicated, under similar parameters making sure bias is left out, then the results have a heavier weight to be used.
I am one who advocates for the legalization of this gradually. With that you also have called me a pot head and asked if I was high multiple times. This is why I debate you on this subject. I am for the scientific truth, but what you agent and Polar push is sometimes unsubstantiated claims. I will agree with you that Cannabis can have negative consequences, especially with developing minds (that is why children and teens should not be able to use this). I am also for funding more research into this so we can truly determine all effects this could have. With that being said, I do believe it needs to not be a schedule 1 drug so the studies can be a better view of the effects so bias is left out.
Today, the San Diego Union Tribune editorial staff – liberal, of course – chastised California politicians for legalizing marijuana without any consideration that the high fees for legal distributors and the high taxes being tacked on would – wait for it – expand the Black Market. It seems “not enough” legal businesses are starting up because of these costs.
Duh, says the conservatives who actually, you know, think straight and can do simple math. This was so obvious from the beginning.
Now tell me. Do you think the lefties who supported legalization ever thought through all the other considerations: addiction rates, increasing mental illness, more traffic accidents, impact on minority communities, demand for rehabilitation services . . . ?
Yes, but even if the voters didn’t – the politicians who were drafting and implementing the laws should have done their due diligence to, at a minimum, ensure the safety of their communities while implementing the will of their constituents.
The people don’t care. They are ignorant and/or dishonest. And as a result, the politicians pursue policies that don’t make sense in order to get elected and re-elected.
Senator Feinstein – a liberal whom I respect as intelligent and usually honest – is now pimping ideas she rejected as nonsensical in the past. Why? She is being challenged for re-election by a far left Democrat who has a chance because California has gone so far left.
And so goes politics – as the people embrace idiotic ideas, so do the politicians.
Whoa there … slow down buddy. I answered “yes” that voters likely thought of the perils of legalization, but with the caveat of “even if they didn’t…the gov’t should have.”
I ***did not*** say or imply voters didn’t care, were ignorant or were dishonest.
Please do not put words into my mouth. I don’t do that to you, do I? (I do put your own words back in your mouth … like up above when you claimed I was being dishonest and had no credibility, and would welcome you to do the same if I ever lie about what I’ve said in the past.)
I am not saying you said voters were ignorant – I am saying it.
But I think you expect too much of politicians if you want them to “do the right thing”. After all, the media never reported on the dangers of marijuana or the likelihood that results would be worse than expected on taxes or the Black Market, or addiction, or traffic accidents.
So if the media won’t inform the voters. And if the voters then punish politicians who won’t do what they mistakenly want, then how could any politician get elected by telling the truth?
May 15, 2018 at 4:21 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
There was plenty of media coverage about the dangers of marijuana when the state I live in was considering (and ultimately passed) BOTH medicinal use and recreational use, years apart. I don’t know where you live and what media you consume, but that statement and all that comes after it is specious reasoning if you’re just basing it on what you have seen and heard (or not seen//not heard).
May 15, 2018 at 4:55 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
California legalized “Medical Marijuana Clinics” several years ago.
High school kids routinely used phony ID cards to get pot, usually without a prescription.
The pot was super high potency. The “clinics” were run by potheads, not medically-trained personnel.
Upscale cities learned about the scam the hard way and shut down the clinics in their cities. The clinics that survived were in poor, Democrat-run cities, usually in minority communities. Because the one thing Democrats care about is talking about minorities, not helping them.
After that, do you think California was careful in warning about legal recreational pot? Please.
Could there be a connection to legalizing marijuana, giving it society’s stamp of approval?
What’s your theory?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I read a study recently released that followed marijuana users for 30 years. They said their brains are permanently affected by it’s use. It’s use results in depression and suicide rates are high among it’s users. Not many people want to hear it though. I think it’s replacing anti-depressives for many people. Why not go about life as a sane human without alcohol and drugs? Is it that hard? I’m certain it has medicinal properties because a lot of God’s creation does have medicinal properties. Wish it could be legal in all states for a doctor to prescribe it in it’s medicinal form.
You are too honest, informed, and rational for comments on the Insurance Journal website.
The Potheads who post on this site will not like that . . .
“Some have said on this blog that Recreational use does no harm and it is no problem.” Nobody here has ever said that, no matter how many times you and Craig post that nonsense.
Not sure who you are quoting, but it wasn’t me.
Honesty much?
My apologies Craig – you never SPECIFICALLY said people here have claimed marijuana has no negative effects. You simply implied it multiple times on this thread: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/04/24/487147.htm/?comments
Craig Cornell says:
(Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.)
First we legalize it. Then we find out what it does. In the meantime, let’s pretend it won’t have any long term negative impact, just for fun.
Craig Cornell says:
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.
…
But you go ahead and pretend legalization is groovy. Check back with me in 20 years when reality sets in for everyone
Craig Cornell says:
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.
Craig Cornell says:
Hey Pot Fans: Read about how THC damages your brain. … Maybe Jimmy Kimmel and John Oliver can make some more pot jokes to convince everyone how safe it is
There’s a few more times in that comment section where you tried to argue posters here were claiming it was safe, but I don’t think I need to quote you anymore to support my argument.
See the down votes for “perplexed”. She states the truth about studies connecting marijuana and depression and higher rates of suicide.
She then advocates for medical marijuana.
Now explain to me why anyone would vote down her very reasonable comments unless they think marijuana has no downsides.
“Now explain to me why anyone would vote down her very reasonable comments unless they think marijuana has no downsides”
Thanks for saying that, Craig. I’ll add that comment to the list of posts where you clearly imply you believe there are people here who think marijuana has no negative effects.
Rosenblatt, you are in complete denial. Stoners on this site have repeatedly said there was no harm to Recreational use just as they were about to light up again.
Please cite those quotes. If it has been repeated, they should be easy to find.
So prove it Agent — provide the quote(s). I provided 4 direct quotes from Craig to prove what I said was true. Now I ask you to do the same.
I’ll gladly apologize and admit you were right and I was wrong if you can simply find one quote from anyone here that said marijuana had no side effects and/or was completely harmless. Put up or shut up.
Hello Mike,
You are sadly in denial. Most on here who argue for legalization do not argue about this idea it is completely harmless. That is a blatantly false statement, as is yours about most on here “repeatedly” talking about the idea of it being a harmless substance. It is not true, but Rosen did call out Craig on his misleading statement about past behavior. Again you use anecdotal evidence which is the wrong way to prove points.
MARCH 8, 2018 AT 12:42 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
I see that you and your comrade have been puffing a little too much weed and you are Scromiting all over this site.
I’m not a marijuana user, nor was I back in the ’70’s, when weed was as common as beer on my college campus. Yet I think it’s a good idea to legalize weed, both for medical and recreational purposes. You don’t have to think it’s harmless to be willing to allow other adults to choose for themselves what to do with their brains and bodies.
Employers in states where weed is legal are getting more nuanced about how and when they test, knowing that a urine test says something about past use, but nothing about present impairment. There are many responsible recreational users, and employers are getting smarter about retaining good employees regardless of what they chose to consume over the weekend.
I would love to see a test developed that is more like breathalyzers or blood tests for alcohol, one that is far more specific to current impairment at work.
Sounds great. What are the downsides to legalization?
What have we learned from Colorado? About car accidents? About teenage addiction?
What have we learned about the black market? Has it really shrunk after legalization?
What has the impact been on homelessness in Denver, according to authorities?
Tax receipts? As predicted?
How has legalization played out as expected and how has it not done so?
And why not legalize all drugs?
Craig,
We should legalize all drugs. Until you make EVERYTHING that causes short term or long term harm to people, stop picking and choosing.
Let’s spend more time and money educating the people on the dangers instead of the big bad government controlling how wee choose to live our lives.
No problem by me. Let me know when the public education on the dangers of marijuana will begin . . .
In coordination with legalization. We can use the tens of billions of dollars saved from enforcement, courts and incarceration and/or tax revenue to cover the costs.
Not sure what you are trying to prove. You and I both know the Pro Pot crowd generally likes to avoid discussion of the science that shows marijuana to be dangerous, and when I link to legitimate scientific research proving same, NO ONE admits they learned something new or that the science even exists.
They just attack me, the messenger.
Did I ever say EVERYONE on the IJ comments section pretends marijuana is harmless? Never. Are there many who avoid admitting the truth? Many.
I’m trying to prove you had no justification for attacking my credibility. You said I wasn’t being honest, so I posted 4 times when you said what I claimed you did. Instead of acknowledging this, you ignored me.
I mean, even now, you continue to imply what you originally claimed you never said! It would be nice if you would admit you were wrong when you attacked my credibility and that I was being truthful when I called you out. That’s all … just admit I WAS being honest about what I claimed you said.
There are many actual studies out there that discuss dangers and benefits. The study you most refer to as CCC pointed out within this article:
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2018/05/09/488744.htm/?comments
is not a conclusive study. It is very informative (which I agree after reading up on this specific study), but when one goes into the study and looks at the other cases (that attempt to replicate the study) which discuss this there are many factors that they left out due to the institute who oversaw the research. One of the main ones was the socioeconomic factor, which has been had multiple studies on how this is the missing link between the slight correlation found within the study. I agree the dangers need to be explored further, but currently that study you use frequently is not
How many studies do you need?
How about the one published in the Journal of Neuroscience, where the researcher summarized her findings by saying that marijuana causes “holes in the brain”.
Or the one based solely on statistical analysis that finds consumers of THC double their chances of becoming bipolar or schizophrenic. That study is actually more conservative; some surveys of pot users compared to non-pot users put the chances of becoming seriously mentally ill as 3 times higher for pot users.
Or how about the 3 studies that show infants in the womb exposed to THC from using, pregnant women suffer brain damage at a slightly higher rate than do infants in the womb exposed to lead poisoning.
Should I go on? Or are you a pot user who is going to deny the truth no matter how much evidence is put in front of you? Because I could give you about 20 studies that would scare you away from THC.
I know the study, read this (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-marijuana-harm-the-brain/) and then talk to me about your studies. The issue I see is that they are poorly executed leading to misrepresentedinformation.
Below is directly from the link you sent. Note that the study only focused on 20 users and 20 non-users. In other words, statistically pointless. Note also that the study you linked downplayed their own findings as “only at one point in time”.
“The researchers found that cannabis users had more gray matter density in the left nucleus accumbens and left amygdala, as well as differences in the shape of the left nucleus accumbens and right amygdala. The left nucleus accumbens also tended to be slightly larger in users. They concluded that recreational cannabis use might be associated with abnormalities in the brain’s reward system.”
Gee, sounds like something is going on in the brains of users. Perhaps you are a user who isn’t processing clearly . . .
Below is copied directly from the Scientific American report you linked. It is at the bottom of the article.
REALITY CHECK—CANNABIS USE HAS BEEN FOUND TO:
• Cause dependence, at some point in their lives, in about 9 percent of people who try it.
• Impair various aspects of cognitive function, particularly memory. Impairments can remain for several days. One study showed that performance returns to nonusers’ levels after 28 days of abstinence, but evidence is mixed about how long the impairments last.
• Potentially reduce the volume of the hippocampus, which is critical for memory—but only after heavy and prolonged use. The evidence linking cognitive impairments to specific brain changes is inconclusive, and the degree to which such changes are reversible is hotly debated. —S.M.
“Perhaps you are a user who isn’t processing clearly . . .”
It would actually be you who isn’t processing clearly. After posting the link, he wrote “The issue I see is that they are poorly executed leading to misrepresented information.” He already acknowledged the issue you’re claiming he’s not aware of in that study.
But go ahead and point fingers and insult people, that’s always a great way to be taken seriously (not!)
Craig,
I never said it was harmless, but the issue is there are other issues present in those in it. The number is statistically insignificant, which means the study is not without bias and can be taken with a grain of salt. I bring this point up because it discusses the study you mentioned that creates holes within the brain. You just admitted the study was poorly executed and statistically insignificant, so the results cannot establish a link.
I am processing clearly the studies that have bias within them. You play to your own points within the study, but it does state that the study has bias and they admit to it. There needs to be more research again.
Also stop insulting those and pushing an agenda that they are high, it is childish.
You need to read the UK study from early 2017.
I think it is interesting that the same people who refute studies because they can be manipulated, use studies to support their position.
Which is it?
As an actuary, studies can be helpful if they are executed properly. That is why it is important to look at the conditions and parameters used in each. If the study has bias (leaving out factors that could influence the results) and has not been replicated successfully yet, the study is not effective way to draw conclusions. Once a study can be replicated, under similar parameters making sure bias is left out, then the results have a heavier weight to be used.
You are too honest, informed, and rational for comments on the Insurance Journal website.
The Potheads who post on this site will not like that
Craig,
I am one who advocates for the legalization of this gradually. With that you also have called me a pot head and asked if I was high multiple times. This is why I debate you on this subject. I am for the scientific truth, but what you agent and Polar push is sometimes unsubstantiated claims. I will agree with you that Cannabis can have negative consequences, especially with developing minds (that is why children and teens should not be able to use this). I am also for funding more research into this so we can truly determine all effects this could have. With that being said, I do believe it needs to not be a schedule 1 drug so the studies can be a better view of the effects so bias is left out.
You are too honest, informed, and rational for comments on the Insurance Journal website.
The Conservatives who want the government to control our lives who post on this site will not like that.
helpingout is not citing the same study I cited, even if he says he is.
He cited Scientific American. I cited the Journal of Neuroscience. “Holes in the Brain” came from the latter.
Craig,
https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/does-researching-casual-marijuana-use-cause-brain-abnormalities/. The study was in the neuroscience journal in 2014, just like my last post was after. What study are you referencing within the journal?
This study use 20 college students. This indicates a possible teen, and a low number. This is more statistically insignificant than the other one.
Clever comment, Ron.
Today, the San Diego Union Tribune editorial staff – liberal, of course – chastised California politicians for legalizing marijuana without any consideration that the high fees for legal distributors and the high taxes being tacked on would – wait for it – expand the Black Market. It seems “not enough” legal businesses are starting up because of these costs.
Duh, says the conservatives who actually, you know, think straight and can do simple math. This was so obvious from the beginning.
Now tell me. Do you think the lefties who supported legalization ever thought through all the other considerations: addiction rates, increasing mental illness, more traffic accidents, impact on minority communities, demand for rehabilitation services . . . ?
Yes, but even if the voters didn’t – the politicians who were drafting and implementing the laws should have done their due diligence to, at a minimum, ensure the safety of their communities while implementing the will of their constituents.
Ah! Now you get to the heart of the matter.
The people don’t care. They are ignorant and/or dishonest. And as a result, the politicians pursue policies that don’t make sense in order to get elected and re-elected.
Senator Feinstein – a liberal whom I respect as intelligent and usually honest – is now pimping ideas she rejected as nonsensical in the past. Why? She is being challenged for re-election by a far left Democrat who has a chance because California has gone so far left.
And so goes politics – as the people embrace idiotic ideas, so do the politicians.
Whoa there … slow down buddy. I answered “yes” that voters likely thought of the perils of legalization, but with the caveat of “even if they didn’t…the gov’t should have.”
I ***did not*** say or imply voters didn’t care, were ignorant or were dishonest.
Please do not put words into my mouth. I don’t do that to you, do I? (I do put your own words back in your mouth … like up above when you claimed I was being dishonest and had no credibility, and would welcome you to do the same if I ever lie about what I’ve said in the past.)
I am not saying you said voters were ignorant – I am saying it.
But I think you expect too much of politicians if you want them to “do the right thing”. After all, the media never reported on the dangers of marijuana or the likelihood that results would be worse than expected on taxes or the Black Market, or addiction, or traffic accidents.
So if the media won’t inform the voters. And if the voters then punish politicians who won’t do what they mistakenly want, then how could any politician get elected by telling the truth?
There was plenty of media coverage about the dangers of marijuana when the state I live in was considering (and ultimately passed) BOTH medicinal use and recreational use, years apart. I don’t know where you live and what media you consume, but that statement and all that comes after it is specious reasoning if you’re just basing it on what you have seen and heard (or not seen//not heard).
California legalized “Medical Marijuana Clinics” several years ago.
High school kids routinely used phony ID cards to get pot, usually without a prescription.
The pot was super high potency. The “clinics” were run by potheads, not medically-trained personnel.
Upscale cities learned about the scam the hard way and shut down the clinics in their cities. The clinics that survived were in poor, Democrat-run cities, usually in minority communities. Because the one thing Democrats care about is talking about minorities, not helping them.
After that, do you think California was careful in warning about legal recreational pot? Please.