Study Debunks Theory That Legalized Marijuana Helps Prevent Opioid Deaths

By | June 12, 2019

  • June 12, 2019 at 9:50 am
    De-classifying Isn't a Cover-up says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 13

    Key excerpt:

    “Experts agree evidence doesn’t support marijuana as a treatment for opioid addiction. Drugs like buprenorphine, morphine and naltrexone should be used instead, Pacula said.”

    EXPERTS agree. But STONERS on IJ and elsewhere will still object and try to censor this bad news (bad for stoners, good for public health).

    I await multiple down votes by Stoner Bad News Censors in less than an hour….

    • June 12, 2019 at 11:43 am
      Rosenblatt says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 19
      Thumb down 3

      I agree that marijuana is not a good treatment for opioid addiction.

      I also agree with this key excerpt from the same article:

      “Marijuana has been shown to help ease chronic pain, and other studies have suggested medical marijuana laws may reduce opioid prescribing. So there’s still reason to believe that for some people, marijuana can substitute for opioids as a pain reliever.”

      • June 12, 2019 at 1:09 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 16

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

        • June 12, 2019 at 1:52 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 12
          Thumb down 2

          Yes – pain is subjective and the smiley-face test is horrible.

          No – I don’t agree there’s “NO scientific way to test for pain.” There’s EEGs, you can compare imaging results to (for example) measure the reduction in inflammation, and there are other tests (such as the Waddell Testing) to help determine if the patient is or isn’t lying about their pain.

          And please. I don’t believe the line I quoted solely because it was posted on IJ. Don’t be daft.

          • June 12, 2019 at 2:02 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 12

            Inflammation is not pain, it is associated sometimes with pain. Lots of pain has no associated inflammation. Strike two.

            Waddell testing is not scientific proof. It allows the doctor to have an opinion about whether or not the patient is lying. But it is not fool proof. Doctors can be wrong while using the Waddell test.

            Strike three.

          • June 12, 2019 at 2:26 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 9
            Thumb down 0

            Use some common sense, Craig. If a patient reports the pain as a 8 and imaging shows a significant inflammation at that location, you would expect the patient to report a reduction in pain with a reduction in inflammation.

          • June 12, 2019 at 4:06 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 8

            Try Logic:

            We are talking about people telling a doctor that Pot is good for their pain. Many potheads will do exactly that, NO MATTER what the truth is. The doctor won’t bother to order imaging to check for inflammation if the condition causing pain does NOT cause inflammation in the first place.

            And most conditions that cause pain are NOT associated with inflammation, including psychological factors that are believed to increase pain.

            And even if the condition does cause inflammation, why would the doctor waste money if he is the typical doctor under pressure to save time and money: “oh well, give the dope his pot and I can move on to the next patient and save my time. No way to prove if he is really in pain so let’s move on”.

          • June 12, 2019 at 4:22 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            I completely agree with you Craig. Patients will totally lie to their doctors about their pain, and some will do so solely to obtain a prescription (be it for medical marijuana or other drugs).

            I also completely agree with you that there are plenty of situations where “The doctor won’t bother to order imaging to check for inflammation if the condition causing pain does NOT cause inflammation in the first place.”

            There is no sarcasm in those statements. I really do agree.

            (Begin saracsm) Now … if there was ONLY something a doctor could do in the doctor’s office without having to do any imaging studies that could “help determine if the patient is or isn’t lying about their pain.”

            What could the doctor possibly do to figure that out? Hmm. I have NO idea!!! I’m totally stumped. You nailed me on this one Craig.

            It’s not like I already acknowledged that and gave an industry-accepted way to help alleviate that concern using the Waddell Test.
            (end sarcasm)

          • June 12, 2019 at 4:26 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 7

            The Waddell test is used for back injuries. And it is an OPINION of the doctor, not science.

            I know, asking a liberal to be honest is like asking a horse to fly.

      • June 13, 2019 at 8:07 am
        De-classifying Isn't a Cover-up says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 2

        It is implied that marIJuana is a (safer) SUBSTITUTE for opioids (vs. other pain meds). This article discusses THAT issue, not opioid addiction treatment alternatives. It is poorly written as regards the first sentence I quoted; i.e. no one considers marIJuana as a treatment for opioid addiction… they are both PAIN MANAGEMENT meds, not complimentary meds… big difference.

        The point you necessarily, and conveniently, omitted is that 3 alternatives to marIJuana were listed in the article AND in my excerpt from the article in my OP.

        Also important is the phrase ‘evidence doesn’t support…’.

      • June 14, 2019 at 3:21 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 1

        Ok, again, you cannot back that up with studies Ron, WebMD:

        “Adds Angela Bryan, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Colorado, Boulder: “The evidence we have thus far suggests that cannabis is moderately effective for pain relief.” But most studies haven’t compared marijuana with other ways to relieve pain, she says.”

        From MedicalNewstoday:

        “It is, however, important to note that this study had several limitations. It was small in scale, anonymous, and asked people to self-report on their symptoms. Respondents did not use the marijuana in a controlled setting, potentially resulting in differences in drug composition, dosage, and potency.”

        Also from MedicalNewsToday as side effects: loss of concentration
        memory issues

        And unlike Alcohol, these don’t come with a quick wind down time. You might be high the whole day at work. Job loss in exchange for pain reduction? It doesn’t sound like a good or efficient trade off. It’s good that medical news today finally acknowledged what any idiot who has tried pot realizes: You cannot function with marijuana. Dosing it for pain throughout days and weeks, will create reliance, and screw up your ability to work and provide for yourself. I have seen this, I have seen folks with chronic pain in WA end up jobless, paranoid, angry, and unable to tie down a job.

        Marijuana is not a harmless leaf, and the more you debate here Rosenblatt, the more I veer the other way, because it is absolutely clear you are biased on the topic, and I suspect this has to do with personal use, or, even worse, narcissism in wanting to be the hero and open minded person on this topic. You are not dubmbledor’s army.

        • June 14, 2019 at 3:22 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 1

          Typo in intro: Rosenblat, not Ron.

  • June 12, 2019 at 1:05 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 15
    Thumb down 2

    Well, duh MJ isn’t a treatment for opioid addition. Mainly because the drugs aren’t much alike. Opioid is heroin and MJ is MJ. That would be like trying to treat alcoholism with caffeine – the drugs do not act alike.

    • June 12, 2019 at 1:10 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 12

      Well then why did so many liberals push marijuana as an solution to opioid addiction? (Captain Kangaroo: “I deny that ever happened; as the lies get exposed, I pretend I always knew and stated the truth.”)

      • June 12, 2019 at 1:37 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 2

        Not sure, I’m not obsessed with what “the liberals” say and do like you are. I think for myself and don’t go lock-step with a party affiliation like I see out of you and some others out here. If “the liberals” thought that MJ was going to cure opioid addiction, I’d love to know their reasoning. Could MJ be used as an alternative to opioids in treating some ailments? Yes, now that I’d get on board with. But, preventing opioid addiction and therefore deaths stemming from that – give me a break!

        • June 12, 2019 at 4:18 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 8

          So even though there is no scientific evidence that pot can be used as an alternative to opioids, why would you be on board with that other than to push Pot as Medicine nonsense?

          And please be honest or stop calling yourself a Christian: everyone in the world knows liberals are the ones backing legal pot. See below: You think conservatives pushed the lie about pot for Opioid addiction in New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania? HA HA HA!

          • June 13, 2019 at 5:36 pm
            Maybe says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            It might have something to do with people overdosing on opioids and dying in record numbers on a daily basis. Something that isn’t happening with pot.

          • June 14, 2019 at 9:14 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            C’mon, Maybe,
            Craig doesn’t like the FACT that no one has ever OD’d on MJ. Not one single death as a result of MJ alone. It can only be combined with some other substance or action for it to lead to death. It is literally impossible to MJ yourself to death. But, Craig doesn’t ever speak that truth. He’s on his Craigsade.

          • June 14, 2019 at 3:23 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            Opiods being bad does not make Marijuana good.

          • June 14, 2019 at 5:07 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            I have never said people could overdose on pot and die. They could become psychotic and commit suicide. Lots of reports of that. They could become paranoid and kill someone. That happens sometimes; ask mental hospitals

            But I have never, ever said someone could die from ingesting pot alone.

            Tell me again you are a Christian. It makes me laugh.

  • June 12, 2019 at 1:16 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 14

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • June 12, 2019 at 5:04 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 7

      LOVE the Down Votes. I simply posted what the article said. You know, the Truth.

  • June 12, 2019 at 1:31 pm
    Mike A says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 0

    Looking at cause and effect in a broad sweeping way like this wouldn’t really create any viable findings even if the second study supported the first. Way too little variable control. The real question isn’t whether medical mj laws correlate with opioid dependency reduction, but whether medical mj can sufficiently address pain to the extent that opioids can be avoided with physician recommendations for mj (they are not able to prescribe it – only recommend it) in lieu of opioid prescription. There certainly are better ways to address that question.

    • June 12, 2019 at 1:53 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 11

      And better ways to treat pain besides marijuana. But don’t tell that to Potheads (heh heh).

    • June 12, 2019 at 2:19 pm
      De-classifying Isn't a Cover-up says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 2

      See the 2nd sentence in the quote in my original post;

      “Experts agree evidence doesn’t support marijuana as a treatment for opioid addiction. Drugs like buprenorphine, morphine and naltrexone should be used instead, Pacula said.”

      The question answered by the study is whether or not pot is a reasonable substitute for opioids as a pain killer. The 2nd sentence points to the viable, preferred alternative pain meds. Of course, I am not ruling out pot as a pain killer, but it should be avoided if possible (i.e. if alternatives exist – and they do!) because of its adverse long term usage effects on cerebral functions.

  • June 12, 2019 at 2:52 pm
    Stephen Tallinghasternathy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 1

    We don’t care (turns up super dank ’74 Grateful Dead bootleg)

    • June 13, 2019 at 8:13 am
      De-classifying Isn't a Cover-up says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 4

      … and sooner or later, stoners won’t be able to distinguish between right and wrong, left and right, or The Grateful Dead and The Jefferson Airplane.

    • June 14, 2019 at 1:43 pm
      Live for dead says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Got any November ’73 in there? Even better than May ’77 ;-)

  • June 12, 2019 at 3:23 pm
    Rosenblatt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    I feel like we should take a moment & read the RESULTS of the study this article cites:

    “In the expanded model with indicators for different types of cannabis laws, having a comprehensive medical cannabis law was associated with a 28.2%, 95% CI (1.2, 62.4) higher opioid overdose mortality, while estimates for other laws were nonsignificant.

    The association between having a recreational cannabis law and opioid overdose mortality was −14.7%, 95% CI (−43.6, 29.0).

    Having a low-THC-only medical cannabis law was associated with −7.1%, 95% CI (−29.1, 21.7) lower opioid overdose mortality.”

    • June 12, 2019 at 4:21 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 6

      Sounds like Medi-pot laws are associated with MORE opioid deaths, according to the study.

      • June 12, 2019 at 4:28 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 4

        Why the Down Vote? THAT is what Rosenblatt posted. Down Vote him then!

    • June 13, 2019 at 8:31 am
      De-classifying Isn't a Cover-up says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      Yes, Rosie; read the study results. The RANGE of the results in both categories is wide, with a high CV; i.e. a range of a 43.6% reduction to 29% increase, with mean -14.7% for recre-pot law states, and a range of a 29.1% reduction to a 21.7% increase, with a mean of -7.1% for medi-pot law states.

      My question is whether each state was given equal weighting in construction of the TWO ranges and means, or were they weighted by population counts or deaths?

      Further, what did an ex-ante analysis, using varying study periods (years of deaths data) conclude? Is there a trend in the death rates as more medi-pot and recre-pot laws are enacted?

      The authors of the studies indicate clearly the implied adverse impacts of pot laws, yet you quoted insignificant stats from their study…. from an unknown, not-linked source.

  • June 12, 2019 at 4:58 pm
    Just Science says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    These researchers are experts publishing their work in an actual scientific journal, so if anyone is actually interested in truth.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6514017/

    • June 13, 2019 at 8:47 am
      De-classifying Isn't a Cover-up says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      No one doubts that marIJuana extracts deter pain. This article presents clear, significant studies that show opioid deaths are NOT decreased due to medi-pot laws enacted by several states. It offers THREE pain management/ treatment alternatives to marIJuana and opioids.

      You haven’t refuted the high likelihood that theories that, thus justifications for, medi-pot and recre-pot laws enacted recently, based on suspicions that it would reduce opioid deaths, are NOT supported by recent data.

  • June 13, 2019 at 8:58 am
    Rosenblatt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 0

    Thanks for the link. Can’t say I argue with their conclusions: CBD has been shown to be an effective pain reliever, but additional testing is necessary (implied: comprehensive studies are hindered by the fact that marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance)

    “Moreover, delineation of the molecular mechanisms by which these benefits are achieved has led to the ongoing development of pharmaceutical derivatives of cannabis which may offer targeted therapeutic benefit without associated adverse effects. Epidiolex® is one such compound, currently available in the USA, which excludes the psychotropic effects of cannabis use via isolation of CBD from the cannabis plant. In this relatively new field of pharmaceutical development, ongoing drug development promises benefit from an approach of targeted endocannabinoid receptor agonism for the management of chronic pain conditions. Despite this, the overall quality and clinical significance of available evidence are limited; thus it is difficult to offer a strong recommendation in favor of the routine clinical use of cannabinoid-based pharmaceuticals until further clinical trials are performed.

    • June 13, 2019 at 11:33 am
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 3

      So the article started with the lie about Opioid addiction treatment therapy with THC or CBD products. It followed an article the day before about the lies about the effective uses of THC or CBD for medical treatments, and how few legitimate uses there really are.

      Rosenblatt has been a consistent supporter of both medical marijuana AND recreational pot, despite the overwhelming evidence of damage to people from THC products.

      And now we avoid the topic of both articles and shift to defending CBD products – for which no one objects.

      Next up: Rosenblatt shifts the goal posts to support of hemp and mulch products.

      • June 13, 2019 at 1:05 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 1

        Well, you certainly know a lot about goal-posting shifting, Craig. No one does it more often or better than you.

        Does trying to make others look bad make you feel good?

        • June 13, 2019 at 1:13 pm
          NetCost Advisors says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 1

          He thrives on it.

          • June 14, 2019 at 3:24 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            BULL CRUD.

            That is you guys, not him. He debates things AGAINST the popular opinion here, if it was about looking good, he’d talk like Planet or Rosenblatt.

            How dare the heck out of you netcost.

        • June 13, 2019 at 1:45 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 1

          “And now we avoid the topic of both articles”

          Come on Craig. I did was post about the conclusions in Just Science’s link.

          **Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from goal-based sports, that means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while it is still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage.

          Just Science posted a link. I posted a reply about said link. That’s not moving the goalposts no matter how many verbal gymnastics routines you may try.

          • June 13, 2019 at 2:58 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            Tell me again why you ignore the mountain of evidence about the damage caused by THC in order for you to support legalization. Legalization that hurts young people, kids, the poor, and especially minorities.

            Tell me again that the road deaths, growing black market, rising addiction numbers, mental illness, and loss of IQ is all worth it.

          • June 13, 2019 at 4:46 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            I’m not ignoring the negatives – I’ve weighed them against my belief that people should have the personal freedom to do what they want to their own bodies so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else (e.g. driving while high = illegal. Committing crimes to support your habit = illegal. But smoking on your couch watching TV? That should be legal.) As for the black market – it’s already illegal and is happening irrespective of your state’s or the federal government’s position on legalization.

            Now tell me Craig – why are you against people making as informed a decision as they can with the current limitations of testing and deciding they want to relax by buying legal marijuana and solely smoking it at home after work when they’re not leaving the house until the next morning?

          • June 14, 2019 at 2:45 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Craig wrote, “Tell me again why you ignore the mountain of evidence about the damage caused by THC in order for you to support legalization. Legalization that hurts young people, kids, the poor, and especially minorities.

            Tell me again that the road deaths, growing black market, rising addiction numbers, mental illness, and loss of IQ is all worth it.”

            Well, we can just take the conservative approach to that. Our thoughts and prayers are with all of those who are affected. The problem isn’t access to MJ, it’s video games, rap music, violent films, and abortions. Oh, and gays.

          • June 14, 2019 at 3:27 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            “I’m not ignoring the negatives – I’ve weighed them against my belief that people should have the personal freedom to do what they want to their own bodies so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else (e.g. driving while high = illegal. Committing crimes to support your habit = illegal. But smoking on your couch watching TV? That should be legal.)”

            You are debating dishonestly again. With the equation you just made, should it be legal to do heroin on your couch watching T.V? And if not, why?

            Personal harm or death?

            Marijuana still falls into personal harm.

            You have not weighed this on any other level than believing you are Mel Gibson yelling “FREEDOM!!!”

            Absurd.

          • June 14, 2019 at 4:24 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Calm yourself Bob. I have been consistent with my arguments on this topic. You may not agree with what I think and what I say, and that’s your prerogative. Debating dishonestly would be contradicting myself and making arguments I don’t believe in solely to try and “win” a specific argument. You can’t honestly claim that I’ve changed my position or my arguments on this topic.

            It should also be noted that I don’t care that “…the more [I] debate here….the more [you] veer the other way.” I sincerely hope you don’t change your beliefs because of one random person on the internet. If you do, don’t read any YouTube comments!

            To answer your heroin question, I’m going to say the same freaking thing I’ve been saying for years — so long as your actions are not hurting others (either directly or tangentially), you should be able to do whatever you want in the comfort of your own home.

            It’s all about having the freedom to do what you want ****so long as you aren’t hurting anybody else.****

          • June 14, 2019 at 4:56 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            If you are going to start your comments with “Calm yourself Bob.” when I make a clear joke in my post, we aren’t going to debate at all. I don’t need an intro each time directed at discrediting my character. I open each time pointing out you aren’t consistent not to point out character, but to point out you are not remaining consistent on this topic, and have not spelled out what should and should not be legal, your comment saying anyone on a couch not harming anyone would apply just as well to lsd, what you have not done is spell out the limits. Opiods were put into place by the US, the US created a drug addiction problem (and you may not realize this, but opiod use was a huge reason behind being committed to addiction centers and was used for say STD’s back in the day, so they created an addiction problem and then jailed the crud out of people after they miscalculated the problems with the drug), I’m not apt to allow that to happen again. You are not engaging in a structural system of complexity in order to legalize marijuana, or a process of study for that matter. You have simply said cliché lines.

            “You may not agree with what I think and what I say, and that’s your prerogative. Debating dishonestly would be contradicting myself and making arguments I don’t believe in solely to try and “win” a specific argument. You can’t honestly claim that I’ve changed my position or my arguments on this topic.”

            No. It would also be contradicting yourself by the terms of

            “I’m not ignoring the negatives – I’ve weighed them against my belief that people should have the personal freedom to do what they want to their own bodies so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else (e.g. driving while high = illegal. Committing crimes to support your habit = illegal. But smoking on your couch watching TV? That should be legal.) ”

            This parameter leaves open heroin, but you aren’t ok with heroin being legal. Therefore, you have debated dishonestly and contradicted yourself. What are the metrics which should make a drug illegal? If it’s self harm, and I left that open for you, as the reason heroin is illegal, marijuana qualifies on the basis of being a psychosis level drug, and harming mental focus, which will lose you jobs, also, it is not researched well, a primary factor that should make it illegal out of the gate. I mentioned Trey Gowdy, a republican pushing for research. My depth of research goes far beyond yours.

            “To answer your heroin question, I’m going to say the same freaking thing I’ve been saying for years — so long as your actions are not hurting others (either directly or tangentially), you should be able to do whatever you want in the comfort of your own home.”

            And there we have it. So each time Craig brought up heroin, comparing the two and essentially pointing out you would allow heroin by your metrics, he was RIGHT and you refused to point that out why? Perhaps because you knew it was an argument that would look bad for you? Heroin should not be legal, and I’ve won this debate by backing you into that corner, I think everyone here will agree your drug proclivity just showed.

            “It’s all about having the freedom to do what you want ****so long as you aren’t hurting anybody else.****”

            This would make all drugs illegal, the very thing I said make me not trust you with drug regulation. So, from the get go, my goal was honest, but you, you have not at all been telling people you would be ok with heroin, and when Craig makes the comparison to heroin you use it to say he’s extreme so others will only see “He’s calling marijuana as bad as heroin!” while your goal the whole time is to legalize both, something the third party spectator wouldn’t realize without people like me, you scumbag. That is dishonest debate. And you are far worse of a person than I thought trying to legalize even heroin. Good god the names you deserve for this, how dare you!

          • June 14, 2019 at 4:59 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            I have to point out, there is one error in my post:

            “This parameter leaves open heroin, but you aren’t ok with heroin being legal.”

            I assumed before I finished there was no way you would be ok with heroin, but here we are, you are. But you are still dishonest in debate for the reason I said with regards to heroin to marijuana comparisons you have attempted in order to make Craig look like a hypocrite, this is a clear tact decision that has nothing to do with the drug debate, and aims to derail the fact you support heroin legalization, an extreme position to take.

            I am sickened. Truly sickened. Seek help. I cannot believe what an imbalanced person you are.

        • June 13, 2019 at 2:56 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 2

          When people make themselves look bad, I don’t ignore it.

          Now back up your claim: when have I shifted the goal posts? Talk about making others look bad without evidence, Mr. Kangaroo.

          • June 14, 2019 at 9:21 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            “Just Science posted a link. I posted a reply about said link. That’s not moving the goalposts no matter how many verbal gymnastics routines you may try.”

            To which you replied:
            “Tell me again why you ignore the mountain of evidence about the damage caused by THC in order for you to support legalization. Legalization that hurts young people, kids, the poor, and especially minorities.”

            And, Rosenblatt wasn’t ignoring those negatives, that wasn’t the subject at hand, that wasn’t the “goal” of his discussion with Just Science. But, you moved the goal posts and tried to make it be. Then, Rosenblatt kindly wrote:

            “I’m not ignoring the negatives – I’ve weighed them against my belief that people should have the personal freedom to do what they want to their own bodies so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else (e.g. driving while high = illegal. Committing crimes to support your habit = illegal. But smoking on your couch watching TV? That should be legal.)”

            Now, I’m sure you’ll move those goal posts again. C’mon Craig, you spin more than Spidey in the entire Spider Man comics catalog, don’t let me down.

      • June 14, 2019 at 5:02 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 1

        And this Craig, is how you oust the Rosenblatts. They always incriminate themselves if you keep on them.

        Do you see what he just admitted to?

        Disgusting. Horrible human being. He wants heroin legalized.

        Let this go on record to everyone here who lambasts Craig. His opponent who has tried to tarnish his credibility and image to no end, is ok with on this topic which he gives Craig heck, of all things, legalizing heroin!!!

        Let that soak in for a moment!

        • June 14, 2019 at 5:15 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 1

          Rosenblatt is a phony. His “personal responsibility” mantra is so boring. I mention the people getting hurt who are innocents and/or ignorant of the dangers: kids, poor people, family members watching other family members destroy education or careers with addiction, spouses who are physically abused from paranoid potheads (ask the cops), minorities who have no idea THC causes brain damage or mental illness.

          Rosenblatt is the kind of liberal who could not care less about people while claiming he is so compassionate.

          • June 14, 2019 at 5:34 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            You know the worst part of this? Did you see the post I asked for him to make his case as to what was ok and what wasn’t?

            And where I said his discernment about drugs was in serious question? My gut was telling me not to trust him, but I’m not a far right conservative, I’m actually the type who would have probably fallen for that when I was younger. When I get mad on the pot front, it’s when I’m being mislead, and that is clearly what he was doing.

            But the sad part is: Many younger kids will fall for this. You are right about your families torn apart comment. I am not sure on marijuana where I stand, but I am very certain where I stand on heroin. The danger with this is not even where I stand on marijuana, he probably sees me as against the big bad flower without reason. No, that is not why I’m furious right now. If this really is his reasoning, this could be used to make opioid crises part two! A systematic failure of epic proportions. Most people aren’t aware of how bad it was when opiods became rampant just before penicillin for curing STD’s. I made reference to that, addictions were wide spread because the dang doctors over prescribed, and were woefully prepared to get people off of it. This destroyed lives. Maybe marijuana is that, maybe it isn’t, but with a standard like Ron’s for legalization everything will be legalized, every potential threat unlocked! I cannot believe that! Throw caution to the wind I suppose, so you can claim you’re for all freedoms, the ego he must have for that is insane, the narcissism to be ok with heroin to be able to say you’re a freedom fighter (and based on his personality I do not believe I am wrong that this is why he fights for it) is such disgusting behavior I cannot believe it.

            I think of the song Handlebars by flobots (See, I’m quite liberal in my understandings of music) “I can ride my bike with no handle bars”. The song basically is talking about believing you’re ok without restraints, and having a huge ego, and the fact is you’re bloody well not.

          • June 14, 2019 at 5:39 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Ugh, I did it again. Rosenblatt, not Ron.

          • June 14, 2019 at 6:31 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Thanks for the laughs guys. You two are so obtuse it’s almost laughable (but really, i just feel sad for you). Maybe next time you can post without making 6 argument fallacies over 12 paragraphs? Probably not, so I look forward to your continued straw man arguments, insults, putting words in my mouth, making whataboutisms, and misconstruing and misremembering my points all in the name of making you feel like you’re the BMOC. Sorry I tried treating you with respect and presuming you had a modicum of common sense and self-respect

          • June 17, 2019 at 2:39 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            And not only did I tell you that your drug discernment was in serious question, I gave you ample opportunity to defend yourself. I even gave you a route, that maybe you meant it wasn’t physically death harmful, but even then, there are other effects, like inability to function and losing a job. I gave you every opportunity to debate every multilayered facet. I line by line went over better drug alternatives in terms of convulsion, and pain.

            You tell me what parameters you went over Rosenblat?! I’m bloody well sick of your amateur level of talk. I offended you because you’re a bloody fool.

            You know darn well I went item by item, data by data, and begged for your argument.

            Recap your argument for me like I just did mine for you. What have you got?

  • June 14, 2019 at 1:36 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 1

    Or maybe he’s just getting rid of the bots, right Yogi? Such a huge problem with bots out here in IJ.

  • June 17, 2019 at 4:28 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    From today’s Washington Post on the data coming in from Colorado and Washington:

    With some marijuana products averaging 68 percent THC — exponentially greater than the pot baby boomers once smoked — calls to poison control centers and visits to emergency rooms have risen. In the Denver area, visits to Children’s Hospital Colorado facilities for treatment of cyclic vomiting, paranoia, psychosis and other acute cannabis-related symptoms jumped to 777 in 2015, from 161 in 2005.

    The increase was most notable in the years following legalization of medical sales in 2009 and retail use in 2014, according to a study in the Journal of Adolescent Health published in 2018.

    “Horrible things are happening to kids,” said psychiatrist Libby Stuyt, who treats teens in southwestern Colorado and has studied the health impacts of high-potency marijuana. “I see increased problems with psychosis, with addiction, with suicide, with depression and anxiety.”

    Hey Rosenblatt, just collateral damage as the price to pay for “informed personal choice”?

    Right. “Informed”. As if you and all the other Pot Fans knew this was coming when you supported Pot for Fun. (Screw the kids.)



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*