Oh, I feel better already. Now when I take Tylenol for pain, which most doctors consider the safest option of all the painkillers, now I get to worry about getting cancer. Never mind that nearly every other authority has decided the evidence for cancer was weak or non-existent. (Was this another hand off to the Plaintiffs Bar in California for funding successful elections of Democrats? Future lawsuits against Tylenol will tell us.)
Well, at least California backed off the genius idea of putting cancer warning labels on coffee cups (although I think about that often when I visit Starbucks now).
But I love the vague warnings on signs at the entrance to nearly every building in California that there may be “cancer causing agents” inside. I wonder if any living human being knows what to do with that information.
And RoundUp was declared safe by the FDA during the Obama Administration, but the careful folks on Crazyfornia went ahead and said otherwise. And now Roundup may be sued out of business.
Maybe the “scientists” in Sacramento can put warning labels on the hundreds of thousands of needles discarded into city streets by drug users. Or put warning labels around the thousands of homeless tents regarding infectious diseases like Typhus and the plague. Not to mention assault from the thousands of homeless drug users and mentally ill.
Oh, well. I know the Dems. in California are looking out for me. No more Tylenol. (Can’t wait for Bernie to inflict this “safety” on the entire country.)
What did I say that is not accurate? California makes all of these crazy decisions that no other state makes. Democrats run the state.
Do you agree with their decision to name Tylenol carcinogenic? Coffee? The decision to have thousands of drug using homeless people? The decision on Sanctuary Cities (ignoring Federal law)? Vague warnings on buildings that mean nothing? What if they decided to ignore Federal gun laws in a “sanctuary” move?
The law requires that they be entered into a federal database, which ICE/USCIS have access to. It does not require them to call/email/send carrier pigeon notice.
People aren’t determined to be undocumented and then released because they are not citizens. Also, you can be a legal immigrant and not a citizen.
Finally, and this is important – on a per capita basis, you’re far less likely to be raped or murdered by and undocumented immigrant than by a citizen.
Cali is a beautiful state which has been brought to ruin by wacko politicians who rule over a bunch of sheep voters with no balls to change a corrupt system.
California state legislators do not understand correlation and auto-correlation.
{California federal legislators do not understand that 67 > 51}
George Carlin once said that (paraphrased) “{Global Climate} Scientists recently discovered that breathing air causes cancer. But, only when consumed in large quantities over an extended period of time.”
OK; I’ll admit Carlin never said the ‘Global Climate’ part.
This move sounds like Step One in a three step plan to approve recre-pot; i.e.
1. Declare most OTC painkillers to be carcinogenic. Enact legislation to that effect.
2. Support medi-pot through legislation.
3. Enact legislation legalizing recre-pot.
Correct. And studies show that young people in States that legalized pot for fun think THC to be safer than they did 10 years ago while the science is building about the dangers, especially to young people. And NYU and Columbia found THC addiction with young people to be 25% higher in states that legalized recre-pot.
And studies show people falsely think CBD to be a treatment for all kinds of ailments for which there is no evidence of effectiveness whatsoever.
He doesn’t use sources. He admits he just listens to the Democrats in CA. Here is a quote when he was asked where he gets his information on cannabis on:
“As I have stated before, my information comes from the Democrats in Sacramento like Governor Gavin Newsome.”
I mean just look at him trying to discuss sanctuary cities incorrectly. He likes to talk big, but he never asks like it
January 23, 2020 at 8:28 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
CAN YOU READ? NYU and Columbia. Yikes, maybe pot makes people blind too.
January 24, 2020 at 9:33 am
flawedlogic says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Craig is right that they found a 25% increase, here is the overall cited piece:
After examining usage following the enactment of marijuana legalization in 2012 to 2015, the researchers found that problematic use among adolescents aged 12 to 17 was 25 percent higher (a small increase from 2.18 to 2.72 percent) compared with states without legal recreational use. There was no change in the prevalence of past-month or frequent use among teens.
So overall while it did increase it is rather low and insignificant (the overall increase of teen use is a rather low percentage of total teens), but Craig forgets what examining these results mean and how they are lower then when alcohol became legal after prohibition.
Other issues with Craig’s assertion is that this was not a one year increase of 25% rather it was an increase from 2008 to 2016 where the total usage of teens increased 25%. It also mentions in the study that there were unknown factors they could not exclude that could affect the results and that more were needed. It is telling, but it isn’t as bad as you are painting it.
January 27, 2020 at 1:20 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
You put words into my mouth and thoughts into my head that were never there. Mind reader.
No, I never said it was a “one year increase”. That is ALL on you.
And no, I never compared it to legalized alcohol from 100 years ago because in so many ways, marijuana consumption in 2020 is wildly different.
Man, it is easy to attack someone if you just make stuff up, isn’t it?
January 27, 2020 at 2:27 pm
flawedlogic says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
I mean the making stuff up part is easy, you do it every day.
I do apologize for putting words into your mouth, but your points here lead to be believe you were discussing this in terms of a one year increase and not a multi-year approach when you are discussing the relatively low percentage change (in terms of the overall increase which was .54). Again I am not taking about the 25% that is real, but rather the number change of .54.
You have never admitted we are discussing similar drugs with similar effects both short and long term use. I disagree with you on that point, and I have witnessed you use a ton of bias and misinformation on a daily basis.
January 28, 2020 at 2:08 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
The daily ad-hominem “you’re a poopy head” attack from the resident deep-thinker on Insurance Journal, whose sole job seems to be to mock the civility standards of Insurance Journal.
January 28, 2020 at 2:22 pm
flawedlogic says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
So Craig complained about me putting words in his mouth, I apologize as it was not my intention, just the way you were discussing it was poor (seemed the discussion was more like a year rather then the actual study).
Then Craig turns around and puts words in my mouth right away. No one was making those points, but I was making an observation regarding overall rates and why the overall increase seems significant, but in reality it is a low percentage. Same way we were discussing wage growth on this article: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/01/23/556109.htm/?comments
It is funny you mention those who use this site only to mock others. I think you unequivocally deserve to be in that category. You provide little substance and when you are shown to be incorrect you chalk it up to frivolous reasons.
January 27, 2020 at 8:23 pm
MightyQuinn says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Jerry Brown, in the ’70s during his first time as governor signed:
Into law a bill allowing collective bargaining by the unions in state government.
Laws to give teachers and public school employees (SB 160, 1975), as well as UC and
CSU employees (AB 1091, 1978), the right to bargain collectively.
The landmark farm labor law, which extended collective bargaining rights to farm workers
and established the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. (SB 1, 1975)
In 1966 the California legislature became full-time. Both chambers of the California legislature have been dominated by the Democrats since 1959 except in 1969 to 1971 when the Republicans held both chambers and from 1994 to 1996, when Republicans briefly held a majority in the Assembly but the not state Senate.
Given all of this there is no disputing that the Democrats are responsible for the lunacy that have strapped California as would be a third world country. We’ve seen evidence of the Democrats’ lack of financial prowess and “diversity” in Detroit, Baltimore, Oakland, Atlanta and even LA. The Pity by the Bay, San Francisco, is now being added to that list.
Not all large states have full-time legislatures and its high time that California revert to that status.
Issues such as plastic bags, plastic straws, sanctuary everything & declarations that most everything in the state is carcinogenic [I’m being kind in stopping there] is the result of too many overpaid, uneducated & undereducated people having to much time to fill. The only way to end the madness is to send the legislators home for good so that they can find gainful employment and live in the muck they created like the rest of us do. I can practically guarantee that none of them will waste their time running for seats in a part-time legislature because the perks will not be attractive enough, if at all. Naturally teachers & other public employees including prison guards will never support a part-time legislature BUT Californians who are not public employees will. This could actually lead to a revolution of sorts. Might be interesting. It would definitely improve the quality of life in this currently deranged state. There are petitions being prepared to gain signatures and place this issue on the ballot in 2022. You will begin to see them them summer.
The INSURANCE JOURNAL … posts about topics that are related to … INSURANCE. Climate change, marijuana, Coronavirus — these are all connected to insurance with only one degree of separation. Are YOU able to connect “school choice” to INSURANCE without going through 3 or more degrees of separation?
Oh, I feel better already. Now when I take Tylenol for pain, which most doctors consider the safest option of all the painkillers, now I get to worry about getting cancer. Never mind that nearly every other authority has decided the evidence for cancer was weak or non-existent. (Was this another hand off to the Plaintiffs Bar in California for funding successful elections of Democrats? Future lawsuits against Tylenol will tell us.)
Well, at least California backed off the genius idea of putting cancer warning labels on coffee cups (although I think about that often when I visit Starbucks now).
But I love the vague warnings on signs at the entrance to nearly every building in California that there may be “cancer causing agents” inside. I wonder if any living human being knows what to do with that information.
And RoundUp was declared safe by the FDA during the Obama Administration, but the careful folks on Crazyfornia went ahead and said otherwise. And now Roundup may be sued out of business.
Maybe the “scientists” in Sacramento can put warning labels on the hundreds of thousands of needles discarded into city streets by drug users. Or put warning labels around the thousands of homeless tents regarding infectious diseases like Typhus and the plague. Not to mention assault from the thousands of homeless drug users and mentally ill.
Oh, well. I know the Dems. in California are looking out for me. No more Tylenol. (Can’t wait for Bernie to inflict this “safety” on the entire country.)
Dude, your constant political filter is ridiculous – consistent, but ridiculous
What did I say that is not accurate? California makes all of these crazy decisions that no other state makes. Democrats run the state.
Do you agree with their decision to name Tylenol carcinogenic? Coffee? The decision to have thousands of drug using homeless people? The decision on Sanctuary Cities (ignoring Federal law)? Vague warnings on buildings that mean nothing? What if they decided to ignore Federal gun laws in a “sanctuary” move?
You on board with all that?
My god. So many false statements here.
The law requires that they be entered into a federal database, which ICE/USCIS have access to. It does not require them to call/email/send carrier pigeon notice.
People aren’t determined to be undocumented and then released because they are not citizens. Also, you can be a legal immigrant and not a citizen.
Finally, and this is important – on a per capita basis, you’re far less likely to be raped or murdered by and undocumented immigrant than by a citizen.
Keep clutching those pearls Craig.
Cali is a beautiful state which has been brought to ruin by wacko politicians who rule over a bunch of sheep voters with no balls to change a corrupt system.
If they discover mother’s milk causes cancer, where will they put the warning label?
Next thing they’ll do is warn us that life causes death.
California state legislators do not understand correlation and auto-correlation.
{California federal legislators do not understand that 67 > 51}
George Carlin once said that (paraphrased) “{Global Climate} Scientists recently discovered that breathing air causes cancer. But, only when consumed in large quantities over an extended period of time.”
OK; I’ll admit Carlin never said the ‘Global Climate’ part.
This move sounds like Step One in a three step plan to approve recre-pot; i.e.
1. Declare most OTC painkillers to be carcinogenic. Enact legislation to that effect.
2. Support medi-pot through legislation.
3. Enact legislation legalizing recre-pot.
Recre-pot is already legal in CA, so that would be a weird plan.
Correct. And studies show that young people in States that legalized pot for fun think THC to be safer than they did 10 years ago while the science is building about the dangers, especially to young people. And NYU and Columbia found THC addiction with young people to be 25% higher in states that legalized recre-pot.
And studies show people falsely think CBD to be a treatment for all kinds of ailments for which there is no evidence of effectiveness whatsoever.
Looks like Polar is on point.
Welcome back to making irrelevant, unverified statements. Cite a source.
He doesn’t use sources. He admits he just listens to the Democrats in CA. Here is a quote when he was asked where he gets his information on cannabis on:
“As I have stated before, my information comes from the Democrats in Sacramento like Governor Gavin Newsome.”
I mean just look at him trying to discuss sanctuary cities incorrectly. He likes to talk big, but he never asks like it
CAN YOU READ? NYU and Columbia. Yikes, maybe pot makes people blind too.
Craig is right that they found a 25% increase, here is the overall cited piece:
After examining usage following the enactment of marijuana legalization in 2012 to 2015, the researchers found that problematic use among adolescents aged 12 to 17 was 25 percent higher (a small increase from 2.18 to 2.72 percent) compared with states without legal recreational use. There was no change in the prevalence of past-month or frequent use among teens.
So overall while it did increase it is rather low and insignificant (the overall increase of teen use is a rather low percentage of total teens), but Craig forgets what examining these results mean and how they are lower then when alcohol became legal after prohibition.
Other issues with Craig’s assertion is that this was not a one year increase of 25% rather it was an increase from 2008 to 2016 where the total usage of teens increased 25%. It also mentions in the study that there were unknown factors they could not exclude that could affect the results and that more were needed. It is telling, but it isn’t as bad as you are painting it.
You put words into my mouth and thoughts into my head that were never there. Mind reader.
No, I never said it was a “one year increase”. That is ALL on you.
And no, I never compared it to legalized alcohol from 100 years ago because in so many ways, marijuana consumption in 2020 is wildly different.
Man, it is easy to attack someone if you just make stuff up, isn’t it?
I mean the making stuff up part is easy, you do it every day.
I do apologize for putting words into your mouth, but your points here lead to be believe you were discussing this in terms of a one year increase and not a multi-year approach when you are discussing the relatively low percentage change (in terms of the overall increase which was .54). Again I am not taking about the 25% that is real, but rather the number change of .54.
You have never admitted we are discussing similar drugs with similar effects both short and long term use. I disagree with you on that point, and I have witnessed you use a ton of bias and misinformation on a daily basis.
The daily ad-hominem “you’re a poopy head” attack from the resident deep-thinker on Insurance Journal, whose sole job seems to be to mock the civility standards of Insurance Journal.
So Craig complained about me putting words in his mouth, I apologize as it was not my intention, just the way you were discussing it was poor (seemed the discussion was more like a year rather then the actual study).
Then Craig turns around and puts words in my mouth right away. No one was making those points, but I was making an observation regarding overall rates and why the overall increase seems significant, but in reality it is a low percentage. Same way we were discussing wage growth on this article: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/01/23/556109.htm/?comments
It is funny you mention those who use this site only to mock others. I think you unequivocally deserve to be in that category. You provide little substance and when you are shown to be incorrect you chalk it up to frivolous reasons.
Jerry Brown, in the ’70s during his first time as governor signed:
Into law a bill allowing collective bargaining by the unions in state government.
Laws to give teachers and public school employees (SB 160, 1975), as well as UC and
CSU employees (AB 1091, 1978), the right to bargain collectively.
The landmark farm labor law, which extended collective bargaining rights to farm workers
and established the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. (SB 1, 1975)
In 1966 the California legislature became full-time. Both chambers of the California legislature have been dominated by the Democrats since 1959 except in 1969 to 1971 when the Republicans held both chambers and from 1994 to 1996, when Republicans briefly held a majority in the Assembly but the not state Senate.
Given all of this there is no disputing that the Democrats are responsible for the lunacy that have strapped California as would be a third world country. We’ve seen evidence of the Democrats’ lack of financial prowess and “diversity” in Detroit, Baltimore, Oakland, Atlanta and even LA. The Pity by the Bay, San Francisco, is now being added to that list.
Not all large states have full-time legislatures and its high time that California revert to that status.
Issues such as plastic bags, plastic straws, sanctuary everything & declarations that most everything in the state is carcinogenic [I’m being kind in stopping there] is the result of too many overpaid, uneducated & undereducated people having to much time to fill. The only way to end the madness is to send the legislators home for good so that they can find gainful employment and live in the muck they created like the rest of us do. I can practically guarantee that none of them will waste their time running for seats in a part-time legislature because the perks will not be attractive enough, if at all. Naturally teachers & other public employees including prison guards will never support a part-time legislature BUT Californians who are not public employees will. This could actually lead to a revolution of sorts. Might be interesting. It would definitely improve the quality of life in this currently deranged state. There are petitions being prepared to gain signatures and place this issue on the ballot in 2022. You will begin to see them them summer.
The INSURANCE JOURNAL … posts about topics that are related to … INSURANCE. Climate change, marijuana, Coronavirus — these are all connected to insurance with only one degree of separation. Are YOU able to connect “school choice” to INSURANCE without going through 3 or more degrees of separation?