|
McDowell posted:'This colorado poo poo is really dank man' Can't exactly put it on a cereal box.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Install Windows posted:That argument tends to be a misreading of the fact that smoking weed if you already have certain mental health issues can exacerbate symptoms (or simply be really unpleasant). OK but are there any actual studies saying this I can cite?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:The part you bolded is important. "Independent Influence". You and I don't do anything by writing a letter to our congressmen, we have almost no individual influence. But as a large group our influence on policy is huge, since at the end of the day it's the public that decides whether or not somebody gets elected. There's no denying that big money is the primary driver of policy in this country, largely because they spend unbelievable amounts of cash influencing the average citizen to think the same way they do. In fairness it also mentions "mass based interest groups" but those could just be spur of the moment groups like early forms of Occupy which don't have any sort of real organization. e: Actually here is the list of mass based groups: quote:AARP
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:In fairness it also mentions "mass based interest groups" but those could just be spur of the moment groups like early forms of Occupy which don't have any sort of real organization. The AARP, NRA, Christian Coalition (at one time) and UAW (at one time) are or were major influences on public policy, though. I guess I don't have the political expertise to understand how they came to these conclusions, but saying the NRA isn't a major influence on public policy (or at least the policies it is directly trying to influence) is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
AYC posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/eric-holder-marijuana-legalization_n_5148663.html Michele Leonheart is subhuman garbage, the world would be a much better place without people like her. In NZ news: despite being a fairly progressive country our useless politicians in our leading parties of scum still have no interest in furthering the cause. gently caress politicians, gently caress them in their stupid assholes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:OK but are there any actual studies saying this I can cite? Just Google Scholar 'cannabis' and 'mental health,' there are tons. Lancet review - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607611623 British Medical Journal - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124674/
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Ror posted:Just Google Scholar 'cannabis' and 'mental health,' there are tons. Sorry I meant studies suggesting that the mental health cannabis link was misinterpreted or disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:The AARP, NRA, Christian Coalition (at one time) and UAW (at one time) are or were major influences on public policy, though. I guess I don't have the political expertise to understand how they came to these conclusions, but saying the NRA isn't a major influence on public policy (or at least the policies it is directly trying to influence) is absurd. You could read the study, it's there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
When it becomes more profitable to legalize marijuana than it is to have it illegal, then it will happen. Think about all the poo poo that survives on drugs being illegal: bloated police force, DEA, for-profit prisons, alcohol industry, tobacco industry, various legislative bodies. Those are just a few that I can think of. I'm sure there's more. Weed being legal has to have a huge margin of revenue over those other things, or public support has to be like, 99% for it to be federally legal. People have to organize and boycott, do freedom marches and poo poo, there would have to be full scale riots and things such as that for the federal flood gates to open. People were saying it would be legal any time in the 70's. Then the 80's, etc. Also, look at the guys openly laundering drug money for the cartels and getting into no trouble. Legalizing weed cuts into profit margin. Economics issues aside, you still have a ton of people drinking the koolaid that it's unhealthy, etc. without realizing the real poo poo they're supporting. Look at the bottom line: how do you make money as a government? You have to tax people. Marijuana being illegal is a convoluted tax. It's also a mechanism for power. It also enables alternatives such as cigs and booze to sell better since they're more readily available. They're also less healthy. There are millions of reasons to keep weed illegal, and they all start with $.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
And that's why I doubt recreational use will be legal in all of the US. And since the US has so much influence on the politics of other nations, they will also keep it illegal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
vandalism posted:When it becomes more profitable to legalize marijuana than it is to have it illegal, then it will happen. You're forgetting institutional inertia. Things can remain legal/illegal simply because they've been there for so long even if one were to develop a plan from the ground up and find a different solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
snorch posted:Put it inside a weed shop and outfit it with an ID scanner? ColoradoCleric posted:So couldn't a non-medicinal patient just come in and use it with someone else's card?  Tight Booty Shorts posted:Why would it need to be supervised? DeadmansReach posted:If they card you when you walk in then you could just use a vending machine instead of demanding the time of an employee. It's just self checkout. TenementFunster fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Pennsylvania has alcohol vending machines: In order to verify identification they have complex scanning mechanisms AND a closed circuit tv system that feeds back to an actual person who must check the video feed of the person who attempts to buy. They also cost a ludicrous amount and can't operate without the person on the other end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You're forgetting institutional inertia. Things can remain legal/illegal simply because they've been there for so long even if one were to develop a plan from the ground up and find a different solution. This is like an institutional-level scope of the type of person that is presented with empirical evidence and facts, yet the person turns down those facts in favor of feelings or tradition or morals. That is sad. And think about how many dangerous practices are institutionalized.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Which popular contemporary song will be used in the first Super Bowl commercial? It would probably be "Purple Haze" so they can do a gay marriage twofer with the line "Now excuse me while I kiss this guy".
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Sorry I meant studies suggesting that the mental health cannabis link was misinterpreted or disingenuous. quote:Although epidemiological studies make a consistent case that early and/or heavy cannabis use is linked to a significantly increased risk of schizophrenia[24], the modest increase in risk and the low prevalence of schizophrenia mean that regular cannabis use accounts for only a very small proportion of the disability associated with schizophrenia. From a population health perspective, this raises doubt about the likely impact of preventing cannabis use on the incidence or prevalence of schizophrenia until further evidence finds that there is a causal relationship between regular cannabis use and the onset of new cases of psychotic illness http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0076635 quote:The results of the current study suggest that having an increased familial morbid risk for schizophrenia may be the underlying basis for schizophrenia in cannabis users and not cannabis use by itself. http://www.schres-journal.com/article/S0920-9964(13)00610-5/abstract KingEup fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Pennsylvania has alcohol vending machines:
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
you can post a news brief and get one month's worth of curious buyers going out of their way to your shop. doesn't sound worth it to me...
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:that would probably pass muster in CO, but what is the loving point if you need to have a person watching it remotely the entire time? Well in PA they allow a way to sell types of alcohol in grocery stores that normally can only be sold in the state alcohol stores - because the whole machine and the state employee watching the camera counts as a separate state store.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
I wonder if this will affect the debate? Marijuana: not so harmless after all? Forbes posted:Adding to earlier evidence that marijuana may be linked to lasting neurological changes, a new study in the Journal of Neuroscience today finds that even casual pot smoking may have an effect on the size and structure of certain brain regions. The new research reports that for each additional joint a person smokes per week, the greater the odds of structural changes to areas involved in motivation, reward, and emotion. Though it seems like the country has embraced pot as a relatively harmless option in recent years, the authors of the study say that their findings suggest otherwise, especially for young people whose brains are still developing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I wonder if this will affect the debate? Preliminary study, too isolated to make any definitive conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
AYC posted:Preliminary study, too isolated to make any definitive conclusions. Science journalism is universally terrible and I would wait for other studies to replicate the results. I would like to see how much this talking point gets spread around on Fox and by legalization opponents.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Even if the study proves to be true, alcohol can cause brain damage, other chronic conditions and straight up acute death in a number of ways. I mean I never thought weed was 'harmless', but it is 'relatively harmless' when you compare it with cigarettes and alcohol, both of which are legally available to people who's brains are still developing. I don't know about the study, but the Forbes article is pretty poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
quote:The nucleus accumbens was especially likely to show alterations in shape and density, and to be larger, as a function of joints per week.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Why do we need ATM's when we have banks Sometimes people need to withdraw from ATMs after-hours, not because they are socially awkward and become a caricaturized slur. Serious post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I wonder if this will affect the debate? That is pretty dumb. Gj guys, you discovered there are changes in your brain when you smoke. It could be a good change, bad change, neutral change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I wonder if this will affect the debate?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
quote:Overeating May Alter the Brain as Much as Hard Drugs http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/addicted-to-fat-eating/
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
It certainly alters every other inch of you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Doesn't the vending machine article say part of the intent is to help avoid employee theft? If that's a significant concern yeah it just might be worthwhile to have weed vending machines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Doesn't the vending machine article say part of the intent is to help avoid employee theft? If that's a significant concern yeah it just might be worthwhile to have weed vending machines. Anyone that actually read the article understands the point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I wonder if this will affect the debate? The USA Today version of this article concludes by asking an independent neuroscientist his opinion on the results. His response was "funded by ONDCP, so I'm hesitant to accept the narrative the authors are framing this with" basically. I am pretty sure that this is basically a retread of already known information made to sound very sinister to folks with no neuroscience knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
So family and friends have been emailing me different links to basically an article that discusses a study that says recreational smoking is bad for your brain. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2605454/Using-cannabis-just-week-harms-young-brains.html Can anyone tell me if this is bullshit, if so why,how worried should I be, etc? E: i scrolles up, my bad. Waroduce fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
Waroduce posted:So family and friends have been emailing me different links to basically an article that discusses a study that says recreational smoking is bad for your brain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Well in PA they allow a way to sell types of alcohol in grocery stores that normally can only be sold in the state alcohol stores - because the whole machine and the state employee watching the camera counts as a separate state store. Laws that allow/require poo poo like this are loving dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Waroduce posted:So family and friends have been emailing me different links to basically an article that discusses a study that says recreational smoking is bad for your brain. There is some evidence that if you're under 25 marijuana can permanently decrease your cognitive abilities. I pick 25 because below that the brain is still quite plastic. This study, though, has some issues. It's not a big sample size (20 users, 20 non-users). It does not test the long-term effects of cannabis use (the users had not smoked that day but had smoked within the last few days). It is only one snapshot in time, so it can't display causation. And there are some differences between the users and non-users which could bias the results (40% of the users smoked cigarettes, vs 0% of the non-users; the users drank alcohol at double the rate of the non-users). The last point really bothers me; there were factors they could have controlled for that they did not. However, I would personally say that if you are under 25 you need to really limit your marijuana consumption. The long-term effects on the developing brain (again, that's until about 25 or 26) are not well-known, but there is evidence that they are detrimental. The younger you are, presumably, the worse these detriments may be. I know young cannabis users don't want to hear this, but they should avoid using the drug regularly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
*shrug* I don't think an edible every now and again is very harmful. Though admittedly I haven't been smoking or eating much THC lately, mainly because of how hard it is to find. I'd rather it just be legal, TBH.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
This study shows IQ loss from using marijuana "heavily"(5+ joints per week) between ages 9 and 17. I've posted it here before. The effect does not go away when you control for class (marijuana use is pretty consistent across class anyway.) Most people's IQ goes up slightly during that time, heavy marijuana users had it go down: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.full
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:This study shows IQ loss from using marijuana "heavily"(5+ joints per week) between ages 9 and 17. I've posted it here before. The effect does not go away when you control for class (marijuana use is pretty consistent across class anyway.) Most people's IQ goes up slightly during that time, heavy marijuana users had it go down: quote:The comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6). Anyway the study only shows that there's a correlation. It could just be that people who's IQ declines between 9 and 17 are more likely to smoke heavily. quote:Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. It could also be that when you stop smoking, your IQ rebounds, which is what the study shows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
OK guys, what's worse, possible cognitive changes to a developing brain, or the war on drugs?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:19
|
|