|
Another study about the harmful effects of marijuana is making the rounds across the web: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/marijuana-linked-iqs-study-article-1.2006972 It seems to follow the usual trend: "Marijuana Lowers IQ" is the leading headline, but an in-depth view of the article seems to indicate that the study only applies to young people, who are obviously not being allowed to smoke under the 21+ laws. Seems like a whole lot of nothin' to me.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
The effects of marijuana on people of all ages is a good thing for humans to know and understand and whether or not the study's findings are true, that article references no laws and makes no policy recommendations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:The effects of marijuana on people of all ages is a good thing for humans to know and understand and whether or not the study is true, that article makes zero references to any laws or policy recommendations. Ever since the recent legalizations, I've been staying skeptical about the marijuana studies, mostly because media outlets tend to jump on them as an excuse to keep marijuana illegal. Unrelated to marijuana, but people in general have a tendency to treat "one study says" as "the scientific community agrees on this fact," which is problematic to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:The effects of marijuana on people of all ages is a good thing for humans to know and understand and whether or not the study's findings are true, that article references no laws and makes no policy recommendations. It's worse than that. To summarize: "We have a study that proves that regular cannabis use changes the brain. What do those changes manifest as behaviorally? We have no idea, but we're willing to bet that it's bad."
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
That's more due to the fact that journalists are terrible at reading science papers and scientists are terrible at writing papers that lay people can understand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
AYC posted:Ever since the recent legalizations, I've been staying skeptical about the marijuana studies, mostly because media outlets tend to jump on them as an excuse to keep marijuana illegal. Sure but that doesn't mean they shouldn't do the studies, or that journalists shouldn't write about scientific studies when they are published. That article is mostly inoffensive in a "yep the journalist likely jumped to conclusions based on the portion of the abstract they understand" sort of way, that's just what journalists do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:The effects of marijuana on people of all ages is a good thing for humans to know and understand and whether or not the study's findings are true, that article references no laws and makes no policy recommendations. I don't generally mind except that the article don't make it clear how much a 5 point IQ difference is, which is negligible. If you don't clarify the magnitude of the risks then it's misleading instead of useful information.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Is there a list of states that will have 2016 referenda?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Is there a list of states that will have 2016 referenda? Given that 2014 elections happened last week, I'd say not likely yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Well we can probably assume California, and Florida may try again because it was so close for MMJ... but Florida may have EVEN MORE money poured into it in 2016, so we'll see what happens there. New York announced they would stop arresting people for posession of less than about .8 ounces, just a summons and a fine. Granted, this was initially voted for in Nineteen SEVENTY SEVEN but they just announced they'd start doing it. Hey, it's a start, I guess. Maybe this would be a first step for a movement for 2016? Also, does anyone know if there has been any word on this yet http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/fda-marijuana_n_5526634.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:Well we can probably assume California, and Florida may try again because it was so close for MMJ... but Florida may have EVEN MORE money poured into it in 2016, so we'll see what happens there. Cuomo has outright said no to legalization, so nothing will happen while he is in office, and he just got re-elected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Cuomo has outright said no to legalization, so nothing will happen while he is in office, and he just got re-elected. Didn't he say okay to medical marijuana and decriminalization?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Cuomo has outright said no to legalization, so nothing will happen while he is in office, and he just got re-elected. Cuomo wouldn't have a say if it became a constitutional amendment, but fat chance of that happening. NY doesn't have voter initiated amendments. It has to get a majority of votes in two consecutive sessions of state legislature. If both of those pass, then it gets put on a referendum during the next election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Cuomo is as craven as they come; if it reaches ludicrious levels of popular support he'll probably sign it with such gusto that you'd think he wrote it himself. See: literally every other thing that he's gotten publicity for passing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Didn't he say okay to medical marijuana and decriminalization? No. His MMJ bill, which he finally allowed to pass after years of blocking it, is absolute poo poo: it doesn't even allow patients to smoke pot. Also, the list of accepted ailments is extremely restricted, leaving out the vast majority of medical patients. And marijuana still isn't truly decriminalized in NY. There was a so-called decriminalization bill passed in the 70s, but it has a huge loophole: if it's in public view, it's an arrestable crime, not a ticket. Now, cops have been tricking blacks and hispanics into emptying their pockets, thus making their baggie "in public view." There's been some half-assed attempts at fixing this in NYC, but it hasn't stopped at all. So this so-called decrim is hosed because a) in the majority of cases, police will only come across pot when people are smoking it in public- cops aren't going to get a warrant to enter an apartment(except for public housing, whose residents are still hosed because regardless of decriminalization, being found with weed means eviction and homelessness.) b) the stop-and-frisk problem is as big as ever. The new rules (formulated by De Blasio and Bratton) allow cops to arrest (black) people if they "smell freshly burnt marijuana" or if they think they're acting suspicious. These loopholes are huge, certainly enough for the cops to continue their war on pot-smoking minorities unimpeded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
Aw yes, with their highly trained noses and years of experience, the subtle difference between "freshly burnt" marijuana and the normal smell of marijuana will be obvious!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Aw yes, with their highly trained noses and years of experience, the subtle difference between "freshly burnt" marijuana and the normal smell of marijuana will be obvious! That was one of the less-discussed but amazing aspects of DC's decrim: it removed "I smelled weed" as probable cause. And gently caress anyone unironically whining "but it's a vital law enforcement technique!!!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
AYC posted:The big prize will be California, which is almost certain to pass it. Why'd it fail last go-round?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Why'd it fail last go-round? It was 2010.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:No. His MMJ bill, which he finally allowed to pass after years of blocking it, is absolute poo poo: it doesn't even allow patients to smoke pot. Also, the list of accepted ailments is extremely restricted, leaving out the vast majority of medical patients. I'm a little surprised given how liberal NYC is, what does he have to lose? I did read that they're making those found with marijuana now a ticket and not a jail-able offense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2014/11/12/mixed-feelings-marijuana-legalization/18945367/ Vermont had a hearing on marijuana legalization a few days ago; supposedly, a report of sorts is being prepared by the government next January about the potential causes and consequences of marijuana legalization. Given Vermont's progressive streak, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the first state to legislatively legalize marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It was 2010. A bigger part of the problem (although holding a highly-progressive ballot initiative in a midterm year was stupid, of course) was that medical marijuana dispensary/co-op owners worked strenuously to defeat legalization. I tried to get them to realize they stood to benefit from legalization in the short term, possibly more than anyone else, but nobody really thought that one through -- they just assumed that legalization would close their MMJ business and put them on the street. Idiots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
At this point it's not really a question of if California will pass a legal weed initiative, it's what kind of initiative it will pass. I'm presuming some sort of Colorado-style MMJ conversion bill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I'm a little surprised given how liberal NYC is, what does he have to lose? New York isn't as liberal as you'd think, especially the state. It's the old-school Rockefeller "liberals" that control most of the Democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
AYC posted:http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2014/11/12/mixed-feelings-marijuana-legalization/18945367/ Any possibility of VT doing this prior to Nov 2016? Just one more role model for the five or so states voting on this in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
AYC posted:At this point it's not really a question of if California will pass a legal weed initiative, it's what kind of initiative it will pass. I'm presuming some sort of Colorado-style MMJ conversion bill. Any ideas if it'll be getting put on the 2016 ballot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Any ideas if it'll be getting put on the 2016 ballot? All signs point to yes, along with Arizona and Nevada.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I'm a little surprised given how liberal NYC is, what does he have to lose? New York State isn't NYC, and there's a lot of weird resentment at the state level about the two being conflated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
mdemone posted:All signs point to yes, along with Arizona and Nevada.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Any possibility of VT doing this prior to N. 2016? Just one more role model for the five or so states voting on this in 2016. As the most liberal state in the country, I'd be surprised if they didn't. Shumlin already signed in decriminalization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
mdemone posted:All signs point to yes, along with Arizona and Nevada. Don't forget Florida! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Sure but that doesn't mean they shouldn't do the studies, or that journalists shouldn't write about scientific studies when they are published. That article is mostly inoffensive in a "yep the journalist likely jumped to conclusions based on the portion of the abstract they understand" sort of way, that's just what journalists do. quote:Lastly, to partially address how these abnormalities are related to cognitive processes, we conducted a mediation analysis to assess whether neural abnormalities (OFC gray matter volumes, OFC/temporal lobe functional connectivity, FA/RD of forceps minor) mediate lower scores on IQ in marijuana users. We did not find that the causal variable (i.e., marijuana use) was significantly correlated with the mediator variable (i.e., OFC gray matter volume, OFC/temporal functional connectivity, and FA/RD of forceps minor) and outcome variable (i.e., IQ). We, therefore, suggest that the path from marijuana use to neural abnormalities to decreases in IQ is more complex and, perhaps, include other mediators such as environmental (i.e., age of onset) and/or genetic factors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
edit: I did not understand what I was talking about. This article clarified it for me. Makes me happy that Forbes is projecting that the DC law will not be cockblocked. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/11/14/why-congress-probably-wont-block-marijuana-legalization-in-washington-d-c/ Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
I guess that it’s nice to have a dad in high places.quote:Gov. Beebe to Pardon Son Over Marijuana Conviction
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
quote:He was sentenced to three years supervised probation, $1,150 in fines and court costs and had his driver's license suspended for six months. God I love California. Here I could smoke weed in public and only get fined a hundred bucks with no record. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
AYC posted:God I love California. Here I could smoke weed in public and only get fined a hundred bucks with no record. I love living in Denver. I could smoke weed on my front porch, (there is an elementary school directly across the street), and tell the police to go gently caress themselves. I do not do this, but I could. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
MrChupon posted:I love living in Denver. I could smoke weed on my front porch, (there is an elementary school directly across the street), and tell the police to go gently caress themselves. I do not do this, but I could. What are weed shops like? Any different than, say, liquor stores? Also, are the police enforcing the under-21 ban for college freshman/sophomores?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
AYC posted:What are weed shops like? Any different than, say, liquor stores? A lot more cash transactions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A lot more cash transactions. Plus you're IDed at the door, not at the cash register IIRC. And a recent sting operation in Denver found that while plenty of liquor stores sold to teenagers working with the cops, not a single dispensary allowed them inside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Plus you're IDed at the door, not at the cash register IIRC. And a recent sting operation in Denver found that while plenty of liquor stores sold to teenagers working with the cops, not a single dispensary allowed them inside. I've always been sadly mystified by the existence of the kind of kids that actually work with LEOs on those stings. I expect that they're all socially malignant christian conservatives that are planning on a career in LE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:07
|
|