[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zeb…do you know what a study is?
This is giving me a headache…and I’m all out of Robitussin.[/quote]
I was going to ask you the same question.
The following is a long term STUDY.
Just what we need more teens smoking pot!
“Teens who smoke marijuana frequently are more likely to experience a long-term drop in their IQ, according to a new study.”
“The researchers also surveyed people who knew the study participants well at age 38 and found that the more often participants were rated as marijuana-dependent in the surveys over their lifetimes, the more memory and attention problems were noticed by their acquaintances over the previous year.”
“Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse which helped fund the research, said the research was “the cleanest study I’ve ever read” that looked long-term harm from marijuana use.”
Tell me how any of this helps our society?
I have clearly and repeatedly pointed out how it harms our society.
I see the answer is no. I won’t be wasting time on someone who thinks a news article is the same as presenting a study for discussion.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I see the answer is no. I won’t be wasting time on someone who thinks a news article is the same as presenting a study for discussion.[/quote]
You can leave but it won’t be because I have not posted quality studies, like the one above.
Is this person full of shit POX?
“Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse which helped fund the research, said the research was “the cleanest study I’ve ever read” that looked long-term harm from marijuana use.”
On the other hand your entire argument can be summed up in one sentence.
“Pot is not as bad as alcohol and some other prescription drugs.”
W E A K!
That’s the problem with news today and the people who are literal sheep to it. You get names and letters thrown at you and you fall in line with group think.
Meanwhile, anyone with a real science background and a clue would immediately focus on what the actual findings are…not opinions or transcriptions from a half informed journalist.
That is how you tell the truth…from Fox News or CNBC.
One thing though…reducing specifically lung cancer strains is a pretty big “win” in my opinion. You would have to be pretty stubborn to actually need more than that.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That’s the problem with news today and the people who are literal sheep to it. You get names and letters thrown at you and you fall in line with group think.
Meanwhile, anyone with a real science background and a clue would immediately focus on what the actual findings are…not opinions or transcriptions from a half informed journalist.
That is how you tell the truth…from Fox News or CNBC.[/quote]
More bluster and nonsense!
I thought you were a man of science but I can see you’d rather try to be right than actually consistent.
Here’s one more for you:
“Cannabis Distorts Perception of Reality young people who smoke cannabis or marijuana for six years or more are twice as likely to have psychotic episodes, hallucinations or delusions than people who have never used the drug, scientists said on Monday.”
“John McGrath of the Queensland Brain Institute in Australia studied more than 3,801 men and women born between 1981 and 1984 and followed them up after 21 years to ask about their cannabis use and assessed them for psychotic episodes”
One more long-term study from a most credible source.
I’ve quoted some of the most serious people in the world on this topic. There is no dispute among them marijuana is not something to be taken lightly and does have some very serious health consequences.
Good night, kiddies.
Stay thirsty, my friends.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The following is a long term STUDY.
Just what we need more teens smoking pot!
“Teens who smoke marijuana frequently are more likely to experience a long-term drop in their IQ, according to a new study.”
“The researchers also surveyed people who knew the study participants well at age 38 and found that the more often participants were rated as marijuana-dependent in the surveys over their lifetimes, the more memory and attention problems were noticed by their acquaintances over the previous year.”
“Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse which helped fund the research, said the research was “the cleanest study I’ve ever read” that looked long-term harm from marijuana use.”
Tell me how any of this helps our society?
I have clearly and repeatedly pointed out how it harms our society.[/quote]
From your link
It shows the total effectiveness of present marijuana policy.I think we need to double down on this losing pony
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The following is a long term STUDY.
Just what we need more teens smoking pot!
“Teens who smoke marijuana frequently are more likely to experience a long-term drop in their IQ, according to a new study.”
“The researchers also surveyed people who knew the study participants well at age 38 and found that the more often participants were rated as marijuana-dependent in the surveys over their lifetimes, the more memory and attention problems were noticed by their acquaintances over the previous year.”
“Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse which helped fund the research, said the research was “the cleanest study I’ve ever read” that looked long-term harm from marijuana use.”
Tell me how any of this helps our society?
I have clearly and repeatedly pointed out how it harms our society.[/quote]
From your link
It shows the total effectiveness of present marijuana policy.I think we need to double down on this losing pony
[/quote]
How many more times do you think that it needs to be pointed out to you that when a product is more readily available that it will be consumed more often?
currently 1 in 10 teens smoke dope regularly, if it becomes legal that figure will skyrocket! perhaps 50%, maybe more.
You don’t understand capitalism any better than your hero Obama.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
How many more times do you think that it needs to be pointed out to you that when a product is more readily available that it will be consumed more often?
currently 1 in 10 teens smoke dope regularly, if it becomes legal that figure will skyrocket! perhaps 50%, maybe more.
You don’t understand capitalism any better than your hero Obama.[/quote]
LOL.
With it being legal, why do you think it can’t be controlled just like showing an id to buy alcohol?
How would use “skyrocket” among teens unless parents aren’t doing their damn job at home?
We got alcohol as teens…and it took some work to do it. It takes ZERO work to ask the guy on the corner for weed today.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
How many more times do you think that it needs to be pointed out to you that when a product is more readily available that it will be consumed more often?
currently 1 in 10 teens smoke dope regularly, if it becomes legal that figure will skyrocket! perhaps 50%, maybe more.
You don’t understand capitalism any better than your hero Obama.[/quote]
LOL.
With it being legal, why do you think it can’t be controlled just like showing an id to buy alcohol?
How would use “skyrocket” among teens unless parents aren’t doing their damn job at home?
We got alcohol as teens…and it took some work to do it. It takes ZERO work to ask the guy on the corner for weed today.[/quote]
Exactly. I always find it quite ironic how a legalization which would bring MORE control of a substance rather than the almost zero control there is now, plus revenues into public coffers, is always dismissed as ‘capitulation’ by certain quarters under the guise of how it would lead to a ‘boom’ in usage. And it always comes from a population that has almost zero clue about realities on the ground, so to speak. As in the actual ease of procuring…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
How many more times do you think that it needs to be pointed out to you that when a product is more readily available that it will be consumed more often?
currently 1 in 10 teens smoke dope regularly, if it becomes legal that figure will skyrocket! perhaps 50%, maybe more.
You don’t understand capitalism any better than your hero Obama.[/quote]
LOL.
With it being legal, why do you think it can’t be controlled just like showing an id to buy alcohol?
How would use “skyrocket” among teens unless parents aren’t doing their damn job at home?
We got alcohol as teens…and it took some work to do it. It takes ZERO work to ask the guy on the corner for weed today.[/quote]
First of all popping out of a thread when the heat is on is unbecoming. I don’t recall you doing that years back. Now go back a few pages and answer all of the studies that were presented in our first few rounds. When you come up with logical answers as to why most every top person who studies drug use is against legalizing pot then you might have a point.
Secondly, your logic is fading as you approach your 40th birthday (Could it be?). You claim it’s easy to get pot now. Yet you have no answer for how much easier it is to get if it were legal. You (laughingly) state that they would have to show an ID. Tell me…how is that working out with teens and alcohol abuse? Uh huh…Funny how it’s easier to obtain something when there is a store on every corner that has it available-One more time C A P I T A L I S M W O R K S !
Finally, I see you are no better at understanding parenting than you were several years ago when I had to school you on the topic. Here’s a clue for you, regardless of how good a parent is…ready? Here it comes…you only have x amount of time with your child and then other forces, much darker are at work.
POX…you have definitely seen better days my friend!
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
How many more times do you think that it needs to be pointed out to you that when a product is more readily available that it will be consumed more often?
currently 1 in 10 teens smoke dope regularly, if it becomes legal that figure will skyrocket! perhaps 50%, maybe more.
You don’t understand capitalism any better than your hero Obama.[/quote]
LOL.
With it being legal, why do you think it can’t be controlled just like showing an id to buy alcohol?
How would use “skyrocket” among teens unless parents aren’t doing their damn job at home?
We got alcohol as teens…and it took some work to do it. It takes ZERO work to ask the guy on the corner for weed today.[/quote]
Exactly. I always find it quite ironic how a legalization which would bring MORE control of a substance rather than the almost zero control there is now, plus revenues into public coffers, is always dismissed as ‘capitulation’ by certain quarters under the guise of how it would lead to a ‘boom’ in usage. And it always comes from a population that has almost zero clue about realities on the ground, so to speak. As in the actual ease of procuring…
[/quote]
You make a good point, you better tell Proctor and Gamble that the 1 billion dollars that they spent in marketing their products last year was a waste. According to your logic the best way to cause more consumers to consume more of their products is to convince the government to make them all illegal!
LOL you guys come up with some very funny stuff.
Thanks man
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
How many more times do you think that it needs to be pointed out to you that when a product is more readily available that it will be consumed more often?
currently 1 in 10 teens smoke dope regularly, if it becomes legal that figure will skyrocket! perhaps 50%, maybe more.
You don’t understand capitalism any better than your hero Obama.[/quote]
LOL.
With it being legal, why do you think it can’t be controlled just like showing an id to buy alcohol?
How would use “skyrocket” among teens unless parents aren’t doing their damn job at home?
We got alcohol as teens…and it took some work to do it. It takes ZERO work to ask the guy on the corner for weed today.[/quote]
Exactly. I always find it quite ironic how a legalization which would bring MORE control of a substance rather than the almost zero control there is now, plus revenues into public coffers, is always dismissed as ‘capitulation’ by certain quarters under the guise of how it would lead to a ‘boom’ in usage. And it always comes from a population that has almost zero clue about realities on the ground, so to speak. As in the actual ease of procuring…
[/quote]
You make a good point, you better tell Proctor and Gamble that the 1 billion dollars that they spent in marketing their products last year was a waste. According to your logic the best way to cause more consumers to consume more of their products is to convince the government to make them all illegal!
LOL you guys come up with some very funny stuff.
Thanks man[/quote]
Nice try. But feel free to argue against something I did actually write…cos that’s some weak sauce you’re punting right there.
Thanks for making my point for me LOL.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I always find it quite ironic how a legalization which would bring MORE control of a substance rather than the almost zero control there is now, plus revenues into public coffers, is always dismissed as ‘capitulation’ by certain quarters under the guise of how it would lead to a ‘boom’ in usage. And it always comes from a population that has almost zero clue about realities on the ground, so to speak. As in the actual ease of procuring…
You make a good point, you better tell Proctor and Gamble that the 1 billion dollars that they spent in marketing their products last year was a waste. According to your logic the best way to cause more consumers to consume more of their products is to convince the government to make them all illegal!
LOL you guys come up with some very funny stuff.
Nice try. But feel free to argue against something I did actually write…cos that’s some weak sauce you’re punting right there.
Thanks for making my point for me LOL.[/quote]
Legalization (as you say) will cause MORE drugs to be sold. The revenue that you think you would raise would all be spent on rehab, health and other societal problems.
More drugs sold will wreak more financial and legal pain for everyone.
“Regualtion” will not cure this problem, it will only make it worse.
Because…as I said a substance that is legitimized, advertised and easier to obtain will be consumed more.
You can walk around believing whatever you like. But, when you actually put it down in writing you cannot expect people who have actually dealt with these matters to buy into your flimsy thinking. Now go back in the thread and read the many links that I’ve posted from those who have studied this problem far longer than you or I. They seem to agree with me on this topic. But if you actually have some unique way of looking at it (I have not seen it yet) I’ve love to read it. Until then you’re just another tiny voice in the crowd that wants legalization yet has no substantive argument to back it up!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hide yo KIDS!..Hide yo WIFE![/quote]
Why are you such a supporter of prohibition?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hide yo KIDS!..Hide yo WIFE![/quote]
Why are you such a supporter of prohibition? [/quote]
Dude, darkies will look at the white wimminz.
Twice!
Also, Hearst just so happened to have bought large area of woodland to have paper for his newspapers, Anslinger had learned nothing but bullying people and Mexican workers refused to go home, though there was no work for them.
Obviously it was time to inform the American public of all the shadow stepping, eye looking and foot tapping.
Thank God, such a thing is unthinkable nowadays.