A Conservative Mom Breaks the Pot Taboo

Townhall.com ^ | May 31, 2017 | Michelle Malkin

[TheStickman]

You keep writing stuff that has no basis in reality regarding my personal use of cannabis—like you know me personally.

Frankly, I find it hilarious. You’re like Pelosi or Schumer, making false declarations about someone you know absolutely nothing about.

FYI: I didn’t use cannabis prior to Feb 2015. After 20+ years of big pharma depression/anxiety meds that never really worked & hoping to avoid long-term inpatient treatment a friend suggested I give cannabis a try. My wife made me (and she still does) some infused butter & homemade oatmeal cookies with said butter.

Thanks be to God the stuff works for me. I’m no longer living with that depression/anxiety crap in my life. I’ve lost 75 lbs of flab since I began using cannabis as medicine. Not only am I more active physically I’m now playing bass for the group at our 10am Mass. My wife has her husband back & nothing you say or wish upon me will change these facts.

I just saw my doctor yesterday for a refill on my thyroid meds (sadly cannabis won’t fix that lol), & he was amazed that at 56 I was able to lose the weight & stop taking all the meds he had prescribed 2 years previously.

He was happy I no longer felt depressed or anxious—unlike you seem to be. That’s ok. I’ll continue to be thankful & you can continue to be you.

Again, have a nice day :)

[NobleFree]

These problems arise from being an EARLY legalizer - the more states that legalize, the fewer the homeless with pot-driven incentive to relocate, and the greater the dilution among the legalizing states of that lower number.

Oh, so now you admit there is a problem after all

I never denied it. And your implication that these problems can be expected in ANY locale that chooses to legalize remains wrong.

You should try reading your links: "The study team points out that these associations do not prove cannabis use causes other substance abuse problems."

That just says that it is not true in every instance as this team designed their study

Wrong again - it states the well known rule that correlation does not imply causation (don't do much science, do you?).

[Yaelle]

I wish you luck with your cbd oil. I take it also to keep frequent migraines at bay. You may wish to switch one day to cbd oil from marijuana rather than hemp but start with your hemp. Hope
It helps you like it has helped
Me.

[Agamemnon]

I never denied it. And your implication that these problems can be expected in ANY locale that chooses to legalize remains wrong.

I seem to recall your opening whine went something like "What abuse? What social problems?" Were you just being purposefully stupid?

... that correlation does not imply causation....

Actually that correlation very much implies causation; it does not "prove" causation, because the study this team conducted was not designed with that level of precision. It is a technically and statistically correct statement, designed to make clear that this study is not conducted at a P = <0.05 certainty.

That is not to say such a study could not be designed to be powered sufficiently to make a P = <0.05 correlation, but it is probably not necessary because the correlation is already so obvious.

A P = <0.05 correlation would be an expensive test to run, but the fact that the correlation vs. causation is already so good and derived from longtime acquired data and large sample sizes (though not with rigorously established patient rejection criteria common with establishing a P = <0.05 correlation), it is kind of a moot point.

You and your other pot headed advocates are the few who simply fail to recognize the obvious.

[musicman]

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help To Keep FR In The Battle !!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[DouglasKC]

Cannabidiol is one of hundreds of chemical components found in cannabis plants. Unlike THC, the most famous of marijuana's compounds, CBD is nonhallucinogenic and nonaddictive. It doesn't make you high. CBD can be extracted from hemp and sold as an oil. That's what the pioneering Stanley Brothers of Boulder, Colorado, did several years ago when they conceived and manufactured "Charlotte's Web" -- named after Charlotte Figi, a Colorado Springs girl with Dravet syndrome whose seizures dramatically decreased after using CBD.

Except the "medical" marijuana industry has no use for this. Their entire agenda isn't about medicine or health. THAT was the lie to get pot legalized in some form or fashion across the country. They want SMOKED, VAPED, OR EATEN marijuana to be declared "medicine" so that they can legally get high and/or degrade the mental health of United States citizens.

[NobleFree]

I never denied it. And your implication that these problems can be expected in ANY locale that chooses to legalize remains wrong.

I seem to recall your opening whine went something like "What abuse? What social problems?"

See those curly marks at the end of those sentences? They denote questions - not claims.

And your implication that these problems can be expected in ANY locale that chooses to legalize remains wrong.

... that correlation does not imply causation....

Actually that correlation very much implies causation; it does not "prove" causation, because the study this team conducted was not designed with that level of precision. It is a technically and statistically correct statement, designed to make clear that this study is not conducted at a P = <0.05 certainty.

Correlation between X and Y can at most SUGGEST that EITHER X causes Y, OR Y causes X, OR some Z causes both X and Y. And p <= 0.05 is not the cutoff between proof and nonproof, but simply a reasonable rule of thumb as to when a statistical relationship is unlikely to be due to random chance. Thanks for unintentionally answering my question: either you don't do much science, or you don't understand the science you do.

[NobleFree]

From the study: "despite its prospective design, our study does not establish a causal association between cannabis use and new onset of disorders because of the possibility of residual confounding, particularly confounders that may vary over time across survey waves." [emphasis added]

[TheStickman]

“Except the “medical” marijuana industry has no use for this.”

False.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/debraborchardt/2016/12/12/the-cannabis-market-that-could-grow-700-by-2020/#176b4f5f4be1

Excerpt: “The Hemp Business Journal estimated that the CBD market will grow to a $2.1 billion market in consumer sales by 2020 with $450 million of those sales coming from hemp-based sources. That’s a 700% increase from 2016. In 2015, the market for consumer sales of hemp-derived CBD products was $90 million, plus another $112 million in marijuana-derived CBD products which were sold through dispensaries – bringing a total CBD market to $202 million last year.”

Actually the medical cannabis industry is pushing CBD products. Try again.

[Agamemnon]

See those curly marks at the end of those sentences? They denote questions - not claims.

Drug abusers habitually pretend and exhibit compulsive fits of denial. It is no surprise to see you stumbling into this predictable trend.

And p <= 0.05 is not the cutoff between proof and nonproof, but simply a reasonable rule of thumb as to when a statistical relationship is unlikely to be due to random chance.

You clearly have no grasp of clinical science.

[KC_Lion]

Yup. And here is another thing to consider. In my opinion, the legalization of the sale of small amounts of MJ isn’t even the most significant part of these laws. It’s allowing cultivation that’s the real game changer. I looked up the yields for one plant, and apparently one pound per plant isn’t unheard of. OK, so let’s say you grow the six allowed plants that are typical under these state laws. That’s a lot of pot. And I suppose there are some folks who cultivate purely for the income. Not because they’re all that interested in consuming it. So there is now a cottage industry in these states as well.

The prohibitionists might as well hang it up. This is a done deal.

Agree 110% RKBA. This genie is out of it's bottle.

[NobleFree]

See those curly marks at the end of those sentences? They denote questions - not claims.

Drug abusers habitually pretend and exhibit compulsive fits of denial.

Drug War zealots habitually attack straw men and engage in personal smears - you're par for the course.

And p <= 0.05 is not the cutoff between proof and nonproof, but simply a reasonable rule of thumb as to when a statistical relationship is unlikely to be due to random chance.

You clearly have no grasp of clinical science.

What I posted is simply correct - but I'm not in the least surprised it's beyond your comprehension.