Posted on 11/10/2017 6:36:48 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Where they can do no harm to other tissues - until they leach back out, which takes place at very low concentrations.
Other effects, such as the loss of initiative and motivation, seem to affect older people as well as younger people. This is because some of the components of marijuana cause the death of certain cell types which are crucial for these functions. [emphasis added]
So research has established that this is the causal mechanism?
The brain damage to these structures has been documented through functional imaging and other means.
That doesn't answer the question. Did you really not know that?
Slim support for claims of "long-lasting, if not permanent."
The fact that the effects are still observed after three months means that they are long-lasting.
In commmon parlance, to call a medical effect "long-lasting" connotes a time period considerably longer than months.
The study did not do later follow-ups to determine if those effects are permanent. They could be permanent
As I said, "could be" is slim support.
Crime is already against the law - and crimes by addicts would be lessened when legalization lessened the cost of their drug.
Government spends on the dysfunctions of the obese - but that's insufficient justification for government banning fattening foods. (Or do you disgaree?)
There is no "good" food or "bad" food, and the notion that obesity could be controlled by banning "fattening" foods is ludicrous.
Marijuana in moderation, like high-fat foods, doesn't lead to dysfunction. And the idea that marijuana addiction can be controlled by banning marijuana has proven equally ludicrous.
Government spending on the dysfunctions of the obese is insufficient justification for government coercively intruding on American's food choices in any manner. (Or do you disgaree?)
Finally, they should pay their own health care costs.
As should addicts.
Where is the army of federal agents you assured us were going to shut down legal cannabis because they needed the $$$? You said it would happen regardless of who won the election.
What, did they get stuck in traffic?
They were mistaken and I was wrong. (We are still ready to go though.)
You seem angry.
I actually had a bit of a chuckle while writing that post.
You, on the other hand, seem upset and on the verge of crying. Maybe you should seek counseling.
“The pro pot movement never advocates moderation.”
Wrong as usual. “Use of cannabis, to the extent that it impairs health, personal development or achievement, is abuse, to be resisted by responsible cannabis users.” - http://norml.org/marijuana/personal/item/principles-of-responsible-use
However, you misunderstand my point: The Pro-Pot MOVEMENT sd s whole ignores moderation and rejects applying social stigma for excessive use.
It advocates for using marijuana in the morning, at lunch, in the afternoon, with dinner, and at bed. That is not moderation. (I am sure that you read this article.)
However, I see that - as of this morning - you have begun to discuss “moderation of use” in one of your own posts.
It is possible that adding the point of moderation of use to your argument is because you see that I have a legitimate point. Which I do.
If the pro-pot movement wants acceptance, it has to act like a mature player. It has to argue that it’s introduction into society will have less of a negative impact than its opponents declare. A key to doing this is openly rejecting the “wake-and-bake, stay high all day” mentality that is common among users.
I respect your passion in your advocacy of recreational marijuana use, but without appropriate messaging the Movement will remain a “radical addicts cause.”
“You, on the other hand, seem upset and on the verge of crying. Maybe you should seek counseling.”
It’s ok to cry. You’ll feel better afterwards.
Wrong as usual. “Use of cannabis, to the extent that it impairs health, personal development or achievement, is abuse, to be resisted by responsible cannabis users.” - http://norml.org/marijuana/personal/item/principles-of-responsible-use
Thank you for this advocacy page that buries moderation inside of a talking point
Laughable BS. They precedes several paragraphs on responsible use with a brief statement of their pro-legaliztion position - no "burying" there.
- off of the main page
Nor does the main page of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America have a statement on responsible use of that drug. What of it?
The Pro-Pot MOVEMENT sd s whole ignores moderation
Nice dodge: never mind that a leading voice of the pro-legaliztion movement advocates moderation - not EVERY facet of that movement explcitly does so, so you claim it doesn't do so "as a whole."
It advocates for using marijuana in the morning, at lunch, in the afternoon, with dinner, and at bed. That is not moderation. (I am sure that you read this article.)
You mean the article at the top of this thread? Nowhere does the seller advise using all strains on the same day, and the writer explicitly says he used one strain per day.
If the pro-pot movement wants acceptance, it has to [...] argue that it’s introduction into society will have less of a negative impact than its opponents declare.
Since its opponents are prone to hysterical overstatement, that's an easy argument to make.
Here's what I found (emphases added):
"With reference to chronic substantial cannabis use and its impact on brain function, the definitive studies are yet to be done. If clinical impressions are meaningful, some people, especially young people, can sustain temporary and perhaps permanent impairment of nonintoxicated mental performance." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6973305
In other words, more research is needed.
Fedzilla needs to let real research occur and end the unconstitutional prohibition against cannabis.
As one Georgia farmer in a potumentary I saw a long time ago said, he can grow 5 acres of corn or five plants of marijuana and make the same money. It’s a no brainer. Another doc was interviewing a farmer in wine country. He said they have a winery. It barely breaks even. They grow pot, it subsidizes the winery.
I believe the cannabis prohibition laws have made it difficult for much pure research to be conducted on the subject, relative to the intense and widespread interest in it.
If corn were illegal, it would cost the same as pot.
These people rushing into the pot business think that they are still going to get high prices when it becomes legal - very poor business plans. 90% will go bankrupt.
That is an article from 1981. A *lot* of research has been done since then, which has confirmed and added details about how marijuana causes damage at the cellular and molecular level. And more research is still needed.
There was pretty much a research desert until this big experiment with quasi-legal marijuana began a few years ago. Now, a lot of researchers are interested in the subject, since the potential threat to public health is so high.
The article referenced by NobleFree was from 1981. There are now thousands of studies published on the effects of marijuana. And the evidence of deleterious effects keeps mounting.
Thank you. I appreciate it.
Thank you very much. I’ll try again. I need a good therapist. Last one didn’t help one bit that I could notice. But anyways, be well.
Dirtbag pot growers are taking over the Sierras. Fortunately the price of pot is tanking and California wants their 45%.
Most of the pot growers will most likely be bankrupt soon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.