Posted on 11/10/2017 6:36:48 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Thanks for all the non-sequiturs. They were truly entertaining :)
A dope smoking politician!
Slick change of subject...
I'd bet money on the fact that more than pot was involved.
What? Are you high right now?
At what level of use? And for which demographic groups?
I'd be ok with any of these, mostly because it's none of my (or your) business what anyone, regardless of occupation, does in their off time. There are many booze hounds doing these same jobs. I don't pretend to have some authority over them, either.
In my 22 years in the tech sector, I've never worked for a drug testing employer (not that they'd have found anything in me if they had).
The big problem with that is that none of us live in a vacuum. If addiction only affected the addict and no one else, I'd be all for letting people do whatever. But the problem is that our society will not stand by idly while people become more and more dysfunctional through their addictions. We'll keep on feeding and sometimes housing them long past the time their brains no longer function. We'll keep sending them to ineffective rehabs and spending all kinds of money on them. We'll repeatedly revive them after overdoses and will not let them die. Since this is the case, we cannot talk about addicts' personal liberties as if that is the only consideration--we are talking about the taxpayer's liberty to go where they want without being confronted by drug addicts, about their liberty to keep as much of their own money as they can and choose to spend it the way they want, etc. Although I lean more libertarian than anything else, I also recognize the fact that our society is not based on each person for himself, acting in a vacuum, and that such a society may not be possible in the real world.
Table strawberries require a specific climate. Hot housing them leaves them tasteless. Name a climate other than in California where strawberries can be grown
The bigger concern for all is that farming is not the honorable profession it used to be. We would rather have roads and high rises and cities
Mores the shame
They are grown commercially in Washington, Florida, Oregon in large amounts, to name a few places. Certainly can be expanded there and elsewhere.
“The big problem with that is that none of us live in a vacuum. If addiction only affected the addict and no one else, I’d be all for letting people do whatever. But the problem is that our society will not stand by idly while people become more and more dysfunctional through their addictions. We’ll keep on feeding and sometimes housing them long past the time their brains no longer function. We’ll keep sending them to ineffective rehabs and spending all kinds of money on them. We’ll repeatedly revive them after overdoses and will not let them die. Since this is the case, we cannot talk about addicts’ personal liberties as if that is the only consideration—we are talking about the taxpayer’s liberty to go where they want without being confronted by drug addicts, about their liberty to keep as much of their own money as they can and choose to spend it the way they want, etc. Although I lean more libertarian than anything else, I also recognize the fact that our society is not based on each person for himself, acting in a vacuum, and that such a society may not be possible in the real world.”
So if I understand your diatribe correctly, the nanny state is ok with you except when you decide it shouldn’t be. “mostly libertarian “? Puleeze :)
Let's be honest here, shall we? I gave you the website for the largest catalog of medical research in the world. It contains abstracts and links to articles produced by researchers all over the world. I informed you that you are free to search the database using any search terms you want.
The reason I took this approach, rather than directly link any of the thousands of research articles published in medical journals is because if I link articles, you can then turn around and dismiss them as being cherry-picked or otherwise filtered somehow. You cannot accuse me of cherry-picking if you search for the articles yourself. Of course, you are free to cherry-pick however you want, and I have no control over that.
Another fallacy. If you took the time to actually research my posting history, you’d see I’m a HUGE advocate of pure research into cannabis. Non-govermental, 3rd party research is a must!
Every legitimate researcher has similar education and credentials, regardless of their employer. *If* you would take the time to actually look at the medical research about the effects of marijuana research, you would see that researchers work for all kinds of entities. And, if you happened to find an article published by a government researcher, you would find a disclaimer that the information presented in the article is the opinion of the authors and does not necessarily reflect any opinion or official policy of the US government.
With all of the above said, I am not surprised that you are uninterested in examining the research for yourself. It has been my experience that people who hold anti-scientific positions rarely have any desire to find out what the science actually shows.
Typical of the GOP. We don't like big government, unless it's OUR big government. Then it's perfectly ok!
Lol. Wait til “medical research” discovers a ‘gay gene’ or similar. Suddenly, we’ll see a concerted effort against medical research. Wait for it!
Link some articles; I won't discuss in any way how you selected them, but will simply discuss them on their merits.
Or don't link articles, and be no better than the person who responds to challenges of their claims with "Google it."
Your call.
Almost everything you do "affects" someone else in some way - if that's the low bar for government regulation, kiss liberty goodbye.
But the problem is that our society will not stand by idly while people become more and more dysfunctional through their addictions.
Government spends on the dysfunctions of the obese - but that's insufficient justification for government banning fattening foods. (Or do you disgaree?)
I’d estimate 3 of 4 posters have smoked pot...at least
Prolly 25-30 percent still do on occasion
The reefer madness crowd is really loud here
Problem with pot is blue state culture where in urban areas younger folks and life long hippies are progressive stoned nutz
In flyoverland it’s simply not that way
I’m a green frog righty all the way which means cultural hot button I’m more right than 95% here
I’m 60
Everyone I know in tennesseee smokes or did smoke pot st some point
I only know 2-3 liberals that I have to deal with in business
Same in Mississippi where I come from and white liberals are rare as mare balls
And if you look at serious pot areas like cave junction Oregon or most of rural colorado or most of NorCal
See how they voted in the election
The fact this country has improsoned non violent offenders for 25-30 years for pot smuggling in the late 80s is criminal and reeks or totalitarianism
We should be ashamed and one day people will look back saying we lost our minds temporarily
That depends on which studies you read, and which aspects of marijuana use they are reporting.
Some of the effects, notably the precipitation of psychotic disorder (related to schizophrenia), act on a developing brain but not a mature brain. Thus, this effect is a danger for users under the age of 25 years old. I believe that this effect follows a classic dose-response pattern, in that higher levels of use equate to greater risk.
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. I think that this effect was observed even in what the researchers in one study called "low use" groups--those who used marijuana about once a week. The deficits in motivation and initiative were observed three months after the last use of marijuana. Thus, the effect can have a long duration, but this study did not establish whether the effect eventually dissipates and if so, after how long.
Other researchers are looking at other demographics and other patterns of marijuana use. I've seen several studies described that looked at the effects in pregnant women, but have not read them that closely to know what the effects on the developing baby are.
“Let’s be honest here, shall we? “
It would be a nice change from your fallacy this & fallacy that nonsense.
“The reason I took this approach, rather than directly link any of the thousands of research articles published in medical journals is because if I link articles, you can then turn around and dismiss them as being cherry-picked or otherwise filtered somehow.”
Truly hilarious. You claim to have valid data to prove your claims but if you share the data it will be used against you. Too funny. Reads like something a Pelosi would say.
“Every legitimate researcher has similar education and credentials, regardless of their employer. “
Bullshite! We see “research” on a variety of things that turns out to be pure crap after you look at the actual data. We also know about bias in research (global warming, etc) that generates a desired result.
“With all of the above said, I am not surprised that you are uninterested in examining the research for yourself.”
100% fallacy. You presume to know what I have or have not researched when you have no way to know what research I may or may not have read.
You are so right as the right reverend Red Ingle said when I was a child of tender years...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqk3osxS4wQ
Seriously, as one who was once a slave to tobacco and alcohol and smoked quite a lot of the wildwood weed I consider both alcohol and tobacco to be far worse than marijuana, in its natural state, could ever be.
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.