IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New One for MM.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/10/16/reefer-madness-not-only-insane-but-literally-killing-people/#comment-6593890

55

hitchhiker says:

October 16, 2017 at 10:46 pm

Former pothead here. I’m one of the whatever fraction of people who develop a dependency on the stuff — like, using it at all means using it all the time. Even when I’d rather not, or when I have sh*t to do, or when I need to keep it together.

In one period of my life I used it every single day for 9 straight years.

Then I got sorted out, fell in love with a recovering alcoholic, became respectable, had some kids, raised ’em … wasn’t tempted to use again b/c I knew what what would happen. I’d been to jail for possession, and that’s not something I’d forgive myself for putting my kids through.

So, no pot for 25 years or so, and then, hey! I’m in WA, it’s legal, there’s 5 stores within walking distance of my apt, the kids are grown and launched, I’m semi-retired … within a few days it was as if I’d never stopped at all. Every. Single. Day. And it took several months to get sorted out again.

I go to meetings now, because what I found out is that I’m capable of massive self-deception & I need to be among people who understand this, and who also find that weed is not something they can take or leave.

Telling you all this because I ALSO think that it makes sense for pot to be legal, and I hope they finally do study how it works and what sort of dosing/strains are effective for things like nausea and anxiety and pain. But it’s really a life-killer for a few of us. We don’t get cirrhosis, we don’t drive too fast, we don’t get aggressive, we don’t get the DTs or wet brain.

We just quietly collapse in on ourselves while our lives drift by.


A good thread, too.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Thanks.
I personally never bought the "it isn't addictive" argument a lot of pro-cannabis folks made and make. Setting aside the OP's Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy, ("recreational pot made legal and was followed by a drop in opiod deaths, therefore, the drop in opiod deaths that happened afterward is because of ..."), the thing I believe all sides should consider is that for decades (perhaps this is still so, I don't know) funding for research into marijuana use was extremely limited due to its "no legal therapeutic use" in federal law. Why that's important is that the States are legalizing it in the absence of any thorough scientific knowledge.

Crazy and I have argued back and forth about this and have more or less come to an agreement that the legal age of use should be 25 or so (after full maturity of the human brain), given the studies I've cited showing permanent neural network changes in adolescent brains after light, temporary use. But that's quite obviously not enough study. My view on this now is that we just don't know enough about how it works and what the consequences are for its use. Until the nation decides that it wants this legal in the entire country and subsequently changes federal law, I don't see how we're going to know (from a scientific POV) enough about it for it to make sense to legalize it.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Then we don't know enough to ban it
--

Drew
New Read much? Preliminary evidence (and Scott's posted anecdotal evidence) suggests we do.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
Expand Edited by mmoffitt Oct. 17, 2017, 09:59:34 AM EDT
New We have more evidence against trans fat
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-case-for-banning-trans-fats/
In 1980 my colleagues and I set out to examine in greater detail the relation between intake of trans fats and risk of coronary heart disease. We included trans fats in a comprehensive assessment of diet in the Nurses' Health Study cohort of more than 100,000 women and developed a regularly updated database of the trans-fat content of foods. After eight years of follow-up and after accounting for known risk factors for heart disease, we found that women with the highest intake of trans fats had a 50 percent higher risk of hospitalization or death attributable to coronary heart disease. [Note: They conducted this study because there was already strong anecdotal evidence by 1980.]

...

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that the 25 percent of trans fats still coursing through the American food supply account for approximately 7,000 premature deaths a year.

Where's your outrage against Crisco?
--

Drew
New He doesn't blame crisco for his childhood friend deaths
You can't logically fight emotions, especially not baby chick imprint ones.
New I'm not a fan of "two wrongs make a right" thinking. YMMV.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New But 3 rights make a left
New Outrage agains't Crisco . . .
Actually, it's too late for that - at least for Trans Fats.

Interesterified fats in the new formula are still an open question that only long term (decades) studies will settle.

Proctor & Gamble invented Crisco as they were not doing well in the soap buisness with their hydrogenated cotton seed oil, and their candle business was in decline - so, sell the product as Health Food (no study required - it was white so it must be Pure). Pure was the buzz word of the time, like Natural is now.

Others have since followed this same solution for failing product lines, including Canola Oil, but in our times some study (and, it is suspected, some substantial pay-offs) was required.

Crisco was, of course, Trans Fats, made from partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil.

In a brilliant promotional move, Crisco became the major financial contributor to the new American Heart Association. They were followed by the seed oil companies that produce the artificial oils from which Trans Fats are made. This is why the AHA was still promoting Trans Fats when New York started a program to ban them (I personally checked the AHA Web site and saw this was true).

P&G dumped Crisco to J.M. Smucker Company, who reformulated it to use fully hydrogenated seed oils. Fully hydrogenated fats have another name which they don't mention due to the AHA's long vendetta against it, Saturated Fats.

Of course, this substance is hard as a hockey puck, so they blend it with liquid oils to make it soft like the original Crisco. It still has some Trans Fats, but the FDA allows them to call it "Zero Trans Fats" because it's less than 0.5 grams per serving.
New Even with her (IIRC) bad experiences with it, she thinks it should be legal.
New Maybe her neural network has been adversely affected. ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Or recognises her very small set of one
is not representative of the vast quantity of the typical outcomes.
New And we know this empirically how?
What we do know is that neural networks are affected. What we don't know is how this mutation affects, among other things, judgment. Hence my call for further study.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New well you do have a rather largish population of the buzzed to study in several states
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New At least the ones left who didn't freak out and jump out of a hotel window, anyway. ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New How many are those?
People who died from jumping out of hotel windows while stoned, that is?

Seems to me that if it's less than, say, about 33,000 per year, then before you ban Evil Killer Weed -- or Evil Killer Hotel Windows -- you should ban other stuff first; stuff that kills, say, about 33,000 per year.

If we're still pretending that we're out to Save Lives, that is. Are we?
--
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi

(Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
New Fuck lives. I'm suggesting we make decisions based upon scientific evidence.
Miss the wink, BTW? Setting the age limit aribitrarily in the absence of any real knowledge of the seemingly permanent changes to neural networks in adolescent brains is a stupid thing to do.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New You aren't calling for further study, you're calling for a ban
And if we're going to change laws based on anecdotal evidence, we should probably legalize pot immediately, especially for young men.
--

Drew
New No I'm not. Smoke another one.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Catch 22
Until the nation decides that it wants this legal in the entire country and subsequently changes federal law, I don't see how we're going to know (from a scientific POV) enough about it for it to make sense to legalize it.

So we shouldn't make it legal until we know more, but we can't learn more until we've already decided to make it legal. That's the same logic that once said it's not actually illegal, you just need to buy a tax stamp for it ... which we won't sell you.
--

Drew
New It's pretty simple, really.
You don't *have to* legalize it to provide grants for study (obviously, as some studies have already been done!). Increase the funding for study. One or two studies showing permanent neural network changes after light, transient use in adolescent brains does not suggest (to me at least) that light, transient use *always* results in neural network changes. But if, after additional study, this turns out to be the case, we need, I think, to understand the implications of those changes to the neural networks as those affected adolescents mature. If there is no measurable negative effect, then maybe you take the chance of setting the age limit at 21 (although that's a scary proposition, imo). The studies I've mentioned about this before noted, significantly, that no permanent neural network changes occurring from light, transient use were observed when the use came after the full maturation of the brain (this would suggest that a reasonable age for legalization would be 25 - I'm not advocating that, there, again, hasn't been enough study). I wouldn't base any decision solely on the one or two studies that have demonstrated these results. I would want more compelling evidence and a more thorough understanding of what is causing neural network changes, if they are indeed lifelong, if only adolescent brains are affected and what the long term effects on mental functioning are (if any) among individuals whose neural networks have been affected.

Once these things are known (or at least better understood) then an adult decision can be made about age limits for use under the law.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Simple for you maybe
But in the real world it is Schedule I, which makes it incredibly difficult to study. Sure, there are exceptions, and as the current drug warrior generation dies out, it'll get better. But the laws that you love will destroy thousands of lives in the process. You mouth a good game (love your most recent neural network screeding) but as usual the end point is black and white. You want people to follow your rules, rules which are based on a horrible emotional incident from your youth, and if they don't, you want them locked up and their lives destroyed.
New Even I recognize legalization will win.
The question is do we do it intelligently or do we allow the user base to influence their government to do it because they all want to get high, regardless of its impact upon developing minds? I think, as a rule, American brains are mush already without any help. Witness Trump (aside: interesting conjecture that. Do we have the Dubyas, Obamas and Trumps because a sufficient number of us have dorked their neural nets with the non-therapeutic use of psycho-active substances?).
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New You won't get what you want
No matter what process, whether legislative, direct vote, or bureaucratic. The deck is stacked against scientific, has been for many years, and your preferred method would take a couple of generations, which WILL NOT HAPPEN. The political process will not allow it. So either the draconian laws are enforced or they get peeled away. You don't like your choices so you prefer the status quo. You are playing a delaying game.
New I never suggested I would. Stupid seems to be the guiding principle in this country.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Interesting how you group those three all together. How about 1 & 3 because, 2 in spite of?
New The Assassination President was a good thing?
Oh, sorry, you must mean his hallmark legislation. Straddling us with a Republican health care plan that codified profit into the delivery of health care. That was a good thing?
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Many things are addictive to some people.
Marijuana seems to be one of them. So can be gambling, or sex, or food.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New True. But, Real Ale is worth it. ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New While you pretend the smiley enjoy these stats
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

The difference in downsides is many orders of magnitude out there.
New Heh.
When you don't count things like a teenager's death from jumping out a window after eating or smoking pot as a "pot related death" or the three of my friends who died when stoners plowed into them I-5 "pot related deaths", you can make your stats look very good. "But there aren't any pot related deaths! It's safe." Please.

Also, show me the stat about alcohol, after light, transient use, permanently affecting the brain's neural network. Go ahead. I'll wait.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New I'll grant you 100 deaths per year
Vastly overstating reality, but hey, I'm generous that way. My orders of magnitude statement holds.
New I see your one anecdotal meaningless story and raise you real stats of lost lives avoided
New The Daily Fail? Really?
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Fine. How about PBS?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/studies-claim-medical-marijuana-may-reduce-suicide-rates-traffic-fatalities/

Doesn't mean the other isn't relevent. Not as if the Mail (which is a rag, so what, it is a starting point) (which also had some drug warrior horror which I was expecting you to point out) did the study. The key is you will always cherry pick a reason against, as opposed to me, where I see a bit of your side. Tiny little bit. In this case you went straight for Ad Hominem.
     One for MM. - (Another Scott) - (35)
         Thanks. - (mmoffitt) - (34)
             Then we don't know enough to ban it -NT - (drook) - (25)
                 Read much? Preliminary evidence (and Scott's posted anecdotal evidence) suggests we do. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (24)
                     We have more evidence against trans fat - (drook) - (4)
                         He doesn't blame crisco for his childhood friend deaths - (crazy)
                         I'm not a fan of "two wrongs make a right" thinking. YMMV. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                             But 3 rights make a left -NT - (crazy)
                         Outrage agains't Crisco . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                     Even with her (IIRC) bad experiences with it, she thinks it should be legal. -NT - (Another Scott) - (18)
                         Maybe her neural network has been adversely affected. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (17)
                             Or recognises her very small set of one - (crazy) - (16)
                                 And we know this empirically how? - (mmoffitt) - (15)
                                     well you do have a rather largish population of the buzzed to study in several states -NT - (boxley) - (3)
                                         At least the ones left who didn't freak out and jump out of a hotel window, anyway. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                             How many are those? - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                 Fuck lives. I'm suggesting we make decisions based upon scientific evidence. - (mmoffitt)
                                     You aren't calling for further study, you're calling for a ban - (drook) - (10)
                                         No I'm not. Smoke another one. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (9)
                                             Catch 22 - (drook) - (8)
                                                 It's pretty simple, really. - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                                                     Simple for you maybe - (crazy) - (6)
                                                         Even I recognize legalization will win. - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                                             You won't get what you want - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                 I never suggested I would. Stupid seems to be the guiding principle in this country. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                     Oh, I agree with you - (crazy)
                                                             Interesting how you group those three all together. How about 1 & 3 because, 2 in spite of? -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                                 The Assassination President was a good thing? - (mmoffitt)
             Many things are addictive to some people. - (malraux) - (4)
                 True. But, Real Ale is worth it. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                     While you pretend the smiley enjoy these stats - (crazy) - (2)
                         Heh. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                             I'll grant you 100 deaths per year - (crazy)
             I see your one anecdotal meaningless story and raise you real stats of lost lives avoided - (crazy) - (2)
                 The Daily Fail? Really? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                     Fine. How about PBS? - (crazy)

Living in our own private Idaho.
238 ms