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 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.
     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)

Please do not spit too loud, thank you.
89 ms