My letter to the President.

Post #385,531 by mmoffitt 1/20/14 4:52:02 PM Reply	My letter to the President. Dear Mr. President, I could not find a proper category in the list available on your web site, but I am writing you to ask that you review current literature and research before making any further pronouncements concerning the relative "safety" of marijuana use. Your reported comments to the New Yorker (that it is no more harmful than alcohol) misses the mark wildly. The latest research clearly demonstrates otherwise. Please look into the University of Maryland study published in July, 2013. Its findings should give anyone pause. The study's lead author, Dr. Sylvina Raver commented, "The striking finding is that, even though the mice were exposed to very low drug doses, and only for a brief period during adolescence, their brain abnormalities persisted into adulthood." In low doses, no such permanent damage to the neural network exists with alcohol. It should also be noted that the neural network in humans does not complete maturation until ages 25 or 26. Tacit approval for the use of this drug by the President (nothwithstanding his own prior use) is ill advised. Despite being 54 years of age, I never used marijuana. In my youth, it troubled me that marijuana users always maintained the drug was harmless even when they were not under its influence. I grew up around a lot of alcoholics, but I never heard any of them say alcohol was harmless when they were sober. Perhaps it is the apparent permanent brain damage that marijuana causes which is responsible for users (current and previous) to maintain the innocuousness of the drug. In any case, science is not on their side. And so, Mr. President, I am sorry to say science is not with you and ask that you review your position and make corrective statements at your earliest convenience. Thank you.
Post #385,532 by boxley 1/20/14 5:05:40 PM Reply	so you are saying the pres is brain damaged? /me flees Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #385,553 by mmoffitt 1/21/14 8:37:27 AM Reply	Likely. At least, his brain did not develop entirely in the way evolution dictated.
Post #385,536 by Ashton 1/20/14 7:24:00 PM Reply	It's a real Puzzlement, because of the legal fallout.. Methinks that the main impetus, the insanely-punitive arrests of (millions, yet?) was main driving-force for current attitude changes. Even if Dr. Raver's assertion is shown to be incontrovertible, via further delving, Muricans' Puritanism deals in Black/White Certainties. That prevents any serious debate (as we see.) Best future development? Maybe one could/somehow raise the age of 'condoning' to that upper-limit, in some next. We know how That goes. (And we see everyone welcoming Casino gambling, despite its inculcation of purest-Vulture Capitalism, along with other habitual-destructions.) Welcome to the new 3-D series on Murica '14 The Ungovernables
Post #385,552 by mmoffitt 1/21/14 8:36:43 AM Reply	My biggest problem, perhaps has always been... the insistance of virtually every current or former user maintaining the "safety" of use. I'm not saying that the implications of the apparent mangling of the neural network during development caused by the relatively enormous THC molecule are fully understood. It has already been observed that change occurs, even in low doses for short amounts of time. Before anyone deems this "safe" or "not as bad as X" or anything of the sort, I think there ought to be further study. What we can say at this point is that humans in the midst of brain development who use marijuana will have their brains altered permanently. So, in my view, legalize if you must, but make the legal age 27 or so. By 27, the brain is fully developed and marijuana use apparently does not cause any permanent brain changes if the brain is fully developed. But then, when do we ever allow pesky facts and science to dictate policy?
Post #385,554 by boxley 1/21/14 9:05:17 AM Reply	should take about 3 weeks that study use people who have culturally smoked it heavily for generations. If you can vote and die for your country you should be able to have a beer with a blunt on the side Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #385,643 by rcareaga 1/22/14 1:00:07 PM 1/22/14 1:01:21 PM Reply	you're going to die on that hill, aren't you? Boy-howdy, and here I thought we'd thrashed through these arguments a decade ago! You're still in the grip of your peculiar delusion that marijuana alters the user's brain in such a way as to cause the user to deny that THC could possibly have harmful effects. This is an example of what they call "circular reasoning," so-called because the listener will presently begin to make little twirling gestures while pointing at his ear. If you want to raise the legalization age to 27, I suggest you do the same for "adult beverages," the potentially deleterious effect of overuse on brains of any age having been amply documented in scores of studies. And if you're really concerned about bad molecules making free with our tissues, you've been oddly diffident in these forums on the subjects of phthalates and bisphenols, possibly because these nasty, widely-used compounds were not associated with the death by blunt force trauma of Bob or Bill, or whatever the name was of the ghost you summoned up in the service of the odd proposition that a personal tragedy should serve as the basis for a national policy. Well, if the rest of us couldn't change your mind back then, it's unlikely we'll have better luck after your attitudes have had another ten years to congeal. I rather think I'll sit down today and write to the president, urging him to ignore your letter. cordially, Edited by rcareaga Jan. 22, 2014, 01:01:21 PM EST Expand All History
Post #385,644 by boxley 1/22/14 1:14:23 PM Reply	lrpd that This is an example of what they call "circular reasoning," so-called because the listener will presently begin to make little twirling gestures while pointing at his ear. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #385,646 by drook 1/22/14 1:32:21 PM Reply	And also, too I rather think I'll sit down today and write to the president, urging him to ignore your letter. -- Drew
Post #385,645 by mmoffitt 1/22/14 1:27:56 PM 1/22/14 1:32:12 PM Reply	Miss the "Perhaps"? If that isn't the reason why former and current users insist upon the relative safety of pot vs ethanol in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary, what is? Point me to any study that determines brain changes that persist through adulthood and a greater likelihood of schizophrenia are a result of low doses of alcohol being administered briefly to adolescents and you might have a basis to make the kind of statements the President did. Alas, there are none. And I'm delusional? Good one. It may well be that we can never agree on this because the most recent science is suggesting that your brain developed differently from mine. I'm good with that. Are you not? Particularly in light of the fact that we agree on far more than we differ. And what's this "sound policy on some ghost" bullshit? I'm asking that policy be based upon what science is telling us. Edited by mmoffitt Jan. 22, 2014, 01:31:44 PM EST Edited by mmoffitt Jan. 22, 2014, 01:32:12 PM EST Expand All History
Post #385,651 by rcareaga 1/22/14 2:21:15 PM 1/22/14 2:23:15 PM Reply	You cite a single study from last year ...that arrives at a conclusion you've been flogging since Hector was a pup, and you proclaim that science—not just Dr. Sylvia Raver, but science, that magisterial edifice of disciplined empirical authority—now "tells" us what you, formerly a voice in the wilderness, have been scolding the rest of us about all along. Now tell us honestly, if Dr. Raver (an obvious Ecstasy fiend) had published a paper reaching the contrary conclusion, if her mice had grown up to be productive, tax-paying rodents with first-rate cortical oscillations, would you be brandishing her study while loudly repudiating your former stance on this issue? You would not, I suspect, and if someone else cited its authority you would find risible the notion that all of "science" now perforce undercut your beliefs. No hard feelings. It's not a hot-button issue for me, and as you observe, we are leagued on the same side of several more important matters of public policy. I'll just close by repeating that almost everyone I know in my generational cohort smoked marijuana pretty regularly from the ages of about fifteen to twenty-five, and among those with whom I've remained in touch (including several who still indulge) I've seen no evidence of impairment after almost half a century. These are, to all appearances, largely prosperous, happy, well-adjusted and cultured individuals. And yes, I've met burnt-out stoners of my own age who have made little of their lives, but these might just as easily have ended up as drunks. cordially, Edited by rcareaga Jan. 22, 2014, 02:23:15 PM EST Expand All History
Post #385,653 by mmoffitt 1/22/14 2:43:45 PM Reply	There are more studies with similar results. Here's another one: http://www.northwest...-poor-memory.html Many studies were based on heavy use for two or more years. There are lots of those showing lasting damage, and I suspect any study involving teenagers drinking 6 beers a day for two years would conclude that heavy drinking for two years is equally damaging to neurons. I have not looked for such studies. What was "new" about the Maryland study was that (AFAIK) that was the first one to show lasting brain alterations (damage?) from only light use for a short period of time. Also, AFAIK, there is no study showing the same effect from alcohol. I think the most honest thing that can be said by anyone is, "I don't know with certainty that light, temporary use of pot is worse for you than light, temporary use of alcohol. But we are learning that pot might be much more dangerous for you depending on your brain maturity level at time of use." My point is, making the affirmative claim that "pot is no worse than alcohol" requires evidence. And there isn't any. Not yet. But recent studies suggest otherwise. There's not enough firm ground (imo) to stand on to make a definitive statement one way or the other. Anecdotes don't suffice - not for me and not for you. I'm glad there are no hard feelings. I certainly have none. It's not a hot button issue for me anymore either. Perhaps its my age. Perhaps it's that, as you observe, the country's gone to hell in a handbasket on such a scale in so many other more important areas that this one pales in comparison. Would things were good enough that either of us could get excited about this issue.
Post #385,688 by crazy 1/22/14 9:09:43 PM Reply	"No worse" is an impossible measure It is DIFFERENT. And before you start to spew, keep in mind, I AGREE that young males should stay away from it until age 25. Kind of like young males should not be allowed to drive cars without being speed limited to under 30 MPH (just review the insurance company payout and death rates for supporting hyperbole). The problem is that it is impossible to enforce that type of law, so you either get draconian all or nothing laws. On the other hand, it is not physically addicting, at least not in the manner of alcohol. No DTs on withdrawel. You can't OD on it (no forgetting to breathe). Stoned drivers are slower and MORE careful than drunk ones. I don't claim zero effect, it certainly slows down reaction time but they seem to compensate better. You won't pass out and then start puking and die from breathing your vomit. It does not destroy your liver. It does not cause Korsakoff's syndrome. It does not fuel aggressive behaviour. It does not (blah blah blah (lots of known problems with alcohol)). So people put a list of pros and cons, and then say "no worse" as a way of showing how they feel about it as compared to alcohol from a total societal impact. You will hang on to your shizo study, and say: THIS TRUMPS ALL OF THAT. So no point in arguing, but it seems like you are ignoring a shitload of issues surrounding alcohol in you attitude.
Post #385,700 by mmoffitt 1/23/14 10:34:52 AM Reply	I don't have any illusions about alcohol. I can just barely remember going to my 54 year old grandfather's funeral that was most definitely caused by liver failure due to alcohol. In my own family, I've seen it destroy three marriages and cause innumerable health problems. I've also seen four kids left motherless and two orphaned by pot. This new research on pot is worrisome to me, though. Brief, light use in adolescents might result in permanent brain alterations? Even I didn't suspect that. Then there's the trans-generational impact study this year. The closer we look, the scarier this gets. This all seems tightly correlated with adolescents. I think you are dead bang on limiting to age 25 and up (including alcohol and driver's licenses - hell, you can get a glider's license at 16 and a powered pilot's license at 17 and I think that's nuts). That's probably the geezer in me and my way of saying, "Kids these days."
Post #385,767 by Another Scott 1/24/14 8:21:11 PM Reply	Jake Ellison at Seattle PI - the Pot Blog... http://blog.seattlep...juana/#10529101=0 But why is marijuana associated with schizophrenia? ThatÂs what researchers are trying to figure out, and there have been three key studies, recently published, that point in two different directions, which is why I chose to start this story as I did. Rather than blast out headlines that contribute to the whipsaw, head-jerking of ÂYes it does!Â and ÂNo it doesnÂt!Â letÂs start with what none of this research does. None of the research on cannabis and schizophrenia establishes or disproves a causal link. No research has proven that ingestion of the chemicals in marijuana causes physical damage that results in clinical psychosis (as opposed to just thinking someone is stupid or nuts). What two of the research articles IÂll bring up do establish is a correlation between marijuana use and the presence of brain structure anomalies found in people with schizophrenia. The third research finding establishes that there is no strong correlation between cannabis use and schizophrenia. [...] So, if this risk of schizophrenia is proven, will that stop the forward progress of legalization? Just a guess here, but IÂm gonna say, Nope. Voters donÂt appear to think that marijuana is good for you Â they appear to be voting it in because it isnÂt any worse, at least, than alcohol and the war on drugs causes more social and personal damage than the drug itself. Legalization is not creating marijuana use nor a market for it. After decades of prohibition, use has even slightly increased over that time. So itÂs not like folks are going to suddenly stop using because of some bad news on the research front. And until people decide to stop using cannabis, weÂll be right where we are with a raging black market and prisons full of non-violent offenders. Â after all itÂs taken decades to reduce smoking, and alcohol consumption seems totally unimpaired by the litany of body and brain killing side effects. HereÂs that paragraph from professor Robin Murray, from KingÂs College London: It is difficult to look at the relationship between environmental and genetic factors, but we have examined that question in relation to cannabis. We now know that there is an interaction between the catechol-O-methyl transferase gene (COMT), which some regard as a susceptibility gene for schizophrenia, and cannabis consumption. People with the Val/Val variant of COMT are much more likely to develop psychosis if they abuse cannabis in their adolescence, but there is no evidence that people with the Val/Val genotype of COMT actually take more cannabis than the rest of the population. So itÂs not that the cannabis consumption is a manifestation of predisposition to schizophrenia. Rather, cannabis consumption interacts with genetic susceptibility to schizophrenia. The result is that the majority of the population can abuse as much cannabis as they like and donÂt come to much harm. But a vulnerable minority, about 25 percent of the population, is prone to psychotic reactions if they take regular cannabis (Caspi et al., 2005). [...] FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #385,771 by drook 1/24/14 9:03:31 PM Reply	I suspect that's true of lots of things Behavior or food A doesn't make you x% more likely to experience outcome B, rather x% of the population is susceptible, and behavior/food A is the trigger. -- Drew
Post #385,801 by mmoffitt 1/25/14 2:18:06 PM Reply	FWIW. Doesn't appear that the whole relative safety thing has been worked out then, does it? ;0)
Post #385,812 by crazy 1/25/14 6:22:05 PM Reply	Sure it has Do a genetic check for the 25%. Then let them determine for themselves if they want to throw the dice, fully informed.
Post #385,641 by Another Scott 1/22/14 12:11:42 PM Reply	Atrios today. http://www.eschatonb...e-baby-steps.html WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2014 Possible Baby Steps Whatever one thinks about the importance of Official State Disapproval of the demon weed, it's absurd that it takes up police time and resources and it's absurd that it can be an excuse for police to harass people in a discriminatory fashion. Prosecuting it should be below prosecuting "wearing insufficient onions on belts as the laws of olde require" as a priority. Anything that moves us in that direction is good. by Atrios at 11:59 (Includes a link to http://www.philebrit...tm_medium=twitter ) Cheers, Scott.
Post #385,648 by mmoffitt 1/22/14 1:48:21 PM Reply	I'm no longer necessarily opposed to that. But, the tired old, "it's safer than alcohol" or even the President's "it's no more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes" has no basis in fact and is contrary to the most recent research. I just re-read my letter and I'm pretty sure that's all I said. And I stand by it. I will admit I'm rather pleased that my intuition dating back to the early 1980's that pot did something to the brains of people who used it that didn't seem to go away after the effects of the drug had worn off is now being supported by scientific research. While I am pleased by that, I slightly regret that science is suggesting my inability to understand how a significant minority (perhaps majority?) of people think may be rooted in biology. ;0)
Post #385,650 by drook 1/22/14 1:55:03 PM Reply	That's a narrow definition of "dangerous" Let's assume for the sake of argument that this one study you're referencing is the most flawless science ever done; that one joint smoked by an adolescent causes permanent disfigurement of some brain structures. So? If we look at people who die from the direct effects of pot and alcohol, it's not even close: cirrhosis, diabetes, acute intoxication, stroke, hepatitis, high blood pressure ... it goes on and on. And the secondary effects: accidents, violence, absenteeism, etc. What are the comparable effects of marijuana use? -- Drew
Post #385,654 by mmoffitt 1/22/14 2:49:24 PM 1/22/14 2:56:57 PM Reply	Abnormal brain structure, poor memory, schizophrenia. There are other studies. More study is necessary, imo, to formulate a well considered opinion. The bottom line is that the President made his statement (and this is a statement from the highest office in government) without any evidence of the truth of his claim. The one study I referenced directly refutes his claim. How many counter-examples does it take to refute a claim? And then there's this: http://www.scienceda.../140122102535.htm Edited by mmoffitt Jan. 22, 2014, 02:56:57 PM EST Expand All History
Post #385,657 by drook 1/22/14 3:08:03 PM Reply	How about in humans? Lots of people have smoked lots of pot for lots of years. How many of them have died from it? Had strokes? Developed chronic debilitating conditions? Caused car accidents? Committed violence? -- Drew
Post #385,659 by mmoffitt 1/22/14 3:10:44 PM Reply	Seriously? Caused car accidents?
Post #385,660 by drook 1/22/14 3:14:27 PM Reply	Yes Plenty of evidence drunks crash cars. I haven't seen nearly as much talking about pot smokers doing the same. Of course, that was only one in a short, top-of-the-head list of potential ill effects. -- Drew
Post #385,662 by mmoffitt 1/22/14 3:28:11 PM Reply	That could be because the law was slow to catch up. As were sobriety tests. But, decades ago (13 days after my 13th birthday) I lost 3 friends and nearly lost my mother in a wreck caused by pot smokers. I thought you knew that and were being funny.
Post #385,663 by drook 1/22/14 3:44:57 PM Reply	No, didn't know the details Unfortunately, it's still an "n = 1" test, not enough to prove causation in a general population. I guess I'll have to dissect this frog ... What is the average number of accidents caused per mile driven among sober drivers? What is the number among drunk drivers? Among stoned drivers? Pick any other effect -- not altered brain chemistry or physiology, external effect -- and do a similar comparison. People have been demonizing weed for decades, yet I haven't seen statistics showing any category where pot shows as worse than alcohol. And for the president's statement to be wrong, you'd need more than a single dimension where pot compares unfavorably; you'd need to show the totality of negative effects to be worse. -- Drew
Post #385,668 by mmoffitt 1/22/14 4:45:54 PM Reply	Familiar with Copi? And for the president's statement to be wrong, you'd need more than a single dimension where pot compares unfavorably; you'd need to show the totality of negative effects to be worse. Um, not exactly, Red Ranger. To discredit a claim I do not need to prove the converse of the claim. I just need a counter-example. The President's claim was p and q are equal wrt ill effects. All I really need to show the President's claim is invalid is to find a negative attribute of p that is not an attribute of q. That's what I did. Here is a study of p that demonstrates an attribute of p that is not an attribute of q. Reasonable minds can differ, but it's hard for me to imagine the equivalence of two substances when only one of them can cause permanent brain damage after only light, occasional use for a short period of time and the other shows no such effect. I think you're reading something in my letter that isn't there. I am not making the claim that "pot is worse than alcohol." I made no affirmative claim. The President made an affirmative claim which is demonstrably false without any justification whatever. The proof of the falsity of the President's claim requires nothing more than one exception - and I provided it. The President should have provided some objective, scientific evidence of the accuracy of his claim prior to making his comments. He didn't. So, this is just YAN of this President making an unsupported claim. Not his first. Won't be his last. And unfortunately as regards his false, misleading or unjustified claims, this one was minor in comparison.
Post #385,674 by Another Scott 1/22/14 5:31:44 PM Reply	Let's see the quote again. http://www.newyorker...k?currentPage=all When I asked Obama about another area of shifting public opinionÂthe legalization of marijuanaÂhe seemed even less eager to evolve with any dispatch and get in front of the issue. ÂAs has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I donÂt think it is more dangerous than alcohol.Â Is it less dangerous? I asked. Obama leaned back and let a moment go by. ThatÂs one of his moves. When he is interviewed, particularly for print, he has the habit of slowing himself down, and the result is a spool of cautious lucidity. He speaks in paragraphs and with moments of revision. Sometimes he will stop in the middle of a sentence and say, ÂScratch that,Â or, ÂI think the grammar was all screwed up in that sentence, so let me start again.Â [Why the paraphrase at the start of the next paragraph??] Less dangerous, he said, Âin terms of its impact on the individual consumer. ItÂs not something I encourage, and IÂve told my daughters I think itÂs a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.Â What clearly does trouble him is the radically disproportionate arrests and incarcerations for marijuana among minorities. ÂMiddle-class kids donÂt get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,Â he said. ÂAnd African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.Â But, he said, Âwe should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing.Â Accordingly, he said of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington that ÂitÂs important for it to go forward because itÂs important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.Â As is his habit, he nimbly argued the other side. ÂHaving said all that, those who argue that legalizing marijuana is a panacea and it solves all these social problems I think are probably overstating the case. There is a lot of hair on that policy. And the experiment thatÂs going to be taking place in Colorado and Washington is going to be, I think, a challenge.Â He noted the slippery-slope arguments that might arise. ÂI also think that, when it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound. And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues. If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka, are we open to that? If somebody says, WeÂve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isnÂt going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we O.K. with that?Â He's giving his opinion about it. He's not wanting to jump out in front and lead the charge for legalization. He sees the "hair" and nuance in the issue. He's most concerned about the legal aspects of it. Sure, push back on whether its more or less or equally dangerous as alcohol. What exactly did he mean by "in terms of its impact on the individual consumer"? Long term health? Likelihood of a car accident? Casual use vs drunks and stoners? High school kids experimenting vs 50 year olds as regular users? Hard to say, it seems to me. He said he's told his kids to avoid it, so that's obviously part of his thinking. He may even agree with you that there is science that says that it can be worse than alcohol. I think most everyone agrees that there can be different effects at different stages of life. But from a legal policy standpoint, which clearly seems to be his major concern, I think he's saying that we have had the balance wrong for a long time. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #385,697 by mmoffitt 1/23/14 10:11:51 AM Reply	Wow. ...itÂs important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished. Where does he live? When, exactly, in our history has that not been the case? I'm reminded of the old Soviet saying, "In America, you are innocent until proven broke."
Post #385,729 by Ashton 1/23/14 5:43:18 PM Reply	Soviet-sooth-sayers say sententious Stuff! [stolen, swiftly]
Post #385,682 by drook 1/22/14 6:49:05 PM Reply	Horrible abuse of Boolean logic So if pot is worse than alcohol in one aspect, it is worse. But if alcohol is worse than pot in one aspect, then alcohol must be worse. So they're both worse? -- Drew
Post #385,698 by mmoffitt 1/23/14 10:13:38 AM Reply	Who knows? Nobody, I'd say (again) knows if one or the other is worse. That's why it is imprudent to say, "One is no more dangerous than the other." That is not known at this point.
Post #385,702 by drook 1/23/14 10:41:05 AM Reply	"not known" != "not true" -- Drew
Post #385,703 by mmoffitt 1/23/14 10:47:45 AM Reply	Huh? If something is unknown, an affirmative claim to the contrary (i.e. that it is known) is untrue.
Post #385,705 by drook 1/23/14 10:57:11 AM Reply	I don't think so This is really torturing Boole, now. If A is unknown, then 'not A' is also unknown. The assertion that A is in fact known is a different premise than A, as is the assertion that A is unknown. You are asserting that A (~ this is no worse than that) is unknown. Even if I agree with that, that isn't the same as agreeing that A is untrue. -- Drew
Post #385,712 by mmoffitt 1/23/14 2:04:25 PM Reply	Back at you. If A is unknown then the statement "A is known" is false. I'm not asserting "not A". Look, the Prez said, "A is no worse than B." I did NOT assert "A is worse than B". I pointed out actual evidence that would suggest the truth of "A is worse than B", but I did NOT claim I had provided proof of this latter statement. I did, however, demonstrate to all but the most myopic of minds that there was insufficient grounds to determine the truth of "A is no worse than B". Consequently, making the statement, "A is no worse than B" is unfounded and has no basis in fact.
Post #385,713 by drook 1/23/14 2:25:39 PM Reply	How many times can a hair be split? I noted a few well-known negative consequences of alcohol consumption. You noted a single study reporting unspecified long-term brain changes with unspecified impact. People have been alleging serious negative side-effects to marijuana use for a century. It's the dog that didn't bark. Do you know you sound like a climate change denier? "I've known this for decades. Now this one study that kinda-sorta makes my point proves that I've been right all along. (Even though I had no idea the thing mentioned in this study was happening.)" -- Drew
Post #385,717 by mmoffitt 1/23/14 4:17:07 PM Reply	That's just disingenuous. In this thread I listed two - one from this year (January!). There are others and you know it (or maybe you don't, ignorance being bliss and all that). How about this from the Mayo Clinic last summer? The dog isn't just barking, it's howling. There are few studies on the risks and benefits of marijuana use to treat chronic pain in adults, and even less data on the pros and cons of using it to ease chronic pain in adolescents, the researchers say. They recommend that physicians screen teen chronic pain patients for marijuana use. While medical marijuana may help some specific conditions, its adverse effects, even with short-term use, can include fatigue, impaired concentration and slower reaction times, they say. "The consequences may be very, very severe, particularly for adolescents who may get rid of their pain -- or not -- at the expense of the rest of their life," says co-author J. Michael Bostwick, M.D., a Mayo Clinic psychiatrist. The researchers describe the cases of three high school-age patients at Mayo Clinic's pediatric chronic pain clinic who said they used marijuana regularly. Pain worsened for all three despite their marijuana use. None attended school full time; they reported impaired functioning and difficulty becoming more socially active. Excessive doses of marijuana may induce symptoms that many chronic pain patients already experience, including dizziness, anxiety, sedation, fatigue, decreased reflexes, confusion, difficulty concentrating and a lack of motivation, the researchers note. Marijuana use before age 16 has been linked to earlier development of psychosis in susceptible patients; smoking marijuana more than once a week has been connected to persistent cognitive damage in adolescents, the authors say. An estimated 1 in 10 marijuana users becomes addicted, and people under 25 are more susceptible to that, Dr. Bostwick says. http://sciencedaily..../130617090940.htm I know, I know, the Mayo Clinic is full of shit because you know people who used it and are happy, well adjusted folks.
Post #385,718 by drook 1/23/14 4:28:32 PM Reply	I'm out Reading these studies is like reading nutrition studies, with all the same flaws. I don't care enough about it to start digging into the research. -- Drew
Post #385,730 by Ashton 1/23/14 6:32:25 PM Reply	I categorize this exercise with another, here. This is about as-yet Not-seriously-studied Gotchas.. not studied? Studied. some. but the $$ ran out because, nowhere in sight was (say? instant gratification) for some nice, neat black/white Answer re the missing data. SImilar propositions here, re ionizing radiation. a topic I happen to have some decades 'experiencing'. http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=376910 In both cases, the Absence of a tidy summing-up is deemed a reasonable rubric for 'doing triage'==on to more pressing matters of the soluble/insoluble ilk. In my case re (all sorts of radiation partaken-of, wittingly or not/by very many and in most populations): I note that Today--as all along--even when you Ask for a rendered-Dose--of the very technicians who are Supposed to speak physics? Frequently they Can't Tell You! This means that: offering the patient that #, for his/her lifetime-accumulating Total Dose (if an Ept patient) IS NOT EVEN on this multi-industries' RADAR. [I have, today to respond to a questionnaire re. a recent X-ray/from the PR-folk at local hosp. Guess what my reply will be like?] I KNOW my Σ RADs/REMs aka pre-'Sieverts' ... for complete Lab history. Comparisons, then: I have observed this phenom since, well the Trinity Test? Willful ignorance is a windmill I will not tilt/waste no (more) time attempting to Educate-the-unwilling. As to the 'brain changes' as a complex function of age, individual-brain-genetics, habits, duration of usage etc. of the (also-varying contents of quite more than THC) One Hopes that research on [what can we Measure.. of these alleged brain Δs??] and like that.. shall persist, however likely funded ... at a pittance. Peter is likely right as to the competition for some solution-like New Info on [n+1000] street-lamps to-look-under--on long lists. The same may apply re cannabis: BOTH cases are about subtle (maybe usually) plus some prospects of severe Badness occurring--on a simply unknowable time-scale. A severe 'there's the Rub', I wot. We nitpickers serve our Purpose: but we may not expect our particular Nits to qualify for itch-scratching until the piles of heaped-dead-bodies become visible (or odoriferous?)
Post #385,667 by boxley 1/22/14 4:44:33 PM Reply	pot smokers can crash cars, but that is anecdotal taking too much interest in the music to notice a sharp left turn, almost didnt complete Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #385,677 by rcareaga 1/22/14 6:08:21 PM Reply	I've heard it said... That a drunk driver will speed right through that stop sign. The stoned driver will come to a lawful stop and wait patiently for the sign to turn green. cordially,
Post #385,679 by Another Scott 1/22/14 6:13:52 PM Reply	:-)
Post #385,699 by mmoffitt 1/23/14 10:14:05 AM Reply	Best in thread.
Post #385,764 by gcareaga 1/24/14 7:07:46 PM Reply	Re: Abnormal brain structure, poor memory, schizophrenia. Well, it is January, isn't it? That is when Neuropsychopharmacology publishes its annual epigenics issue. Transgenerational epigenics is a fairly new field and raises many more questions than answers. There are other possibilities for the findings here than epigenetic imprinting during gametogenesis (environmental stress, maternal perception of mate fitness), and unanswered questions about fault correction failure during embryogenesis. Add to that the imperfect mapping of the genome of ratus ratus to that of homo sapiens sapiens (Congressional GOP caucus notwithstanding), and the article falls short of "directly refuting" anything. I am not saying it is bad science, but it is not the god particle you are looking for.
Post #385,800 by mmoffitt 1/25/14 2:07:38 PM Reply	I'm not looking for such a particle. But I found evidence to suggest the cultural attitude about the relative safety of pot vis-a-vis alcohol is (as I've always thought) not as certain as pop culture believes (hopes?) it to be.
Post #385,649 by drook 1/22/14 1:48:32 PM Reply	Ad under it was for Penn Station subs I wonder what their ad buys look like. -- Drew
Post #385,666 by Another Scott 1/22/14 4:27:54 PM Reply	Starting at $175. http://web.blogads.com/buy-ads ESCHATON This site has been running since April, 2002, gets over 100,000 visits per day, and has been mentioned in numerous outlets including the New Yorker, the New York Times Magazine, and Vanity Fair. Starting at $175, up to 128,739 imp/wk. Ad types: 160x200, 160x600, 160x100. FWIW. HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #385,675 by drook 1/22/14 5:34:28 PM Reply	What I mean is, are they targeting keywords If I were in ad sales, I'd be pushing Dominos, Taco Bell and Twinkies to load up on "pot", "legalization", "THC", "marijuana", etc. for my online advertising keywords. -- Drew
Post #385,678 by Another Scott 1/22/14 6:13:32 PM Reply	Ah. Hadn't thought of that (obviously). Thanks.
Post #385,680 by rcareaga 1/22/14 6:19:31 PM Reply	marijuana-targeted marketing ...is becoming more and more apparent, which I think is one of the most persuasive harbingers of the coming breakup of prohibition. In California, at least, the fast food chain Jack in the Box has been pitching quite obviously to the stoner demographic (I'm thinking here of the sorts of people mmoffitt would cast were he producing a PSA on the dangers and depravity of Killer Weed). Other corporations are also dipping their toes in the bong water: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101336393 cordially,
Post #385,701 by mmoffitt 1/23/14 10:40:31 AM Reply	I vaguely remember something about RJR. I can't remember when this was, but I had distant family that was in the tobacco farming business and they said (this had to be late 60's or early 70's) that RJR was trying to patent popular names of marijuana (the one that sticks is "Acapulco Gold" or something like that) in case it became legal.

Welcome to IWETHEY!