It's a real Puzzlement, because of the legal fallout..

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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!