Thanks.

Post #388,624 by mmoffitt 4/16/14 10:14:27 AM Reply	Thanks. But, even with that, one should accept that messing with brain chemistry of still developing brains is likely to have effects that we don't understand very well. Hence my opposition to legalizing it until those effects are known. ;0)
Post #388,627 by Another Scott 4/16/14 10:53:34 AM Reply	Depends on how it's done. "Just Say No" didn't work.
Post #388,628 by mmoffitt 4/16/14 11:04:41 AM Reply	Perhaps I give young people too much credit. The anti-drug propaganda contained so many inaccuracies that it was self-defeating. But an approach that said, honestly, what we do and do not know about the lasting effects of use among young people might work for the majority. The common mythology is that it is "harmless." Growing of age in the 1970's I heard that incessantly - once from a junior high school teacher during class (I even remember his name: Jensen). That is, of course, false. What remains unknown (but recent studies are alarming) are the long term consequences to brains due to even transient light use among young people. I would hope that honest assessment, if widely distributed, would give most young people pause. It might not (I am all too familiar with the distrust young people feel toward their elders - particularly when the discussion is about something young people "like" to do). But the effort would remain worthwhile, IMO, because the intent would be to inform and that is never a bad idea. States legalizing its use and setting the legal age of use at 21 sends entirely the wrong message.
Post #388,633 by Andrew Grygus 4/16/14 12:05:10 PM Reply	Inaccuracies? When I was a child (yes, it was back in the middle of a previous century), our teachers warned us about drugs - and not to lick our fingers when leafing through a book. They told us drug dealers spread drugs on the corners of book pages, then patrolled the sidewalks looking for people with the dazed stare of drug addicts to recruit new customers. This is not something I just made up - this is something I experienced first hand.
Post #388,636 by rcareaga 4/16/14 12:25:28 PM Reply	Developing vs developed brains Well, I've had the opportunity to observe a small sample of former adolescents, now in their sixties, who were pretty regular users of the Killer Weed at least through their twenties, and a few to the present day. These include teenagers who have grown up to be attorneys (including one judge), a couple of physicians, a research physicist, an architect, an art conservator, a lot of tech folks (including one who headed up the entire MIS operation of a retail chain with a national presence), a couple of tech writers, an urban planner, a television producer, a corporate PR flack, two accountants, two real graphic designers...all reasonably successful, and to all appearances happy and well-adjusted. Now of course, I make no extravagant claims for the breadth of my sample: there are many more pot smokers I knew back in the day with whom I've long since lost touch, and it may be that all this lot are homeless or dead, or have graduated to snorting Janitor-in-a-Drum. I observe merely that with regard to those people whose careers I have subsequently followed, I have detected no apparent harm done during their formative years. In college I once shared a relaxing doobie with an individual (already well-known in his field) who went on to be showered with honors and awards, including a year's term as U.S. Poet Laureate. Now it's true that at the time he was no longer in the first bloom of youth, but he did reminisce about smoking weed in the 1950s, when he would have been a snotnosed (or potnosed) kid. Again, the experience appears to have constituted no impediment to success. Just my two cents, as A.S. likes to say. cordially,
Post #388,726 by mmoffitt 4/18/14 10:51:47 AM Reply	Anecdotes are as good as science. Film at 11.
Post #388,727 by drook 4/18/14 10:58:05 AM Reply	The plural of "anecdote" is "data" -- Drew
Post #388,729 by Andrew Grygus 4/18/14 11:51:27 AM Reply	Conversely, all data is anecdotal in nature. All data originates from observations by humans, whether directly or through instruments. These humans, consciously or subconsciously, all have personal agendas which affect the data. There are many subtle ways observations can be distorted, deliberately or not, starting with the design of the program, or design of instruments if used. All data is suspect from the start - until sufficiently confirmed by other humans with different agendas.
Post #388,739 by mmoffitt 4/18/14 2:31:48 PM Reply	And don't forget the observer effect, right Scott? ;0)
Post #388,740 by Another Scott 4/18/14 2:56:01 PM Reply	Good instruments and techniques reduce that. ;-)
Post #388,812 by Ashton 4/20/14 7:41:58 PM Reply	Spoilsport!! Bastard.. Now.. we ain't gots No Place to hang our hunches on--and see if enough salute the resultant kaleidoscope, to pronounce it.. Trufiness-Enough. ..except maybe Siva: "Look (Arjuna), I have become Death--the Destroyer of Worlds." Anyone who can traverse 11 (or is it up to 22 now?) Dimensions, millennia-before Physics had a clue.. Is My Guy/Gal whatever.
Post #388,728 by Another Scott 4/18/14 10:59:21 AM Reply	It's hard to have good science when research is hindered. http://www.maps.org/research/mmj/ FWIW. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!