Thanks.

Post #420,836 by mmoffitt 10/17/17 8:21:29 AM 10/17/17 8:21:29 AM Reply	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.
Post #420,838 by drook 10/17/17 8:31:40 AM 10/17/17 8:31:40 AM Reply	Then we don't know enough to ban it -- Drew
Post #420,839 by mmoffitt 10/17/17 9:59:16 AM 10/17/17 9:59:34 AM Reply	Read much? Preliminary evidence (and Scott's posted anecdotal evidence) suggests we do. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. Edited by mmoffitt Oct. 17, 2017, 09:59:34 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #420,840 by drook 10/17/17 10:06:44 AM 10/17/17 10:06:44 AM Reply	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
Post #420,846 by crazy 10/17/17 11:45:47 AM 10/17/17 11:45:47 AM Reply	He doesn't blame crisco for his childhood friend deaths You can't logically fight emotions, especially not baby chick imprint ones.
Post #420,848 by mmoffitt 10/17/17 11:49:50 AM 10/17/17 11:49:50 AM Reply	I'm not a fan of "two wrongs make a right" thinking. YMMV. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,856 by crazy 10/17/17 1:39:55 PM 10/17/17 1:39:55 PM Reply	But 3 rights make a left
Post #420,852 by Andrew Grygus 10/17/17 12:36:12 PM 10/17/17 12:36:12 PM Reply	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.
Post #420,844 by Another Scott 10/17/17 11:11:23 AM 10/17/17 11:11:23 AM Reply	Even with her (IIRC) bad experiences with it, she thinks it should be legal.
Post #420,845 by mmoffitt 10/17/17 11:44:37 AM 10/17/17 11:44:37 AM Reply	Maybe her neural network has been adversely affected. ;0) bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,847 by crazy 10/17/17 11:48:06 AM 10/17/17 11:48:06 AM Reply	Or recognises her very small set of one is not representative of the vast quantity of the typical outcomes.
Post #420,849 by mmoffitt 10/17/17 11:51:55 AM 10/17/17 11:51:55 AM Reply	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.
Post #420,865 by boxley 10/17/17 5:49:32 PM 10/17/17 5:49:32 PM Reply	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
Post #420,878 by mmoffitt 10/18/17 8:40:48 AM 10/18/17 8:40:48 AM Reply	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.
Post #420,880 by CRConrad 10/18/17 9:01:00 AM 10/18/17 9:01:00 AM Reply	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.)
Post #420,883 by mmoffitt 10/18/17 10:06:21 AM 10/18/17 10:06:21 AM Reply	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.
Post #420,882 by drook 10/18/17 9:54:20 AM 10/18/17 9:54:20 AM Reply	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
Post #420,884 by mmoffitt 10/18/17 10:07:05 AM 10/18/17 10:07:05 AM Reply	No I'm not. Smoke another one. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,885 by drook 10/18/17 10:12:27 AM 10/18/17 10:12:27 AM Reply	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
Post #420,886 by mmoffitt 10/18/17 10:26:14 AM 10/18/17 10:26:14 AM Reply	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.
Post #420,887 by crazy 10/18/17 11:29:23 AM 10/18/17 11:29:23 AM Reply	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.
Post #420,888 by mmoffitt 10/18/17 11:53:36 AM 10/18/17 11:53:36 AM Reply	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.
Post #420,889 by crazy 10/18/17 12:12:57 PM 10/18/17 12:12:57 PM Reply	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.
Post #420,890 by mmoffitt 10/18/17 12:56:25 PM 10/18/17 12:56:25 PM Reply	I never suggested I would. Stupid seems to be the guiding principle in this country. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,891 by crazy 10/18/17 2:42:11 PM 10/18/17 2:42:11 PM Reply	Oh, I agree with you https://www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers
Post #420,919 by CRConrad 10/19/17 6:48:46 AM 10/19/17 6:48:46 AM Reply	Interesting how you group those three all together. How about 1 & 3 because, 2 in spite of?
Post #420,926 by mmoffitt 10/19/17 8:26:39 AM 10/19/17 8:26:39 AM Reply	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.
Post #420,907 by malraux 10/18/17 8:36:49 PM 10/18/17 8:36:50 PM Reply	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.
Post #420,927 by mmoffitt 10/19/17 8:27:34 AM 10/19/17 8:27:34 AM Reply	True. But, Real Ale is worth it. ;0) bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,936 by crazy 10/19/17 12:38:32 PM 10/19/17 12:38:32 PM Reply	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.
Post #420,937 by mmoffitt 10/19/17 1:51:27 PM 10/19/17 1:51:27 PM Reply	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.
Post #420,938 by crazy 10/19/17 3:46:45 PM 10/19/17 3:46:45 PM Reply	I'll grant you 100 deaths per year Vastly overstating reality, but hey, I'm generous that way. My orders of magnitude statement holds.
Post #420,917 by crazy 10/19/17 2:31:17 AM 10/19/17 2:31:17 AM Reply	I see your one anecdotal meaningless story and raise you real stats of lost lives avoided http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4993588/Opioid-deaths-Colorado-marijuana-legalized.html
Post #420,925 by mmoffitt 10/19/17 8:24:02 AM 10/19/17 8:24:02 AM Reply	The Daily Fail? Really? bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #420,935 by crazy 10/19/17 12:31:16 PM 10/19/17 12:31:16 PM Reply	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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!