Maybe her neural network has been adversely affected. ;0)

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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!