any reasons why marijuana should still be illegal?

Page 15 of 16 [ 251 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 161
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

03 Aug 2012, 1:26 am

Ascagne wrote:
As I said, I'm preoccupied with potential risk. Even though you're right, I think that there is a moral duty to consider the population at risk as an important element, not as a sideways thing. But here the question is not banning the product, but not trivializing it. I'm OK to say conceptually a tiny risk of disaster is not a valid reason to ban something that would have no real wrong effect on the majority (but I don't think that's the case here), but conversely the potential danger for some makes it morally wrong to trivialize the product.


Well, once again I'm not trying to "trivialize" anything. I'm just saying, I don't think the effects of moderate usage of marijuana will affect the majority at all (kinda like alcohol!), and the people who are susceptible to psychiatric disorders should simply stay away, period.

If more solid evidence incriminating marijuana in the introduction of psychiatric disorders can be established, I'd have to accept the facts, but that's just not where all the facts are currently lying. They're currently lying all over the place.

Quote:
The difference between a psychoactive drug and the other things a depessed people can resort to is that he can use it thinking it will make him feel better and become addicted and have all other kinds of problems.


There is a lot of evidence and testimony from doctors and other medical practitioners indicating the marijuana is useful in the treatment of depression. Either way, your relative was a fool for trying out an illegal substance without talking to his doctor about it first. If he had depression problems, he should have talked to a doctor, not taken matters into his own hands and used an illegal, psychoactive substance.


Quote:
Let's be clear : there are many avoidable risks in the world. There are already too much people who get hurt or die because of unavoidable things. A depressed person has already plenty of risks of falling because of things that are impossible or hard to control, so it's all the more sad when it happens with something he can control at the beginning.


I'm not really too sure what you're trying to say here, sorry. Rephrase?

Quote:
Maybe. But the facts don't lie.


Yes they do. Facts can be flat out wrong due to faulty experimental designs, interpretation of facts can be wrong, etc.

Quote:
You can orientate your conclusion so as to make your political point about a drug, but except if you deliberatly use wrong data, orientate the results or don't work in a scientific way, statistics don't lie, and those people don't use fake population of consummers or addicts.


:: Headdesk. :: You're surely joking, right mate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

Quote:
Themes of the book include "Correlation does not imply causation" and "Using random sampling". It also shows how statistical graphs can be used to distort reality, for example by truncating the bottom of a line or bar chart, so that differences seem larger than they are, or by representing one-dimensional quantities on a pictogram by two- or three-dimensional objects to compare their sizes, so that the reader forgets that the images do not scale the same way the quantities do.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics

Quote:
Misuses can be easy to fall into. Professional scientists, even mathematicians and professional statisticians, can be fooled by even some simple methods, even if they are careful to check everything. Scientists have been known to fool themselves with statistics due to lack of knowledge of probability theory and lack of standardization of their tests.


Quote:
As I wrote, when they're objective, they're cautious when it comes to conclusions about the general level of dangerosity of the product. But they don't even have to do it in order to us to evaluate this dangerosity. When I read the statistics, I don't get the impression that there is no problem with recreative use of cannabis and that the subject should be taken lightly. It's a matter of preoccupation, as alcohol and tobacco are.


They really want everyone to believe that, kinda like how they wanted everyone to believe that alcohol was a dangerous substance that ruined any man that dared drink but a drop during prohibition (that, as you may know, DIDN'T work).

Quote:
You're very right when you say that there is hypocrisy in the matter (enormous industrial interests, cultural tendencies, etc.). Myself, I'd prefer them to be illegal as well, or at least with some kinds of alcohol controlled (France is never going to illegalize wine, it's impossible), and others banned. It's not my call, though.


Well, we agree on this part at least!

Quote:
It's no longer "a big deal" in France for certain group of adults to see teenagers getting drunk, smoking, taking some drugs seen as "soft" (sometimes wrongly). Some are OK with, some don't care, some have a philosophy that indulges it...


There are studies that indicate marijuana usage while you're young and still with your brain developing can be quite detrimental. I would NEVER agree to anything short of an adult taking those substances, and only under responsible circumstances. France needs to sort that problem out ASAP. Marijuana is a "soft" drug, but it's "soft" only when compared to things like heroin. Even as "soft" drugs, alcohol and marijuana can be very dangerous.

Quote:
Sellers of alcohol are very....[snip]


Ultimately, as I've said before, I disagree with any attempt to ignore the very real and present consequences of marijuana abuse, or even possibly casual use. I'm not one of those pro-marijuana people with their head buried in the sand. It's a drug, and should never be taken lightly. You toke up when it's safe to do so, and in moderate amounts.

Quote:
However, it's still better when you have less possibility to be confronted with what causes the problem.


You can do this by simply keeping the depressed people away from risk factors, which is honestly far more feasible than getting rid of all the risk factors. All society would need to do about the whole marijuana thing, however, is to dispel the misinformation about marijuana being "harmless". Mountain climbing is legal, but it's far from harmless.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,152
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

03 Aug 2012, 7:33 am

Shau wrote:
Ascagne wrote:
As I said, I'm preoccupied with potential risk. Even though you're right, I think that there is a moral duty to consider the population at risk as an important element, not as a sideways thing. But here the question is not banning the product, but not trivializing it. I'm OK to say conceptually a tiny risk of disaster is not a valid reason to ban something that would have no real wrong effect on the majority (but I don't think that's the case here), but conversely the potential danger for some makes it morally wrong to trivialize the product.


Well, once again I'm not trying to "trivialize" anything. I'm just saying, I don't think the effects of moderate usage of marijuana will affect the majority at all (kinda like alcohol!), and the people who are susceptible to psychiatric disorders should simply stay away, period.

If more solid evidence incriminating marijuana in the introduction of psychiatric disorders can be established, I'd have to accept the facts, but that's just not where all the facts are currently lying. They're currently lying all over the place.

Quote:
The difference between a psychoactive drug and the other things a depessed people can resort to is that he can use it thinking it will make him feel better and become addicted and have all other kinds of problems.


There is a lot of evidence and testimony from doctors and other medical practitioners indicating the marijuana is useful in the treatment of depression. Either way, your relative was a fool for trying out an illegal substance without talking to his doctor about it first. If he had depression problems, he should have talked to a doctor, not taken matters into his own hands and used an illegal, psychoactive substance.


I think I have to disagree.......having mental problems does not mean one is totally incompetent and should rely on other people to tell them everything they should do. I mean yeah it sucks being mentally ill but its not like having a mental illness has to make one incapable of making personal choices for them self.

Since there is evidence it can help with depression and other mental illnesses....why should anyone who has one then stay away from it period? Also even people without mental disorders can react badly to cannabis people with and without them can and those people shouldn't smoke it. But then there are people with mental illnesses who it helps...and while some of those people have been able to get it prescribed many end up self medicating. That is not to say self medicating cannot go wrong but at least with cannabis you're not going to die of an overdose, if someone with a mental illness who reacts badly to it keeps smoking it yes that can make things worse.........but if they don't react bad there is a good chance it could help them according to research I've seen about cannabis and mental illness.


_________________
Fascism is a disease.


Surfman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2010
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,938
Location: Homeward bound

03 Aug 2012, 8:08 am

Ascagne wrote:
As I said, I'm preoccupied with potential risk. Even though you're right, I think that there is a moral duty to consider the population at risk as an important element, .....


Your waffle is nothing but BS

SSI and psyche drug injury are way more represented in worsening depression than weed

And I aint going to baffle others with wordy monologues.... who is your master?



Ascagne
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 65
Location: France

03 Aug 2012, 9:30 am

Quote:
Your waffle is nothing but BS


Thank you for the compliment. By the way, you know, it comes mostly from things I was reading while writing or some thoughts about it, and from books on the subject, so...
Your absence of argumentation in your last message is eloquent, no ? I don't really get that kind of reactions when the topic is important...
As for the idea you put on, what is its validity ? I'm not interested to know that X or Y are more dangerous than A or B. If there is some danger in A or B itself, it's what matters. In the case of cannabis the problem is in many cases even if the consummation of cannabis itself doesn't present real risks, it can still interact with other things and that is not really good. It's something one must have in mind when considering the question, I suppose. Have you even read my posts Surfman ?

I don't understand either what is this kind of hatred for long posts some can have on forums. You can't treat difficult topics in 4 lines, it's impossible. It's funny to see that the scientific community itself has troubles to give a general advice, that there are many lengthy debates over the question of this topic and others related to it, and that if you try to discuss it in a more developed way on a forum you get that kind of answer. :?:

But I really don't see why my position about risks in general could be as wrong as you tell it is. You should explain me that, in another thread if you want (because it would be off-topic).

*

Quote:
Yes they do. Facts can be flat out wrong due to faulty experimental designs, interpretation of facts can be wrong, etc.


I've done a bit of epistemology, so I know that. Except it's not very adapted here. Because it's not as if there were no consensus about the effects of cannabis, they're known, above all for the short term, and in this matter it's not like when you're doing a theory about quantum physics or I don't know what :wink: . The long term effects are another question, but the short-term ones can already be seen as sufficiently potentially problematic, no ? It's like if some here have forgotten that when smoking cannabis for example you're at least exposed to the same not-so-cool things as you can have in cigarettes, that are carcinogens, etc...

Quote:
:: Headdesk. :: You're surely joking, right mate?


No. You can make statistics lie, of course. But sorry, when you have many studies that point out the same thing, when you've specialists in several countries that take this as a very serious matter... Believing otherwise is like thinking there is a conspiracy by scientists... Hum. We must be rational here.

Quote:
They really want everyone to believe that, kinda like how they wanted everyone to believe that alcohol was a dangerous substance that ruined any man that dared drink but a drop during prohibition (that, as you may know, DIDN'T work).


Hum. I don't know how it is where you live, but in France at least there is no way you can make a comparison between our topic and the arguments used during the US prohibition, if you stay in the rational discourses about it of course (spot those who aren't, or are very strongly biased, is not very hard).



Last edited by Ascagne on 03 Aug 2012, 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,152
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

03 Aug 2012, 9:50 am

Ascagne wrote:
Quote:
Your waffle is nothing but BS


Thank you for the compliment. By the way, you know, it comes mostly from things I was reading while writing or some thoughts about it, and from books on the subject, so...
Your absence of argumentation in your last message is eloquent, no ? I don't really get that kind of reactions when the topic is important...
As for the idea you put on, what is its validity ? I'm not interested to know that X or Y are more dangerous than A or B. If there is some danger in A or B itself, it's what matters. In the case of cannabis the problem is in many cases even if the consummation of cannabis itself doesn't present real risks, it can still interact with other things and that is not really good. It's something one must have in mind when considering the question, I suppose. Have you even read my posts Surfman ?

I don't understand either what is this kind of hatred for long posts some can have on forums. You can't treat difficult topics in 4 lines, it's impossible. It's funny to see that the scientific community itself has troubles to give a general advice, that there are many lengthy debates over the question of this topic and others related to it, and that if you try to discuss it in a more developed way on a forum you get that kind of answer. :?:

But I really don't see why my position about risks in general could be as wrong as you tell it is. You should explain me that, in another thread if you want (because it would be off-topic).


So what then anything that is potentially dangerous should be outlawed? and anyone who tries to posses any of these things should be shot on site? I mean even if I agreed that people should be kept away from anything and everything that is potentially dangerous there would be no way in hell to enforce it.

I think the issue here is your basically saying marijuana should be illegal because its potentially dangerous....well how does it being illegal help? all that does is cause more problems for anyone who does choose to indulge so then they have the risks of marijuana on top of being treated like a criminal for smoking a plant. I would even say if drugs were not treated criminally then maybe those who do develop problems with drugs would have access to better treatment for their problem due to there being less stigma and they wont be thrown in jail.

I'm sticking with it should be a health issue not a legal issue.


_________________
Fascism is a disease.


Ascagne
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 65
Location: France

03 Aug 2012, 10:21 am

Quote:
I think the issue here is your basically saying marijuana should be illegal because its potentially dangerous...


This is not as simple as that, and I already tackled the subject in other posts I think. Besides, there is something a bit different with "marijuana should be illegal" and "let's make it stay illegal", I think.
Moreover it's a proven fact that at least some forms of consuming it are objectively dangerous. Here you must understand this word in the broadest meaning. Make a link with what I said about avoidable risks to understand.

Maybe it'll get clearer if you understand the situation in my country, because it can vary much between countries of course. In France, the thing that is punished severely is the traffic. Incitement to take that kind of drugs is prohibited. But there are maybe not so many persons who really end up in jail because of mere possession or consummation in comparison with other countries. We have a strong history of harm reduction in France. The most tricky problems are the arguments about what good would happen to traffic if there were legalization (but that would not change the horrors in other drug traffics), and of course philosophical arguments and societal ones.
As you can have read in my posts, I've concerns with tobacco, alcohol, (and of course with all hard drugs, if they're called like that in English) so it's very logical I've concerns with cannabis too. As I said, the question of legalization is a very tricky one when you try to see more than just one or two angles, and we can have different (and even conflicting sometimes) opinion about that kind of things according to which way you study the question. For example, the question about risks varies depending on how you envision public good, public health. Beyond the legal questioning, the question about the use of drugs will not get the same answers at all depending on your way of seeing the relation between individual choice / freedom, and the effects of it on a group...

Quote:
I would even say if drugs were not treated criminally then maybe those who do develop problems with drugs would have access to better treatment for their problem due to there being less stigma and they wont be thrown in jail.


That's surely the difference between my country and yours, because here a consumer of cannabis for example will not go to jail if he goes to cure himself (nobody is gonna turn him to police if he is not dangerous) and has done no other wrong that consuming it, or at least nothing that would merit prison. By the way, consumers who end up in jail but haven't done really nasty things have (at least technically) medical attention.
So there is surely a great difference with a situation where a policeman would always automatically put you in jail if he sees you on the spot with weed, for example. Of course, if you really get caught, you're probably going to have to pay a fine / have to go to a stage. People who go to jail are dealers, and those who make the plant grow so that to make traffic.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,152
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

03 Aug 2012, 11:20 am

Ascagne wrote:
Quote:
I think the issue here is your basically saying marijuana should be illegal because its potentially dangerous...


This is not as simple as that, and I already tackled the subject in other posts I think. Besides, there is something a bit different with "marijuana should be illegal" and "let's make it stay illegal", I think.
Moreover it's a proven fact that at least some forms of consuming it are objectively dangerous. Here you must understand this word in the broadest meaning. Make a link with what I said about avoidable risks to understand.

Maybe it'll get clearer if you understand the situation in my country, because it can vary much between countries of course. In France, the thing that is punished severely is the traffic. Incitement to take that kind of drugs is prohibited. But there are maybe not so many persons who really end up in jail because of mere possession or consummation in comparison with other countries. We have a strong history of harm reduction in France. The most tricky problems are the arguments about what good would happen to traffic if there were legalization (but that would not change the horrors in other drug traffics), and of course philosophical arguments and societal ones.
As you can have read in my posts, I've concerns with tobacco, alcohol, (and of course with all hard drugs, if they're called like that in English) so it's very logical I've concerns with cannabis too. As I said, the question of legalization is a very tricky one when you try to see more than just one or two angles, and we can have different (and even conflicting sometimes) opinion about that kind of things according to which way you study the question. For example, the question about risks varies depending on how you envision public good, public health. Beyond the legal questioning, the question about the use of drugs will not get the same answers at all depending on your way of seeing the relation between individual choice / freedom, and the effects of it on a group...

So wait if I understand this correctly, maybe something being illegal there is not quite the same as something being illegal here. I mean in the U.S we probably have the worst drug policies I mean now there's people pushing to have a more rational approach about drug use...and treat it more as a health issue than a legal issue. But you can get thrown in jail and such for drug use here.....and there is a ridiculous amount of stigma towards drug users in general as well as those who are addicted to drugs. So yeah here its basically if its illegal that means you will be treated like the scum of society by our system. More or less...I do not claim to be the authority on how things work over here. But yeah our federal government is terrible it literally seems like our entire system is based around people on top getting the most money possible.

I guess before I assume what sort of regulations you're talking about I should inquire about what sort of penalties exist for drug use in your country. Because I admit I was probably thinking more about what I've seen here.


Quote:
I would even say if drugs were not treated criminally then maybe those who do develop problems with drugs would have access to better treatment for their problem due to there being less stigma and they wont be thrown in jail.


That's surely the difference between my country and yours, because here a consumer of cannabis for example will not go to jail if he goes to cure himself (nobody is gonna turn him to police if he is not dangerous) and has done no other wrong that consuming it, or at least nothing that would merit prison. By the way, consumers who end up in jail but haven't done really nasty things have (at least technically) medical attention.
So there is surely a great difference with a situation where a policeman would always automatically put you in jail if he sees you on the spot with weed, for example. Of course, if you really get caught, you're probably going to have to pay a fine / have to go to a stage. People who go to jail are dealers, and those who make the plant grow so that to make traffic.


Yeah that does sound pretty different...and there is some variation here, like I think according to Federal Law someone could be arrested for smoking or possessing marijuana but some states and/or cities have reduced the penalties for it and in my city its legal to carry a small amount for personal use without getting arrested or fined.


_________________
Fascism is a disease.


ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

03 Aug 2012, 1:20 pm

I have just joined/subscribed to CLEAR ( Cannabis Law Reform Group @ http://www.clear-uk.org ) because it is clear to me that criminalising drugs is soo not useful, soo not helpful, and is also almost always the result of lobbying by powerful vested interests rather than any cool logical reasoning about drug use.

The war against drugs in many, if not most, countries, but most of all in the USA, is very often a form of virulent institutionalised racism/discrimination, its function/effect, ( and perhaps its purpose ), being to put a huge number of black people/men and other unwanted/feared minorities in prison.

Here are a couple of excellent articles that I accidentally happened to read recently, and which led to me joining CLEAR ... and to wondering whether to attend the Cannabis Cup in Amsterdam this November ( http://www.cannabiscup.com/ and http://goamsterdam.about.com/od/Amsterd ... is-Cup.htm ) in solidarity with the ongoing campaign against the new laws which began coming into effect in April/May 2012 in those parts of the Netherlands close to borders, and which will "arrive" in Amsterdam next January if the increasingly vocal and popular protests have no effect.

http://www.alternet.org/story/156269/ho ... heimer%27s

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/five-scie ... paging=off

Cannabis is far far less dangerous or harmful than alcohol. There is absolutely no reason to ban it/criminalise it which doesn't apply even more so to alcohol.
.



Surfman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2010
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,938
Location: Homeward bound

03 Aug 2012, 5:22 pm

Amen to that brother



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

03 Aug 2012, 5:49 pm

ouinon wrote:
...Cannabis is far far less dangerous or harmful than alcohol. There is absolutely no reason to ban it/criminalise it which doesn't apply even more so to alcohol.
.


Cannabis is far less dangerous than auto exhaust, which most people inhale everyday.



edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

03 Aug 2012, 8:26 pm

I am for legalization, but I am totally against decriminalization.

What I'd like to see is a full regulatory regime similar to alcohol, not just turning a blind eye - which just allows criminal networks to profit even more (because it's still out of reach for legitimate businesses), and causes all sorts of problems with regards to things likes minors still having access etc.

Age restrictions. Licensing of production and distribution. No public consumption, and something along the lines of open container laws for alcohol (brownbagging laws). Licenses for consumption at commercial establishments or for special events. Driving regulations. All that stuff.



Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 161
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

03 Aug 2012, 9:07 pm

Quote:
I've done a bit of epistemology, so I know that. Except it's not very adapted here. Because it's not as if there were no consensus about the effects of cannabis, they're known, above all for the short term, and in this matter it's not like when you're doing a theory about quantum physics or I don't know what :wink: . The long term effects are another question, but the short-term ones can already be seen as sufficiently potentially problematic, no ? It's like if some here have forgotten that when smoking cannabis for example you're at least exposed to the same not-so-cool things as you can have in cigarettes, that are carcinogens, etc...


I will, at the very least, accept that the short-term effects of cannabis are not disputed, and that people can have a reasonable case for not wanting them. It's my opinion (not fact-based one, however) that society can handle the short-term effects of cannabis much the same way it has been able to handle alcohol.

Quote:
No. You can make statistics lie, of course. But sorry, when you have many studies that point out the same thing, when you've specialists in several countries that take this as a very serious matter... Believing otherwise is like thinking there is a conspiracy by scientists... Hum. We must be rational here.


You've got a lot of studies pointing all over the place. LOTS. Dude, seriously, I can't say this any more plainly: There are numerous studies supporting the idea that marijuana causes psychiatric problems. There are numerous studies supporting the idea that marijuana can help to TREAT psychiatric problems. There are numerous studies supporting the idea that marijuana has little impact on psychiatric problems.

Do you get that yet? The science is all over the place, and it is WHY the scientific community is so divided about the issue.

Quote:
Hum. I don't know how it is where you live, but in France at least there is no way you can make a comparison between our topic and the arguments used during the US prohibition, if you stay in the rational discourses about it of course (spot those who aren't, or are very strongly biased, is not very hard).


Seems pretty similar enough to me. The US government pulled up all kinds of one-sided research, flawed reasoning, and even religious arguments to help them pass the Prohibition Act. Other governments have done plenty of very similar things as well, and not just for things like drugs. Why should I believe these two scenarios dissimilar? At the very least, I'll grant that I'm far more versed in the New Zealand the United States versions of this issue.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

28 Aug 2012, 11:13 am

Another study to throw into the mix.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109

A 40 year study of just over 1,000 people in New Zealand found statistically significant neuropyschological decline among teenagers who were persistent cannabis users, as compared with occassional or non-users, or persistent users who did not start smoking until their neuropsychological development was largely complete. Further, cessation of persistent use did not restore function.

I don't believe that these findings are unique to cannabis, nor do I believe that they create a justification for prohibition. But it does serve to demonstrate that persistent cannabis use is not without impact.


_________________
--James


Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,908
Location: North Wayels

28 Aug 2012, 11:31 am

Because I really, really don't like stoners, and to legalise it would make them happy (minus any loss of enjoyment they get through 'outlaw' status). Petty, and possibly bigoted, but there you are.

But no, I don't think there's any reason. If it were treated as we do alcohol and cigarettes, legalise away. That said, it reeks. A foulf, foul smell. Maybe they could do something about that.



Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 178
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

28 Aug 2012, 1:14 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Another study to throw into the mix.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109

A 40 year study of just over 1,000 people in New Zealand found statistically significant neuropyschological decline among teenagers who were persistent cannabis users, as compared with occassional or non-users, or persistent users who did not start smoking until their neuropsychological development was largely complete. Further, cessation of persistent use did not restore function.

I don't believe that these findings are unique to cannabis, nor do I believe that they create a justification for prohibition. But it does serve to demonstrate that persistent cannabis use is not without impact.
That is an interesting study. Now I think marijuana should have similar laws to alcohol, but it is good to know that it could damage brain development if smoked regularly during adolescents


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

28 Aug 2012, 3:25 pm

No reason at all unless the government likes to waste millions of more of our tax dollars enforcing against marijuana!


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList