It Is The Sun

[williatw]

Of course they are. Another study shows pot smokers have lower IQs.

It is not a myth

Sure you could say the same about chronic alcoholics (particularly those who started young)....but we don't mass arrest/incarcerate them do we?

[choff]

That's because everybody knows they were driven to drink from seeing pot smokers protest global warming.

[MSimon]

Well it was about Mark Steyn. Which was on topic since the mention of his law suit against GW advocates.

Now Steyn is on the same side as GW advocates when it comes to pot. So does that cancel out his view of GW?

But since you brought up the intelligence of pot users.

Marijuana May Protect Teenagers from Brain Damage Caused by Alcohol
http://reset.me/story/marijuana-may-pro ... d-alcohol/

Get that? Alcohol causes brain damage.

Re: It is not a myth

Despite the observed age of onset effects, longitudinal studies are needed to determine causality of these effects.

So they have no proof of cause and effect. And nothing in the report suggests they accounted for the onset of PTSD. Just correlations. But what do we know?
Marijuana compound may offer treatment for Alzheimer's disease, study suggests - Date: August 27, 2014
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 131801.htm

===================================

If marijuana adversely affects developing brains, the body's own endocannabinoid system ought to do the same. I await reports on lower IQ caused by those natural chemicals.

===================================

But OK. Let us suppose it is true. Prohibition is the WORST way to do anything about it. Kids have been reporting for 30+ years that it is easier to get pot than alcohol. Because - wait for it -

an illegal market is an unregulated market. The criminals running it will sell to anyone. Legal alcohol is harder to get because legal sellers card.

If you really wanted to protect kids you would end Prohibition. But of course logical thinking is far beyond the ability of Prohibitionists. Pity. And in fact Prohibition has nothing to do with reason. If it did pot would be legal and alcohol and tobacco would not.

====================================

But hey - how about that Mark Steyn? He aligns with the dopers. That must mean he is wrong about everything. As was Wm. Buckeley. George Schultz. Milton Friedman. Nixon's Marijuana Commission. And more than a few others.

You know. That trope is getting old. And worn out. And it doesn't work the way it used to.

[Diogenes]

Of course they are. Another study shows pot smokers have lower IQs.

It is not a myth

Sure you could say the same about chronic alcoholics (particularly those who started young)....but we don't mass arrest/incarcerate them do we?

It's way too late to nip that stuff in the bud. We just have to endure it.

[choff]

I strongly recommend a search on "Manufacturing the Deadhead the Product of Social Engineering". Hallucinogens were introduced to society by the establishment under the cloak of rebellion when in reality they are for social control. They're still being used for social control only under the guise of pain medication, without anyone questioning the establishment as the source of all this pain.

Pot smokers are no less intelligent than non users, except when they complain about the prohibition on pot. The same people running the prohibition are the same people selling the soma. The irony is that you can't effectively resist the prohibition when you're using the prohibited drug. How does it feel to know deep down that in your youth during the 1960's the path of rebellion was all planned out by the people who drove you down it.

I don't believe in the drug war, I oppose the drug culture, you've been conned, stop being their dupe.

[choff]

I disagree with the Manufacturing authors on a couple of points, Atwell gets it backwards, Josephus based his history on the New Testament, not the other way around. Irving can be anti-Semitic at times, otherwise he does semi decent research, je comes from a background of actually having used drugs just like Steyn. Again, I oppose the drug culture, I don't disparage victims.

[MSimon]

I strongly recommend a search on "Manufacturing the Deadhead the Product of Social Engineering". Hallucinogens were introduced to society by the establishment under the cloak of rebellion when in reality they are for social control. They're still being used for social control only under the guise of pain medication, without anyone questioning the establishment as the source of all this pain.

Pot smokers are no less intelligent than non users, except when they complain about the prohibition on pot. The same people running the prohibition are the same people selling the soma. The irony is that you can't effectively resist the prohibition when you're using the prohibited drug. How does it feel to know deep down that in your youth during the 1960's the path of rebellion was all planned out by the people who drove you down it.

I don't believe in the drug war, I oppose the drug culture, you've been conned, stop being their dupe.

I'm quite familiar with MK-Ultra. And everything anyone does is to the advantage of one set of controllers or another. None the less Prohibition is a very bad idea.

I oppose the alcohol culture. It is 10X stupider than the drug culture. In any case pot (as with most anti-depressants) grows brain cells and alcohol kills them. And with alcohol - unless you take a countering anti-depressant - the stultifying is progressive. And Progressive.

And further. Prohibition reenforces the Drug Culture. It will be reduced to its proper proportion when Prohibition ends. And we will be left with medicine. The psychedelics were very promising as therapy for PTSD. Not just amelioration but a cure. That was all set back by Prohibition and the Drug Culture Prohibition caused.

There is an old Jewish tradition that goes with Chanukah. It points out that persecution makes the persecuted minorities more cohesive. When the persecution ends the minorities melt away. So it will be with the Drug Culture.

There is an old rule. Very old. Some call it karma. What you hate you get more of. The stronger the hate the stronger what you hate becomes. If you hate the Drug Culture you will get more of it. And if your hate is strong enough it will defeat you. Indifference is always the best response (generally) to what you dislike.

[MSimon]

I was always amused at the haters. They were the best advertisement the Drug Culture could ever get. And best yet? Free. Well better than that. Those that hated the Drug Culture paid to get that culture's message out.

Look at what one nondescript link did to this thread. And I didn't have to say a thing to start.

The best advertisement for the Drug Culture is those who oppose it. Hilarious.

Think about it. The message sent to naturally rebellious youth: "People are willing to go to jail for this stuff? It must be really good. I'll have to try it."

As I have said more than once: Prohibition is the best vector for the spread of drugs anyone could conceive of.

And better? Prohibitionists are too stupid to see it.

And people think I'm a dupe.

[choff]

It shrinks your brain.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2008/06/02/38835.aspx

So yes there are new cells and connections forming in users brains, the sixty four thousand dollar question would be, does pot help your brain grow new cells, or is the new cell growth the brain trying to repair damage as it shrinks from using pot.

Since the same people pushing the drug culture are the same people pushing AGW, not altogether off topic, same agenda, turn the believers into serfs.

[MSimon]

It shrinks your brain.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2008/06/02/38835.aspx

So yes there are new cells and connections forming in users brains, the sixty four thousand dollar question would be, does pot help your brain grow new cells, or is the new cell growth the brain trying to repair damage as it shrinks from using pot.

Since the same people pushing the drug culture are the same people pushing AGW, not altogether off topic, same agenda, turn the believers into serfs.

Well, the chemical analogs the body produces should do the same. I await the studies.

As to smaller brain size. Cannabinoids are noted for reducing inflammations. In fact they are indicated after head trauma.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/ ... onal/page4
So reductions in brain size may just be about reductions in damaging swelling.

I have never heard George Schultz or Mark Steyn pushing AGW. But if you have something I'm missing post a link.

http://mic.com/articles/87875/here-s-th ... rain-study
"The conclusions were modest in the paper — we never say marijuana causes these changes," Gilman said, who's a neuroscientist with a Ph.D. from Brown University. "The media may have given that impression in headlines, but the study doesn't show causation."

It was a classic A and B study. Take group one and see how they're different from group two. That's it.

And this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... brain.html
All across the Internet, headlines are screaming Buzzkill and Marijuana Makes Young Brains Go to Pot. But a new study, published in the Journal of Neuroscience, does not in any way prove that casual marijuana use is bad for your brain.

In order to understand why, all you need to do is actually read the research—and be able to think a bit critically. You don’t need to know anything particular about fMRI or any other scary acronyms and you don’t need to know your amygdala from your Shatner’s Bassoon. You don’t even need to know any statistics.

Here’s the first big problem. The 20 marijuana-smoking participants, who took the drug at least once a week, were deliberately selected to be healthy. If they had any marijuana-related problems—or any psychiatric problems or other issues—they were excluded from participating.

Are you beginning to see what’s wrong? Although the pot-smoking participants showed brain differences in comparison to the controls who were also selected to be normal—both groups were normal! If the smokers had any marijuana-related problems or any type of impairment, they would not have been included in the first place. Therefore, the brain changes that the researchers found were—by definition—not associated with any cognitive, emotional, or mental problems or differences.

But it is all moot. Prohibition is coming to an end and those resisting that are putting a mark on the political faction they represent. When the results of ending Prohibition II turn out no worse than the results of ending Prohibition I the faction supporting Prohibition will be tarred for everything they stand for.

Just as many of you use "dopers" as a stand in for everything you dislike. It is human nature. Heh.

I have been saying for years "give way on this so you can keep that". But like all stupid people the Prohibitionists try to defend everything and so will lose everything. B.H.L. Hart in his classic "Strategy" councils against defending everything. Not just WRT military action but also politics.

Everyone knows that the Germans lost WW2 by trying to defend all their gains instead of giving ground to gain strength. The Prohibitionists prefer the German strategy. Human nature I guess. "We were so close to having it all." Yes you were. But the use of force to gain your objective produced a reaction. Hart discusses all that. Pity so few read him.

[MSimon]

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. - Feynman

Time after time these anti-cannabis studies get debunked or we find the conclusions much too broad for the evidence given. It has gotten so bad that these studies are now automatically dismissed by large segments of the population as just another attempt at propaganda.

You wouldn't take Rossi at his word and yet you eat up every anti-pot study without even looking into possible confounding factors.

Believers in Prohibition are on a par with believers in AGW. Intellectually. And they actually believe they are opposed to each other. It is a hoot.

And the best part? No amount of evidence to the contrary will sway a believer. I believe Feynman had a name for this: Cargo Cult Science

And the biggest error Cargo Cult Science makes? Confusing correlation with causation.

[choff]

Your confusing support for prohibition with opposition to the drug culture, a culture that was promoted by the establishment. I couldn't care less if they lift or maintain prohibition at street level. I oppose the promotion of the drug culture by the establishment, and I believe prohibition enforcement should be directed at the brains of the operation and not the feet. Why are you defending the same people who want to maintain the prohibition you so oppose. As for studies, they used to have doctors lined up saying smoking helped calm the nerves, not mentioning it was tobacco addiction stressing those same nerves. Then we have the whole peer review process flying in the face of 18 years of flat lined temperature. So don't get too excited about studies, especially if you come from a viewpoint of particular bias.

[MSimon]

Your confusing support for prohibition with opposition to the drug culture, a culture that was promoted by the establishment. I couldn't care less if they lift or maintain prohibition at street level. I oppose the promotion of the drug culture by the establishment, and I believe prohibition enforcement should be directed at the brains of the operation and not the feet. Why are you defending the same people who want to maintain the prohibition you so oppose. As for studies, they used to have doctors lined up saying smoking helped calm the nerves, not mentioning it was tobacco addiction stressing those same nerves. Then we have the whole peer review process flying in the face of 18 years of flat lined temperature. So don't get too excited about studies, especially if you come from a viewpoint of particular bias.

The biggest support for the drug culture is Prohibition.

It is the cleverest con of all. "We oppose and are fighting..." is really "we are covertly promoting".

Every drug bust trumpeted by the media is an advertisement for the drug culture.

Studies? Well does the body have an endocannabinoid system or not? Does the cannabis plant produce analogs of what the endocannabinoid system produces or not? Does the endocannabinoid system control the immune system or not? Can exocannabinoids be used to modulate the immune system or not?

Once the evidence gets piled high enough it becomes the new way of thinking. The same was true of Relativity and quantum mechanics. There may be holes in the new way of thinking. But it works better than the old way.

BTW smoking tobacco does calm the nerves. It is an anti-depressant. Cannabinoids are better anti-depressants because they are relatively non-toxic.

[choff]

Once the prohibition is removed the establishment will switch to advertising, popularization through movies, etc., only more so than now. That is to say, they will sell it as popular culture as they do now only more openly. Tobacco sales dropped with a ban on advertising and negative messaging, like I say, kill the head and the body will die.

[MSimon]

Why are you defending the same people who want to maintain the prohibition you so oppose.

I wasn't aware that I was doing that could you provide an example?

In any case I take each point on the evidence not who supports or opposes it. Well anyway that is my intention.

For instance - I generally support Republicans despite their support for Prohibition because in general they have a better grasp of economics except when it comes to Prohibition. I hang out with a lot of anti-Prohibitionists and they are almost totally on the left. I had one do a most exquisite exposition of Black Market economics and asked him why he couldn't apply that kind of thinking to all economic questions - silence.

By the same token I ask my friends on the right to apply the same kind of analysis that they do to every other economic question to Prohibition - silence.

Damnedest thing I ever saw.