The terrible truth about cannabis: British expert's devastating 20-year study

dailymail ^ | 7 October 2014 | Ben Spencer

[Berlin_Freeper]

20-year study into the effects of long-term cannabis use has demolished the argument that the drug is safe.

Cannabis is highly addictive, causes mental health problems and opens the door to hard drugs, the study found.

[Albion Wilde]

That's utterly false, and nothing more than a feeble attempt to smear the pro-legalization crowd.

Well, let's consider the fact that marijuana use slows or destroys users' motivation. Like freepers who are here since 1998 but don't have anything on their home page, for instance.

[xzins]

1. As with alcohol, we need immediate sobriety tests that can be upheld in court for DUI and probably for public intoxication.

2. I would also favor strong legislation prohibiting (and making financially liable) the sale of cannabis to anyone already on psychiatric medication or diagnosed with a mental disorder...onus on the seller to comply.

3. I’d probably add a ‘rehabilitation’ tax to its sale.

[Brown Deer]

and some newbs have nothing better to do with their time, than post quotes on their home page.

[i_robot73]

Sounds ‘bout the same as the ‘findings’ for tobacco (just how many decades were they known as coffin nails?).

Still, the nanny-State wannabe’s (Party independent), would rather use the force of gov’t to prohibit that which gets their panties in a wad. So afraid of Freedom and choices supplies with Liberty, and the consequences they bring, they would gladly shackle themselves and bring the rest of us kicking and screaming...for our own good.

....forget ye were our Countrymen...*spit*

[i_robot73]

Ah, yes, muddy the waters with the straw men mixed with a few slight of hand ‘Look over there’

1) D.C. has EVERY authority (note, I do NOT say Right...only the Individual has Rights) to police the border; it is empowered to do so as one of its core functions

2) Most here note the difference between an ADULT of consenting age and a child

3) There has been no mention of Mexico, or the Libertarian Party, outside of your (denigrating) posts

4) It is almost impossible to control/regulate/etc. anything that is readily available by making/growing your own (even if the 2nd Amendment were killed today, people would still have/make weapons)

5) Prohibition was Constitutionally imposed, and rescinded. Not much since the 1910’s has that same distinction.

[Albion Wilde]

Awwww, snap!

[Berlin_Freeper]

Shifting the goalpost is an act of self deception. When corrected - you moved from your own specific comparison of marijuana and beer, to vodka and drugs in general.

Since you make your mark with the liberal drug pushers on marijuana, do you also think all drugs should be legalized like many of them do?

If so, then you are deceiving yourself and have no valid argument about "harm". A dope fiend will plagiarize from the myriad of websites for losers, that they have bookmarked, to show fragments of data that alcohol is worse in one way or another than any other drug.

If not, then you are also deceiving yourself - by drawing a line behind marijuana, deep down you agree that throwing gasoline on a fire is not a very good idea.

Btw I don't happen to drink alcohol. I accept alcohol as a cultural inheritance... doesn't mean I am open to liberal drug freaks flushing society down the toilet just like they are flushing themselves down the toilet.

[riverdawg]

“But, this idea that all should submit to prohibitions because of the weaknesses of a few is crazy, ...”

I agree completely. As I said in my earlier post, I am in favor of legalization and controlled sale of marijuana to adults. But, again, just because I favor legalization does not mean that I am blind to the destructive nature of the drug for some people.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

No, I do not agree with Federal regulation of prescription drugs.

That's not what I asked you.

Pharmacists & doctors as a group should dictate what drugs are prescription & which OTC, NOT some bureaucrat in WDC.

Anything prescribed, is a controlled substance, the teeth of enforcement comes from the police (government)

People already share their prescription drugs with friends & family for medicinal & recreational purposes. They have been doing it since regulation began.

And that makes it smart, logical or right. You're OK with that.

My grandmother gave me one of her prescription pain killers when I was a child in pain. Do I think she should go to jail for doing that? NO, but the police & government do.

What if you had OD'd or had a drug interaction or an allergic reaction and died?

I was NEVER a "child".

[libbylu]

Did the study mention any of that? Subjective to say it causes more wrecks and schizophrenia. Schizophrenics probably just use more.
I saw Alan Dershowitz tell story of lawyer arguing before Supreme court high on smoke and won, he was great guest on redeye.
A doc who was also a lawyer told me in 1970 -— I asked if you do drugs, everyone smokes pot.
This just does not seem like a real study to me.

[discostu]

Maybe because you never bothered to look for them:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/389985-beer-brain-damage/
http://phys.org/news157280425.html

[Berlin_Freeper]

Congratulations. You had the whole of the internet at your disposal and linked me to a webpage of one “Angalar Chi”

[discostu]

So lacking all facts you decide to go after a person’s name? Typical. Pathetic. But typical.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Can you get someone to translate that from libtard?

[discostu]

The translation is that you know the facts don’t support you argument, but you’re not man enough to admit you’re wrong, so you throw insults and pretend they make you right.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Facts? You gave me a link to the words of one “Angalar Chi”.
Wrong? In any case I said I was unaware.
Not man enough? I am not the one crying for a drug to make my life worth something.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Play the Crybaby Card after you said I was pathetic... yes LoL!

[antidisestablishment]

Longitudinal studies are not readily available. Many studies have noted ill effects from high concentrations of the active ingredients in pot, but such studies use inordinate levels of THC. Studies from the other side are more frivolous, but they,of course, make blanket claims of safety that are easily dismissed due to their unscientific and biased methodology.

Anecdotally, pot use causes a temporary cognitive decline, anxiety, mild hallucinations, paranoia, legarthy, memory loss, reduced sexual interest in males, increased sexual interest in females, and a marked increase in apathy.

I do not do drugs, and am unsure if your post indicates that you believe that pot use increased the performance of some professionals. I would attribute any such “win” by a lawyer as more an indication of the decline of logic in our Supreme Court than any magical result of smoking pot.

“Everyone” certainly does not smoke pot, and such a statement only belies the emotional and cognitive immaturity of anyone making such a ludicrous statement.

A simple way to test the efficacy of pot from a cognitive and creative standpoint is to simply record a conversation or a song and then listen to it later. Invite others to do the same. The mind-blowing thoughts that seem so relevant and insightful wither rapidly under sober scrutiny.

[discostu]

Not crying at all. Just pointing out that for the 4th post in a row to me you have not even attempted to put forth a single fact. All you have is insults. Which is pathetic.

[discostu]

The fact is anybody that thinks the name of the scientist writing the study matters is... well as I already said, pathetic. It’s one of MANY valid studies that shows alcohol is harmful to developing brains.

You said you were unaware (which belies belief), I made you aware, and all you’ve got is insults. Only person crying here is you. The facts have been presented, you are wrong. Regardless of the name of the author.