Posted on 02/15/2015 7:32:34 PM PST by MeshugeMikey
Full Title: Strong cannabis causes one in four cases of psychosis: Users three times more likely to have an episode than those who have never tried it ªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªª As many as a quarter of new cases of psychotic mental illness can be blamed on super-strength strains of cannabis, scientists will warn this week. The potent form of the drug – known as ‘skunk’ – is so powerful that users are three times more likely to have a psychotic episode than those who have never tried it.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
This post is the reason why my mother, a long-time drug warrior, turned away from the WOD
She drove past a billboard with photos like these a few ties a week that said, “Meth. Not even once.”
A couple of months ago, she noticed that the words had changed.
“Cigarettes kill.”
She was screaming. “They’re lying! They used the same picture to demonize smoking! It’s the same pictures!!”
Yup.
It’s a LIE
They give the same drug to children to make them behave in school. (Chemically, it’s the SAME DRUG. SPEED.)
I’m going to ask you the same question that a doctor asked.
“I meth causes bad teeth, then why isn’t there a rash of ‘adderall mouth?’ in our young people? It’s the same thing as meth.”
Figure that one out.
So are you going to back up your claim - made to the whole world - that the burned toddler's parents were drug dealers? If not, are you going to retract it?
War records. Look it up. I'm pretty sure Confederate soldiers stayed in the South, and i'm pretty sure Wounded Union soldiers likewise stayed in the North, and very likely neither group moved around a lot.
Read up on "Soldier's Disease."
The Civil war is what started narcotic addiction in this country. Prior to that, few people knew of, or had access to, large quantities of narcotics.
There is no way in hell that this woman’s disease is caused by smoking cannabis.
There is NO scientific evidence of this type of reaction.
None.
I’m calling you out. Prove that this is caused by cannabis. Show me anything that says that this woman’s disease is caused by cannabis.
The end is justifying the means, and truth is considered acceptable collateral damage.
“No, dumbass, it isn’t “murder” when it is done in punishment of a crime. It’s called “Execution” and they deserve it. What they heap onto their victims is as bad or worse.”
Why don’t you just move to Saudi Arabia? That’s what they do with drug dealers there.
You’d be happy with such an oppressive gov’t.
PLEASE. Take your views to Saudi. See how they welcome you.
Really? Well i've been misinformed then.
And the Founders of this country both grew it and smoked it.
Oh, I have no doubt they grew it, but back then it was used for this sensible thing called *ROPE*. But as for smoking it? You got any proof that they smoked it? I know Libertarians always say that they did, but I have yet to see any proof that they did. Perhaps you can provide some?
And your false danger comparison is amusing, because weed not only doesn't kill 85,000 people per year, it doesn't kill any at all.
It doesn't have 150 million users in this country either, And yes, it does kill.
And no one is saying children should smoke it.
Oh really? Is it because it's harmful or something?
It cracks me up every time one of them asserts this. They think that because the founders grew *Rope* that they also smoked it?
Obviously, as you stated you want people who sell pot killed.
No, I didn't
Ya see #109? Did you not type that?
Gezzz.
It doesn’t even make logical sense, that America was founded by pot heads that never wrote about it, and that being a nation of pot heads, that it was kept secret for centuries, until just the time that we actually see Cannabis coming into use as an intoxicant, in the 1960s.
Why would pot and hashish usage be so disgusting and repulsive to a nation that had been stoners for centuries?
Most telling of all, the people in charge of the Drug War put forth those figures without your caveats, which would have been beneficial to their argument. What we have is a situation similar to an expert witness for the prosecution giving testimony that favors the defense.
Your star witness hosed your case.
In any event, the point is that alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana, and that is clearly born out by statistics - here and around the world. Hundreds of millions of people smoke weed, and in comparison to dangerous alcohol effects, weed comes up statistically not just low, but zero. That's just the plain truth.
How you can argue that weed is dangerous for adults because it negatively affects childhood development, while simultaneously protecting, of all things, alcohol, is beyond me. By accepting alcohol as the legally acceptable standard, there should be nothing barring weed to anyone accept children - just like alcohol.
Do you think Jesus was a drunk?
Do you think Reagan would break the law as it stood in his day?
Are all drugs taken for the same reason? If they don't have the same effect as alcohol, are they immoral? What is it about alcohol that makes it intrinsically moral?
Your arguments are absurd.
Quit lying about who we are and our history and attacking the Founding fathers.
They were not marijuana and hashish smokers.
A public accusation of drug dealing is not the kind of things you split hairs over. You wrote in post #175 =>
The child was just in an unfortunate situation brought on by being born to dope smoking/dealing parents. If anyone is to blame for that child getting injured by the police, it is the dope smoking parents that behaved in such a way as to attract police attention.
You made a damning accusation against non-public figures. And apparently, you can't back it up with facts.
Look up internet libel or internet defamation. It would behoove you to read about some of the cases.
Jesus drank, made, and supplied alcohol to others and for festivities, he would never do so with pot and hash.
Now you want to insult Reagan by saying that he only avoided pot because of the law.
Your lies and insults are fantastic.
But were they pot smokers alone, without the hashish?
Whatever your answer, how can you prove it? They grew it. Do you think they didn't know that it could also get them high? They grew, dried and smoked tobacco. They could do the same with hemp. They could even mix it with their tobacco to get an appropriate, controlled high, as had been done for thousands of years by mixing weed with other plants. Did they not know about this, or that weed was also used medicinally (and still is, BTW)? Why not?
Nice. You want to kill the dope dealers, and when you accuse someone of being a dope dealer, whether they're actually doing it or not is "splitting hairs".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.