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 ...
LOL, no, they weren’t using it.
How can you be so detached from reality that you just keep making up a false past for us?
You just plodding along, just making up things out of your head.
I agree
Not in favor of retail legality
That's fair, but my guess is that you respect the Tenth Amendment and are willing to leave that decision to the states. Yes?
You need to stop looking in the mirror when you post.
No, you cannot just create fake history in your head about our nation and it’s founding fathers.
You are displaying the ‘way out there’ stoner delusional thinking.
Give it a rest. We disagree. Stop being a slandering jerk.
There is more than disagreement, you are trying to create a fake American history to promote drug use and a left wing agenda.
Screw you, Ansel. You're a damn liar and a slanderer. Nothing I've said even comes close to your foul accusations and crude provocations. If anything, your obsession with outrageous insults points to drug use on your part. You seem to have a positive inability to comprehend that someone could legitimately disagree with you. Get help, and get a frickin' life outside of schoolyard taunts.
But in another drug thread DiogenesLamp said, "Reliable or not, those are the figures being put out by the people who make it their job to come up with such figures. No doubt they are a statistical extrapolation. Till someone presents an argument that there are better figures, I will have no choice but to use what is available."
take commentary out of context
ROTFL! As shown by the link I keep providing and you omitted, the only difference is that when you posted those words they served the argument you were making but now they don't - tough.
I'm betting a high percentage (pun intended) harmed someone else either directly or indirectly.
You're betting but not ante-ing up with any data.
Yes, the Jews can remain silent while the Nazis are pushing their propaganda.
Are you really that naive?
You are not trying to evaluate harm. Indeed, you are constantly assuring us that there will be no harm from your pet drug. What you are doing is trying to justify any future harm caused by your preferred drug, by pointing at other harm caused by a different drug.
You are trying to get us to buy into your assertion that "Two wrongs make a right." and we're just not going to buy it.
Don't like the comparison because it hits far too close to home?
Who is trying to change the existing social conditions? Gays and Libertarians.
Who is searching through history for examples (and then lying about them) to prove that what they do is normal? Gays and Libertarians.
Who is/was breaking the law by pursuing their pet behavior? Gays and Libertarians.
Who's behavior causes harm to others, but refuses to acknowledge their behavior causes any harm to others? Gays and Libertarians.
Who's behavior spreads by recruitment? Gays and Libertarians.
And so on. There is a reason why Gays and Libertarians are the enemies of Conservatives. It's because both their advocated behaviors lead to the collapse of civilized society, but they generally don't understand this, and they generally just don't give a sh*t.
Both issues demonstrate the utterly narcissistic foundation of their proponents. "It's all about *ME* and what *I* want to do to get my jollies. F*** Society. What *I* want is supreme. "
You might think so if you just look at what appears on the surface, but this "discussion" really isn't a discussion. It's really just a game of "the dozens", and "facts" are not the most important aspect of it.
Now sure, if we were having a real debate with open minds, then accuracy becomes more important, but in these mindless pushing games it is not essential to dot your "I"s or cross your "t"s. Nobody really cares if your point is accurate anyways because their minds are made up.
Absolute accuracy is just used as one more quibble, rather than a essential ingredient. I see very little of it coming from the other side, so I feel no moral compunction to insist on it for myself. Why bother? People are just making up bullshit anyways.
Your whole point of contention is whether or not people who left their child in the home of DRUG DEALERS were themselves drug dealers.
I'll get right back to you on that just as soon as I answer this other fool about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Once again, you don't like being called out on the fact that you are proposing to justify the carnage of marijuana by pointing to the carnage of alcohol. It rankles you that I can sum up your position so accurately and succinctly, and it's very uncomplimentary.
As a matter of fact, it sounds exactly like a child's "Well *HE* did it too!" argument, because that is exactly what it is.
"Alcohol did it too!"
Play your game if you want. I believe, and will argue in any serious discussion of public policy the first thing that needs to be done is wheel that whole dumpster fire to the curb.
Voice of reason here. It should be at least as heavily regulated as alcohol and in my opinion more so.
Not necessarily banned, but certainly heavily restricted.
I generally just see your name and don’t bother reading whatever it is you wrote. I don’t have time for bullshit and doubletalk.
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.