Posted on 11/05/2004 1:38:10 PM PST by Ahriman
A decade ago, when Daniele Piomelli went to scientific conferences, he was often the only researcher studying cannabinoids, the class of chemicals that give marijuana users a high. His work often drew sniggers and jokes; but not any more. At the recent annual Society for Neuroscience conference in San Diego last week, scientists delivered almost 200 papers on the subject.
Why all the attention? Many scientists believe marijuana-like drugs might be able to treat a wide range of diseases, far beyond the nausea and chronic pain typically treated with medical marijuana.
Researchers presented tantalising evidence that cannabinoid drugs can help treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - known as ALS or Lou Gehrigs disease - Parkinsons disease and obesity. Other researchers are studying whether the compounds can help victims of stroke and multiple sclerosis.
Although the chemicals work on the same area of the nervous system, the new drugs are much more refined and targeted than marijuana, with few of its side effects.
"Cannabinoids have a lot of pharmaceutical potential," says Piomelli, a neuroscientist at the University of California. "A lot of people are very excited."
Let me guess: you think Reefer Madness was a documentary.
I graduated highschool in '71, I don't need any help understanding pot.
I've used both substances, and I don't see why a joint can't be an alternative to a couple beers.
you mean marijuana instead of stem cell treatments?
How about a snort of cocaine. Quicker and more reliable.
"I got it ... I got it ... I got it ... I ain't got it."
Movie, please.
I said marijuana use dropped over 60% from its high point in 1979. That is a true statement. Prove me wrong or retract your slur.
I later said (post #238) that in the period 1979-1994, marijuana use decreased 63%. That is also a true statement. Prove me wrong or retract your slur.
Now, from 1994 to 1998, marijuana use remained relatively flat at about 4.8%. That is also a true statement. Prove me wrong or retract your slur.
You know as well as I do that changes made to the design and execution of NHSDA in 1999 make the 1999 - 2003 data incomparable to previous years. That data does indicate a usage of 6.2% in the last two years. So? Don't tell me you're going to compare it anyways!
Well of course you would. You call William F. Buckley a conservative even when he calls himself a Libertarian. You and reality have nothing in common.
I'm really getting tired of having to explain this to you. You pop up in this thread like Whack-A-Mole just long enough to call me a liar then "ploop", back into your little hole.
Retract your slur, sir.
The WOD is more than illegality. About half the DEA budget is for anti-drug advertising. The remainder is for drug interception at the borders and in other countries.
Marijuana has been illegal for 70 years. Our WOD has been in place less than half that time.
I simply acknowledged that factors other than illegality affected drug usage, either in a positive or negative direction. I never discarded illegality as the reason for the decline.
Let me spell it out for you then.
I didn't say that a joint "can't be".
The point is that, across society, if pot were legalized, that "casual use" would NOT BE the extent of its use.
Among youth it would be before class, between class, after class, hanging out, on the weekends.
Why would that be different than now, since it is very available?
Because it would have societies stamp of approval.
The perception of the kids would be, 'If its legal, it couldn't be that bad for you.'
This is where the concern regarding learning ability, motivation, and productivity, arises.
This is the worst time in a person's life to introduce this type of character impairing influence.
I'm not guessing about this, I watched it destroy great potential in many friends in Highschool, during my time in the service, and later, as college paralleled my early career.
How about a snort of cocaine.
Quite different in its effects, ergo not an alternative.
You should have, since once you acknowledge that factors other than illegality affected drug usage, your argument by correlation-thus-causality no longer has any foundation.
All equally true of alcohol; your attempt to make a distinction continues to fail. And by many accounts, making alcohol illegal encouraged non-casual use, as seems likely to also be the case for marijuana.
The perception of the kids would be, 'If its legal, it couldn't be that bad for you.'
We're apparently having some success fighting that perception of legal tobacco; it's amazing what telling the truth can accomplish.
Good thing you qualified that with "MOST"!
And I still doubt you are correct.
Some yes, probably too many for comfort, but I really doubt "most".
The more laws there are,the less law there is!
Surely you're not asking me to believe that?
So you admit that legalizing marijuana would increase teen use as we've seen with alcohol.
I believe the question is, therefore, why in the world would we want to do that?
I DON'T CARE IF ITS "EQUALLY TRUE OF ALCOHOL"!
We don't need one more substance to dumb down society!
I am glad to see a few more like you come out against legalizing hard drugs. Thank you.
I never asserted that illegality did not cause a decline in usage (although that, and your corollary, are possible). My point is that you have not established that illegality did cause a decline in usage, much less that changing legal status or enforcement caused the entirety of the 60% decline you cite.
We saw teen alcohol use increase when alcohol was legalized? I know of no evidence supporting that claim. Do you have nay?
nay --> any
So it would logically follow that we do need one less substance to dumb down society and that criminalizing alcohol for adults would be a good policy. Problem is, that conclusion is false, and therefore so is your premise.
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.