Posted on 06/22/2011 11:34:42 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
Government Senator Marc Bean recently called for a debate on the merits of decriminalising drugs in the wake of a report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy. A distinguished panel that wrote the report said the war on drugs had failed and recommended partial legalization as a solution to the blight of the illegal drugs trade on communities around the world.
Not so fast, warn medics.
Side effects of marijuana can include a heightened risk of psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia, depression, damage to memory and judgement and heart problems. Neurologist Dr Keith Chiappa said: “The use of marijuana, especially in younger age groups, should not be encouraged by any legalisation and should continue to be discouraged by specific programmes.”
Consultant psychiatrist Dr Chantelle Simmons said: “Cannabis use has been shown to be associated with difficulties in thought processes in 15-20 year olds.
“When you have a young adult, whose brain is still developing, there is a five times greater risk of schizophrenia.”
“It particularly adversely affects the developing brain and it’s also closely associated with psychosis.”
The Mid Atlantic Wellness Institute doctor added: “As a clinician, I try to focus on medical implications only, but I would have concerns that decriminalization would send a message that it was okay to encourage marijuana use.”
Dr Simmons added that studies had shown that marijuana use caused higher rates of depressive illness in adult women – four times the rate of depression found in non-users.
Teenage marijuana smokers have also been found to be less likely to complete high school and more likely to make poor career and life choices.
Dr Simmons said: “People say ‘it’s only weed, it’s natural’. It is a natural substance, but it can have significant adverse effects. It can not only cause psychosis, but exacerbate existing phychoses.”
(Excerpt) Read more at bermudasun.bm ...
ansel12: You want faith out of political discussions? Do you know that you are on a conservative site?
A classic response from anse12! Hilarious! KDD obviously does have religious faith, and may (possibly) even wish to invoke it in political debates, but since he apparently doesn't feel the need for a go-between between himself and God, ansel12 "goes in the for kill" and accuses him of trying to separate religion from political discussion.
Classic, I tell you!
Regards,
“I’ve had to deal with the consequences of soft on drug policies.”
So have I, repeatedly. They keep trying to repeat the lie over and over again, hoping it will someday become true. “Drugs don’t hurt anyone but possibly the user.” Lie, lie, lie.
Since he was trying to separate faith from political discussion, it was the correct response.
I already explained in one of my previous posts that, apart from having puffed half a joint - once - fifteen years ago, I have never touched marijuana. (And I have have had absolutely NO use of any other illicit drug.) So I don't understand why you are lecturing me, Persevero.
And even if you meant to write "If one thinks that one is as good a parent when stoned as when not, one is in denial. One should put down the dope and get real." - Well, I have already said that I think that, on the whole, sobriety is a good thing. But there are a million other things that are likewise "good" (church attendance, alcohol consumption, etc.), yet can and should not be legislated .
Regards,
freerepublic is a social conservative, pro-God site, there is no need for freepers to separate themselves from faith in God, when discussing politics here.
I'm sure that KDD is capable of defending himself, but - where exactly did he "try" to separate faith from political discussion? All he said was that only the words printed in red in the New Testament had validity for him (sorry if I'm incorrectly paraphrasing, KDD!).
That's like my saying (as a good Lutheran) that I don't accept the Apocrypha. Or if a Jew said that he didn't accept the New Testament.
Where did KDD imply anything about not involving religious faith in political discussion?
Regards,
“So I don’t understand why you are lecturing me, Persevero”
I hardly think a three sentence response is a lecture.
I don’t like the use of the “one” construction in English - I find it awkward. I am glad you don’t use pot.
Yes, there are a million things that are better for kids. Salad, good shoes, quiet and dark for sleeping, days at the park. It’s a continuum.
As a society we decide which things are so far along on the continuum as to need legislation. I think recreational drug abuse is one of those things. You mention alcohol consumption - I think drunkenness should be and actually is legislated against - in the sense that taking care of dependents while inebriated is indeed felony child endangerment. I support this law as well.
You must not have finished reading post 216.
Nor is it required of freepers to believe in Dominionism.
Do you mean this part of KDD's post (216)?:
Perhaps personal religious beliefs should not dominate political discussion...at least until there is some sembelance of uniformity in the various beliefs.
Yep, ansel12, them's fightin' words!
Regards,
I appear to be failing the standard “religious test” that is applied liberally here...I guess my political career would be over here before it even began.
LOL! All kinds of highly toxic mushrooms give a strong “high” before your liver fails.
Yep, Article VI, paragraph 3 of the good ole U.S. Constitution.
Be careful what you say about transsubstantiation vs. consubstantiation, too!
Regards,
I wish the legalized drug crowd would simply practice intellectual honesty and start their argument with, “I want to get stoned.”
As I said, there is no need for freepers to separate themselves from faith in God, when discussing politics here, regardless of what you try to tell them.
Just like the pro-porn crowd (but I repeat myself...) - usually claim they don’t “use” it but people should be allowed to if they want.
People are pro-vice because they like practicing vice, it’s quite simple. And they thus willingly blind themselves to the harm it does to society when vice is permitted, what to speak of glorified and at this point, practically government mandated.
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.