Posted on 05/27/2018 6:16:38 AM PDT by Steve Schulin
... The offspring of partying adolescents, specifically those who used THC, may be at increased risk for mental illness and addiction as a result of changes to the epigenome — even if those children are years away from being conceived. The epigenome is a record of molecular imprints of potent experiences, including cannabis exposure, that lead to persistent changes in gene expression and behavior, even across generations. Though the critical studies are only now beginning, many neuroscientists prophesize a social version of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” in which we learn we’ve burdened our heirs only generations hence.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicsdiscussion.com ...
And more stuffing and taters for sure.
We obligate ourselves by the legislators we vote for. We should stop, rather than using that violation of rights as an excuse for other violations of rights (i.e., marijuana criminalization).
Get your hand out of my pocket
It was never in - I pay for my own medical care.
Those who want the programs are generally not those paying for them..."We" don't elect them.
Oh, so you vote only for candidates who support an end to taxpayer-funded medical care?
Wrong - libertarianism says government has authority over those cases, and only those cases, where one person’s liberty bumps up against that of another. Joe's smoking pot bumps up against none of your liberties.
"We" don't get the politicians and policies "we" vote for. "We" get the politicians and policies that the bottom 51% of the electorate supports.
As for you claiming to pay your own medical bills...do you pledge to pay the medical bills for all the other potheads you're unleashing on the rest of us?
Re: “May be at increased risk for mental illness and addiction.”
Re: “Changes in gene expression and behavior, even across generations.”
Tort lawyers are preparing the ground for massive class action lawsuits against marijuana entrepreneurs.
They are the people from whom we are descended; therefore yes, they are our ancestors.
No, you haven't. Your alcohol dehydrogenase is still working just fine, converting alcohol to its aldehyde at the rate of about one drink per hour. "A lot of alcohol in a short time" is layman's language, which is not precise but could be interpreted into scientificese as the consumption of close to an LD50 within one hour, a level of consumption which requires medical attention. I've yet to see anyone require medical attention from drinking just enough alcohol to get dizzy.
Marijuana, on the other hand, is not water soluble. Since it is fat soluble, it very quickly goes into fat deposits throughout the body.
Where it's not binding to neuroreceptors, so having no mental effects.
Um, actually it is. You have plenty of lipids in the brain where THC (and the other lipid soluble components of marijuana) can partition. Cell membranes are composed of lipids; thus THC etc. can partition into cell membranes as well as lipid vacuoles within cells. And that puts these chemicals in direct proximity to neuroreceptors, since receptors are located in the cell membrane and in the cytosol. Furthermore, when cannabinoids are partitioned into the lipids, they are also in close proximity to cellular machinery and nucleic acids; while the consequences are still under a great deal of study, the results of studies completed so far show that there is much to be concerned about with the growing use of marijuana. Conceptually, the fact that these exogenous bioactive compounds remain present in cells for prolonged periods of time should cause great concern.
I am a scientist, and much of my research to earn my Ph.D. was in exploring evolutionary relationships. Very little of biology makes sense if one tries to ignore the role of evolution. Thus, I use the scientific language.
Ah, yes, words of wisdom from someone who cannot grasp the concept that our bodies are formed on the basis of CO2 (no exceptions).
You might try studying Buddhism. Then you can start to explore the concept that life is not about absolutes, but about balance. Your right to do whatever you want (be stoned all the time, commit murder without restriction, rob from convenience stores, etc.) is balanced against the rights of the rest of the population who does not want to pay for your drugged up lifestyle, does not want to be killed for your pleasure, does not want sky-high prices at the local shop, etc. If your chosen lifestyle did not affect other people, I doubt anyone would care what you do.
Once upon a time, the line drawn was when you caused actual harm to a person. Now, the Left has so screwed up the entire mechanics of, well, everything, that now people (including jurists) behave as if a lifestyle "affecting" another is the same as a grievous injury. Using that as the measuring stick, anything and everything is a crime... which is what the Statists want. "You don't eat enough soy-bacon, ergo you are causing food prices to rise and healthcare costs to rise, thus you must be punished... and 'enough' is whatever we decide that amount is, an on ever-changing basis."
Sorry, mom... you still have a long way to go before truly expunging the insanity of the Left.
From Atlas Shrugged (which I suggest you read):
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
Oh, so you vote only for candidates who support an end to taxpayer-funded medical care?
"We" don't get the politicians and policies "we" vote for. "We" get the politicians and policies that the bottom 51% of the electorate supports.
I notice you didn't actually answer my question. Why is that?
As for you claiming to pay your own medical bills...do you pledge to pay the medical bills for all the other potheads you're unleashing on the rest of us?
I'm unleashing nothing - those who were before legalization responsible enough to avoid marijuana will after legalization remain responsible enough to not smoke themselves into need of medical care.
Nor would such a pledge be my obligation in any case - at most, I'm obligated to pledge to not support taxpayer-funded medical care, which I don't.
No, you haven't. Your alcohol dehydrogenase is still working just fine, converting alcohol to its aldehyde at the rate of about one drink per hour.
And yet is being overcome.
"A lot of alcohol in a short time" is layman's language, which is not precise but could be interpreted into scientificese as the consumption of close to an LD50 within one hour, a level of consumption which requires medical attention. I've yet to see anyone require medical attention from drinking just enough alcohol to get dizzy.
So dizziness is not an effect of mild or moderate alcohol toxicity - toxicity kicks in only when one requires medical attention? Sounds fishy to me.
Marijuana, on the other hand, is not water soluble. Since it is fat soluble, it very quickly goes into fat deposits throughout the body.
Where it's not binding to neuroreceptors, so having no mental effects.
that puts these chemicals in direct proximity to neuroreceptors
Is "direct proximity" the same as binding? Is there any evidence for mental effects of lipid-stored THC? As far as I know, the answers are no and no.
Here's the American balance:
"rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." - Thomas Jefferson
I am a scientist also, having a BS, MS, and ABD. Trained in mathematics and engineering. Evolution is not science, it is a world view. It was promoted before the age of the internet and knowledge of the complexity of the cell and the structure of DNA.
The phrase “it is settled science”, that is a political statement not a scientific one. You can remove the praise of Evolution, which is both nothing and unknowing, from every aspect of your science and nothing is lost. Less is more.
There is no evidence that evolution has ever occurred. The similarities between species is an argument by association, which is a very weak form of argument. In statistics, “correlation is not causation” comes to mind.
Adaptation within species is not an argument. The closer one looks at adaptation the more one sees that it is a feature of the software.
Evolution is a mathematical tax for closed minds. The math or maths do not support either the end results or the computer code that we see. It is a 2^2^k problem, with k being the number of factors. Plug that number into a spreadsheet and see how high k can go before your computer cannot contain the number. Somewhere around 9 or 10.
Christianity is also a world view, but the correct one. It gives credit to God the Word for the creation of everything out of nothing, which is not something that can be measured by the human mind. If you give credit to something else, like evolution/chaos/nothing, you are in Jesus’ words “denying Me before men”.
I have always been very disappointed in the GOP/Conservative side’s view of Constitutional rights when it comes to marijuana. They say they believe in individual rights. But then jump through hoops to tell people why they have no right to access a naturally growing weed.
They bring in ‘experts’ on drugs and yet ply our population and children too with dangerous drugs. By prescription of course. Even through some believe for $$$$$ and some believe for control of population. But making your own decision with information you find yourself is not only frowned upon. But since the Government believes they own your children can also make it very hard to not keep children on meds (to keep them calm and compliant).
But if an adult makes a decision to access marijuana, which was considered a harmless drug until these new findings from experts which sound like they came from the movie Reefer Madness. These experts have been allowed to control society more than actual citizens who know better.
Yes, you have some pot heads that stay stoned and non-productive. Which could be said about all sorts of things. There are eating disorders ruining people’s lives (anorexia, etc.). Let’s not forget computer/Media additions which ruin lives and causes a multitude of car wrecks. I could go on and on. And of course, We also have drunks who are non-productive and ruining their lives, and causing loss of lives in many ways.
The bad decisions of some is not the reason to outlaw something. Conservatives, Republicans, and anyone who values their Freedom from Government over-reach should be the first and most vocal of that.
A most excellent post!!!
For too many self-proclaimed "conservatives," freedom and limited government are not principles, but merely tactics - to be embraced when that suits their predetermined ends, and ignored (if not rejected outright) when it doesn't.
Yes, but there are reports that there are at least 17 strains of cancer that pot actually attacks the cells and kills them, thus actually curing the person.
I’ve gone through the ravages of cancer, and didn’t do so with pot, but I knew those who did. They had an easier time of the pain, the heartache and often longer survival rates than those who just had to be demolished by chemotherapy.
I’m not “pro-pot”, but I can understand the need to study it. We received the ban on pot because of those who had a financial incentive to keep their industry and their government contracts (the rope industry with the Navy) from drying up. Hemp was a strong product, provided better materials and at a lower cost. That couldn’t be tolerated because then the lobbyists couldn’t suck on the government teat any longer.
It’s time we actually study and not from the pro-pot or anti-pot stance, but literally from the “What does it do to the body? What can it do? Does it have positive effects? Does it have negative effects?” We hear claims on both sides, but the level of true scientific study and factual based claims are not proven because there isn’t enough study.
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.