The terrible truth about cannabis: British expert's devastating 20-year study

dailymail ^ | 7 October 2014 | Ben Spencer

[Berlin_Freeper]

20-year study into the effects of long-term cannabis use has demolished the argument that the drug is safe.

Cannabis is highly addictive, causes mental health problems and opens the door to hard drugs, the study found.

[Berlin_Freeper]

I don’t owe you a single anything.

If you want to inject yourself into a conversation about beer and marijuana then get someone with at least half a brain to do it properly for you.

Thanks discostu!

[discostu]

Yaaaaaaawn.

More insults. More telling everyone you know the facts can’t back you.

The guy who can’t form a sentence without an insult really is in no position to claim other people are not conversing properly. Think about it.

[Berlin_Freeper]

The fact is anybody that thinks the name of the scientist writing the study matters is... well as I already said, pathetic. It’s one of MANY valid studies that shows alcohol is harmful to developing brains.

OMG you are so burntout it is not even funny.

1. The name of the scientist writing the study? How do you know? There is not even a study linked to.
2. It's not the name that matters but the fact that is all your link amounts to. Only a libtard looking to play the Race Card (besides the endless Crybaby Card) would waste any thought like that.
3. General harmful effects of alcohol was not the discussion. The comparison was very specifically marijuana and beer.

[Berlin_Freeper]

I’ll give you another chance.

Give me a link that is about beer.

Go...

[Berlin_Freeper]

Beer may be good for your brain

[Berlin_Freeper]

Beat you by a mile. You came in demented and I am shipping you out the same way.

Night night discostu!

[discostu]

I didn’t play the race card. I just posted a link, didn’t even care who wrote it. YOU played the race card.

Beer is an alcohol delivery system. Alcohol and the developing brain are a bad combination. Doesn’t matter what flavor came with the alcohol.

[discostu]

From insults to strawmen. You’re so cute when you know you’re full of crap.

[discostu]

BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You think insults and strawmen beat anything?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You should take this routine to your local open mike. It’s high comedy.

Facts win. You don’t have facts, so you lost. And you know it.

[discostu]

Notice that is NOT the developing brain. Do a control F, look for “developing” or “adolescent”. So nope, doesn’t apply.

[nathanbedford]

Some time ago I published the following reply which comes down, reluctantly, on the side of legalizing all drugs. The analogy I use is that to legalize pot alone, or any other illicit drug, is like restrictive gun laws which fall short of grabbing all guns, they only monopolize violence in the hands of criminals and, to render some drugs legal while leaving others illegal, is to leave all the incentives for criminal activity in place as described below:

We are are pursuing the war on drugs to its tragic conclusion even to the threshold of destroying the Bill of Rights, thoroughly corrupting the administration of justice, over populating our prisons, destroying huge portions of succeeding generations, mortally threatening respect for the rule of law, breaking families apart, engorging government, depleting the treasury, and actually making addiction to drugs more widespread.

The idea that taking the profit motive out of drug distribution would not put the cartels out of business is absurd. However, to raise the question as you do whether one is willing to accept open distribution, or very open controlled distribution, of extremely dangerous drugs is legitimate because half measures will not prevail over the drug cartels because they will not eliminate the profit motive.

That means that those of us who advocate the legalization of drugs must be courageous enough to advocate the legalization of the most deadly drugs and the most addictive drugs. It does no good to stand for the legalization of pot only. The profit motive must be withdrawn from the trade and that means the profit motive for all drugs. That implies easy access at reasonable prices below prices which are profitable for cartels to operate for adults of extremely dangerous and extremely addictive drugs. There is no way around that.

The situation we have today is similar: we have easy access at reasonable prices (but prices nevertheless inflated because the drug is illegal so the trade is profitable for cartels) by adults or children to extremely dangerous and extremely addictive drugs.

I want the choice. I am a conservative I want the choice vested in me as an individual and not taken away from me and invested in a government. I want the power to choose to be free of drugs and at the same time to be free of the threat of being mugged so that some addict can pay for his habit by robbing me. I want to be free of the threat of home invasion. I want to be able to enjoy free access to the public square. Therefore, I am willing to tolerate others making the wrong choice and addicting themselves because a dangerous, addictive substance is relatively easy and legal to obtain. My belief is that fewer people will make that choice because there is no incentive for addicts to push drugs to fund their own habits. Presumably, addicts will have access to cheap drugs and will have no need to resort to crime or violence to satisfy their habituation. The government chronically makes the wrong choices for us, it deprives us of freedom of choice, it exposes us to violence, it creates a black market and actually supports prices within that market.

I want to end the moral hazard of drug abuse. If an adult citizen of the United States makes a choice to use hazardous drugs let's him alone bear the consequences as much as possible-to the degree that he alone bears the consequences for abusing alcohol. Let not society, by rendering the choice illegal, shift the costs and unanticipated consequences onto those of us who choose not abuse drugs. Let the government stop making me collateral damage in its war on drugs.

The degree to which drugs by their very nature cause collateral damage to family members and other members of society should be reduced because the incidence of drug use falls when there is no financial incentive to push drugs. If not, if the rate of consumption stays the same, we have at least gotten our Bill of Rights back.

[nathanbedford]

I support your recommendations with the codicil that any tax imposed does not drive up the price of legal cannabis so that criminals can make a profit in the black market such as we see occurring with cigarettes.

[Brown Deer]

my 5th cousins...

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

you lost. And you know it.

So you won? Yay! Everyone can light up a spliff now!

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Most here note the difference between an ADULT of consenting age and a child

So, in Libertopia, kids can buy candy with lunch money but not drugs? And the kindly fellow at the taco stand can't sell drugs to whomever he pleases? Libertopian Big Brother is gonna be watching him?

[Vermont Lt]

Really?

Then why shouldn’t pregnant women drink alcohol?

Alcohol is way, way worse than pot in just about all categories.

Tobacco is worse is most categories.

[Berlin_Freeper]

I couldn't possibly disagree more. Your position is wholly unChristian, expects only the worst from people, is cowardly and down right evil.

Only a sick society in decline would cashier its future by measuring freedom of how many drugs people can get addicted to today. Democrats would love nothing more than to put the implicit stamp of approval of The United States of America on heroin, crack cocaine, PCP, LSD, etc, etc, etc and have an ever widening base of unmotivated dependents to give them a monopoly on political power.

The solution to any one problem in life is primarily information and better education. There was a long stretch of decades where the popular culture controlled by liberals heavily pushed the drug culture on young people as a lifestyle but we are coming out of it.

Now is the exact time to triple all our efforts against drugs and definitely not legalize them - which to me is the height of absurdity.

September 16 - Teen drug and alcohol use continues to fall, new federal data show

[Berlin_Freeper]

Pregnant women should not drink beer because a developing fetus (whose brain is not fully formed) should not drink beer.

The alcohol comparison is a load of crap, unless you want to argue a good way to fight a fire is by throwing gasoline it.

[nathanbedford]

As to your assertion that it is "Christian" to incarcerate people for using drugs I offer a reply which was written several years ago and which appears at the foot of this reply.

As to your assertion,

"Democrats would love nothing more than to put the implicit stamp of approval of The United States of America on heroin, crack cocaine, PCP, LSD, etc, etc, etc and have an ever widening base of unmotivated dependents to give them a monopoly on political power."

I simply say that it is not the Democrats who are putting an implicit stamp of approval on drugs, it is the people themselves, witness the recent vote in Colorado. It is time to acknowledge what no longer can be denied,. The war on drugs is lost!

Here is the reply to which I referred:

Gen. Forrest , I believe people who use drugs lack the patience or commitment to practice meditation ,or lack the faith or devotion to rely on God . Both meditation and God are far better approaches at elevating consciousness than the lazy persons hedonistic alternatives. And neither cost a material penny :^)

Leo, I believe you are right in every one of these assertions. Indeed, in my posts in this thread I have made reference to the propensity of drugs to "erase the conscience" which one might translate into the traditional Christian formulation of, "the fear of God."

You are absolutely right, the use, even more the abuse, of alcohol and drugs tends to separate one from God which, according to my lights, is the equivalent of "death" described in the New Testament. Since reconciliation with God is the ultimate Christian expression of life itself, the abuse of alcohol and drugs should be abjured in every instance. But is this decision to be made by Hillary Clinton or by our own conscience?

Since the Enlightenment, the Western world has been moving away from the temptation to legislate salvation. No clearer example of that in the American experience can be seen than in prohibition which was primarily religious in its impulse and eventually pragmatic and individualistic in its repeal.

[Gilbo_3]

might outta re-think yer tagline in light of your all *non*-knowing post...

individuals vary, and i know many people who *must* have their dope, just the same as a junkie needs his needles or a drunk needs his bottle...

addictions work in the mind AND body...dude...