U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2013, 10:24 PM
 
1,059 posts, read 1,635,035 times
Reputation: 1928

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
So what you are saying is that you choose not to believe the studies because you believe the studies are biased, yet you are willing to look past the biases of the pro-marijuana studies. Hmmm...
Only 6% of all studies performed are pro marijuana studies as cited by Dr Sanjay Gupta today so your statement regarding the biases of pro marijuana studies rings hollow. The huge volume of anti marijuana studies are driven by the political agenda known as US Drug Policy, which spreads it's tentacles around the globe. The 1999 IOM report I cited was commissioned by the ONDCP and when released, was "cherry picked" to only present & publicize damaging information because the results & recommendations were not what the ONDCP wanted. They buried the report & only cited the negative information that coincides with current drug policy. Why anyone should trust a study that is only initiated to produce a predetermined outcome is beyond me.

Quote:
For the record, the New Zealand study was conducted by post-doctoral researchers from Duke University -- one of the top 20 universities in the world.

The dissenter, a member of the Ragnar Frisch Center for Economic Research at the University of Oslo (a prestigious university in its own right ranked 111), conducted a computer simulation that has since been refuted by the authors.
The methodology of the study and it's conclusions were challenged because the original study's authors did not correct for the known effects of home & economic situation which has been proven to affect IQ. Correlation is not causation. The studies authors completely ignored that side of the equation. That's nothing but sloppy science, but is expected from a government who commissions studies to only prove harm. The New Zealand study only provides correlation, not causation. The media & the anti's have run with it as if it is proven causation, and it is not.

Quote:
As for addiction, only about 9% of people who use marijuana become addicted to marijuana. This rate is pretty low. HOWEVER, for people who start using before age 17, that number jumps to 17% -- nearly double the overall rate. (Hall, W. The adverse health effects of cannabis use: What are they, and what are their implications for policy? Int J of Drug Policy 20:458466, 2009)
Once again, as shown by the study title, a predetermined outcome.
Quote:
And finally, a 2003 study of over 300 fraternal and identical twin pairs found that the twin who had used marijuana before the age of 17 had elevated rates of other drug use and drug problems later on, compared with their twin who did not use before age 17. (Lynskey, M.T.; Heath, A.C.; Bucholz, K.K.; Slutske, W.S.; Madden, P.A.; Nelson, E.C.; Statham, D.J.; and Martin, N.G. Escalation of drug use in early-onset cannabis users vs. co-twin controls. JAMA 289(4):427433, 2003.)
Another predetermined outcome. Surprise!!!

Quote:
My sources are sound. Maybe you expand your mind a bit to consider other viewpoints.
I look at all viewpoints but I also question everything. Government sponsored studies seeking predetermined outcomes to support policy are not trustworthy unless you blindly trust your government. The government has a huge financial interest in maintaining prohibition and will do or say anything to prolong & expand it. Just follow the money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-08-2013, 10:24 PM
 
Location: The 719
14,498 posts, read 22,345,330 times
Reputation: 13809
Quote:
Originally Posted by DurangoJoe View Post
Citation please?
Citation of what? The fact that something like 10% of the population is alcoholic or potential and another 10% are potential hard drinkers and the rest are not?

Or citation of the fact that you folks try to paint the picture that booze is so dangerous for everybody?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DurangoJoe View Post
The classic gateway theory which has been disproven time & time again. Those who move on to use harder drugs were already predisposed to move on to those drugs and most likely started with tobacco or alcohol.
Oh, lookie there. You touched on it right there.

Still not sure what you're wanting cited.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2013, 10:34 PM
 
1,059 posts, read 1,635,035 times
Reputation: 1928
Quote:
Originally Posted by McGowdog View Post
Citation of what? The fact that something like 10% of the population is alcoholic and another 10% are potential hard drinkers and the rest are not?

Or citation of the fact that you folks try to paint the picture that booze is so dangerous for everybody?
Citation to prove your assertion that alcohol is less dangerous than marijuana. You stated below it's a lie that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGowdog View Post
Pro-legalization MJ folks try to paint alcohol as a more dangerous substance/food. This is a lie.
Here's mine: Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year - Health - Addictions | NBC News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2013, 10:53 PM
 
Location: The 719
14,498 posts, read 22,345,330 times
Reputation: 13809
75k? That's only 0.024% of the population. The 3rd leading cause of death to be for sure, but heck, it could be worse. Smoking and fast food lead the pack.

Oh but wait, doesn't weed lead to Taco Bell? There ya go. Collateral damage.

Sure there's a few bad drinkers who goof things up for everybody, but the really bad drinker is few and far between. Most folks that drink too much outgrow their binge drinking. But most folks don't like to get drunk and don't abuse the stuff. But they don't make the news much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 04:38 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
3,111 posts, read 4,883,135 times
Reputation: 5429
Quote:
Originally Posted by DurangoJoe View Post
The methodology of the study and it's conclusions were challenged because the original study's authors did not correct for the known effects of home & economic situation which has been proven to affect IQ. Correlation is not causation. The studies authors completely ignored that side of the equation. That's nothing but sloppy science, but is expected from a government who commissions studies to only prove harm. The New Zealand study only provides correlation, not causation. The media & the anti's have run with it as if it is proven causation, and it is not.


Once again, as shown by the study title, a predetermined outcome.


Another predetermined outcome. Surprise!!!


I look at all viewpoints but I also question everything. Government sponsored studies seeking predetermined outcomes to support policy are not trustworthy unless you blindly trust your government. The government has a huge financial interest in maintaining prohibition and will do or say anything to prolong & expand it. Just follow the money.
You seem to think that because a study is titled a certain way that the researchers have a predetermined outcome. The reality is that the research is conducted FIRST, the data is disseminated SECOND, the report is written THIRD, and finally the title is created to reflect the findings.

Researchers, like reporters, don't write the headlines and titles and then write the narrative to match. They write the titles last to give the reader an idea of what is to come.

And while we are asking for documentation, how about some sort of reputable source that shows the vast government conspiracy against marijuana? Surely you and others have some sort of verifiable proof that government has a "huge financial interest in maintaining prohibition" that is more than just speculation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 04:46 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
3,111 posts, read 4,883,135 times
Reputation: 5429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado xxxxx View Post
Well it's obvious that half agree and half don't so I will bow out and say agree to disagree cuz we ain't going anywhere.
Unfortunately that is the case.

While I am not a fan of recreational use of marijuana (especially for children), I am open minded enough to know that there is a medical use for marijuana and that the effects of marijuana on adults is not severe.

Pro-marijuana thinkers, however, don't seem to want to acknowledge that marijuana can be and is dangerous for pre-adults. Whatever evidence is offered is met with conspiracy theory and dismissive statements because it doesn't fit with their notion of the perfection of marijuana.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 10:22 AM
 
1,059 posts, read 1,635,035 times
Reputation: 1928
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
And while we are asking for documentation, how about some sort of reputable source that shows the vast government conspiracy against marijuana? Surely you and others have some sort of verifiable proof that government has a "huge financial interest in maintaining prohibition" that is more than just speculation.
This is well know by anyone versed in drug policy and is the reason there are organizations like NORML & Stopthedrugwar.org. The DEA guards a vast complex of pharmaceutical, alcohol, tobacco, and law enforcement interests. Private prison unions and their lobbyists who push for tougher penalties to keep their prisons full or at occupancy levels required by their contract with the government. Imprisonment for profit, one of the most disgusting things ever. Law Enforcement receives huge grants & incentives for more arrests & seizures every year. The the drug war is a huge business consuming $40-$80B per year.

By the way, the DEA controls all access to marijuana for research purposes and will only approve studies with intent to prove harm since that supports the overall drug war complex.

see: In the Matter of Lyle Craker - DEA Denial of Application | American Civil Liberties Union

see: DEA faces federal lawsuit for blocking marijuana research | The Raw Story

Anybody who knows anything about how US drug policy is implemented knows and understands how corrupt this entire bureaucracy is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 10:29 AM
 
1,059 posts, read 1,635,035 times
Reputation: 1928
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
You seem to think that because a study is titled a certain way that the researchers have a predetermined outcome. The reality is that the research is conducted FIRST, the data is disseminated SECOND, the report is written THIRD, and finally the title is created to reflect the findings.
The DEA will not approve the study unless it meets their requirements to prove harm & support current drug policy. It must therefore be proposed as a study to prove harm before the DEA will allow the study to be done & for the NIDA to supply the marijuana for the study. It is a requirement that all marijuana used in studies be supplied by them. The title reflects the initial intent of the study & surprise, it meets the objective when the title is finally written.

This has nothing to do with science, this is politics, nothing less.

Last edited by DurangoJoe; 08-09-2013 at 10:31 AM.. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,764 posts, read 16,838,766 times
Reputation: 9316
6-year-old Colorado girl in national spotlight over medical marijuana
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2013, 12:57 PM
 
1,059 posts, read 1,635,035 times
Reputation: 1928
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
Unfortunately that is the case.

While I am not a fan of recreational use of marijuana (especially for children), I am open minded enough to know that there is a medical use for marijuana and that the effects of marijuana on adults is not severe.

Pro-marijuana thinkers, however, don't seem to want to acknowledge that marijuana can be and is dangerous for pre-adults. Whatever evidence is offered is met with conspiracy theory and dismissive statements because it doesn't fit with their notion of the perfection of marijuana.
LOL, so you doubt that the drug war bureaucracy even exists! You sir, are the one who needs to look at other views. These are currently existing organizations, lobbyists, and unions. It's all there. All you need to do is follow the money. You completely ignore the drug policy side of the issue which is the cause of the greatest harms from marijuana, the drug war & it's corrupt bureaucracy. You obviously place a great deal of blind trust in your government, surely a level of trust that our government neither earned nor deserves.

http://www.republicreport.org/2012/m...lobby-illegal/

Pro marijuana thinkers believe that no substance is completely harmless, even MJ. We don't believe that marijuana is perfect in any way. But we do believe in reality, and the reality is that it is far more benign most legal drugs, even most OTC drugs. On the relative scale of harms for users, it is even more benign than Tylenol which kills at least 500 people every year.

How many people overdose on acetaminophen each year?

While I would agree with & understand your aims to keep marijuana away from youth, you should also understand the fact that the government has made a huge business out of prosecuting the drug war in the US and this not a conspiracy theory. It exists, and it's been documented time & time again. Just follow the money.

Last edited by DurangoJoe; 08-09-2013 at 01:19 PM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:36 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top