• Changing US attitudes to legalising marijuana
    257 replies, posted
[QUOTE=innerfire34;40868137]you have posted links to about.com and a drug rehabilitation website. my case wouldn't get any stronger from posting links to 420chan and dispensaries, so stop taking yourself so seriously for knowing how to copy and paste.[/QUOTE] Nothing I posted would have been okay with you as long as it disagreed with you. [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=innerfire34;40868137] then it will blow your mind even more to find out that some times 'old people' were once 'young people' and that somewhere inbetween there was a transformation[/QUOTE] Yes, it blows my mind, I'm an idiot, you're right. Of course they were once "young people", but this isn't referring to age very much at all, it's more referring to their demographic in terms of political stances and shit.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40868147]Nothing I posted would have been okay with you as long as it disagreed with you. [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] Yes, it blows my mind, I'm an idiot, you're right. Of course they were once "young people", but this isn't referring to age very much at all, it's more referring to their demographic in terms of political stances and shit.[/QUOTE] i live in a red state. if old people don't have to be technically old but just racist and xenophobic than there are a lot more old people than you think. [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40868147]Nothing I posted would have been okay with you as long as it disagreed with you. [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] Yes, it blows my mind, I'm an idiot, you're right. Of course they were once "young people", but this isn't referring to age very much at all, it's more referring to their demographic in terms of political stances and shit.[/QUOTE] and nothing i could possibly say in retort would be anything less but the fullest extent of ignorance, since no http link has ever told a lie.
[QUOTE=innerfire34;40868169]i live in a red state. if old people don't have to be technically old but just racist and xenophobic than there are a lot more old people than you think.[/QUOTE] This is a very intuitive concept that should be rather clear in your mind, it is difficult to explain, and usually no one ever has to.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40868147]Nothing I posted would have been okay with you as long as it disagreed with you. [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] Yes, it blows my mind, I'm an idiot, you're right. Of course they were once "young people", but this isn't referring to age very much at all, it's more referring to their demographic in terms of political stances and shit.[/QUOTE] If it was a relatively recent study from an unbiased source which held up against scrutiny then there isn't much anyone can say against it. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to exist for either side of the argument.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40868195]This is a very intuitive concept that should be rather clear in your mind, it is difficult to explain, and usually no one ever has to.[/QUOTE] and you don't seem to understand that people have been saying 'THINGS WILL GET BETTER ONCE ALL THE OLD PEOPLE DIE' for a hundred fucking years and guess what? we still have old people. shit, what do you think the hippies expected of the future? a hundred years in america, probably since the beginning of civilization though.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;40868196]If it was a relatively recent study from an unbiased source which held up against scrutiny then there isn't much anyone can say against it. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to exist for either side of the argument.[/QUOTE] There are dozens of studies that confirm my contentions, problem is that you guys will find any reason to justify why it's wrong, so there's really no point in even bothering with facts because it just gives you guys more things to complain about, even though it should be giving you things to think about instead.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40868218]There are dozens of studies that confirm my contentions, problem is that you guys will find any reason to justify why it's wrong, so there's really no point in even bothering with facts because it just gives you guys more things to complain about, even though it should be giving you things to think about instead.[/QUOTE] once again http links tell no lies and you have done us the great honor of serving them to us WHY WON'T WE JUST THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE GOOD YOU HAVE WROUGHT?
[QUOTE=innerfire34;40868224]once again http links tell no lies and you have done us the great honor of serving them to us WHY WON'T WE JUST THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE GOOD YOU HAVE WROUGHT?[/QUOTE] Okay, if my http links are all wrong, then why can't you post any that prove me wrong? If you guys care so much about SUPER SERIOUS STATISTICAL ANALYSES THAT ONLY AGREE WITH ME then why don't you give me one? [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] Oh right, you can't, because there won't be any studies that find that weed increases or does nothing to school/income performance.
not to dive back into this discussion here but is it just possible that since marijuana relieves personal stress, it allows lazy people to be lazy without the motivator of anxiety and stress? i mean, if a person is perfectly happy in a lower block of personal achievement, i don't see what the problem is. the study suggesting that heavy marijuana use is correlated with unhappiness may just be a side-effect of having to make sure that they aren't arrested for drug use, or having been arrested for drug use before, or simply not having been able to get a job because of piss-tests, instead of an impaired work ability. legalization might cause these statistics to drop.
The only thing stopping Minnesota from legalizing marijuana is law enforcement. The governor refuses to sign a bill without the support of law enforcement.
[QUOTE=joes33431;40868241]not to dive back into this discussion here but is it just possible that since marijuana relieves personal stress, it allows lazy people to be lazy without the motivator of anxiety and stress? i mean, if a person is perfectly happy in a lower block of personal achievement, i don't see what the problem is. the study suggesting that heavy marijuana use is correlated with unhappiness may just be a side-effect of having to make sure that they aren't arrested for drug use, or having been arrested for drug use before, or simply not having been able to get a job because of piss-tests and not because of an impaired work ability. legalization might cause these statistics to drop.[/QUOTE] Yeah but regardless of the reasons, whether they show that weed smokers will be happy, it still lessens the amount of successful people, which, in the grand scheme of things, is a negative thing.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40868232]Okay, if my http links are all wrong, then why can't you post any that prove me wrong? If you guys care so much about SUPER SERIOUS STATISTICAL ANALYSES THAT ONLY AGREE WITH ME then why don't you give me one? [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] Oh right, you can't, because there won't be any studies that find that weed increases or does nothing to school/income performance.[/QUOTE] took me 5 seconds from wikipedia [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23319626[/url] [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] [url]http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/149/9/794.full.pdf[/url] [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] [url]http://health.ucsd.edu/news/2003/06_27_grant.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40868260]Yeah but regardless of the reasons, whether they show that weed smokers will be happy, it still lessens the amount of successful people, which, in the grand scheme of things, is a negative thing.[/QUOTE] well it honestly depends, the issue might be a lot more complex than weed = low success. obviously you're not going to do too well at school if you missed six months of it in juvenile hall.
[QUOTE=innerfire34;40868264]took me 5 seconds from wikipedia [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23319626[/url] [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] [url]http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/149/9/794.full.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] First source doesn't have a conclusion because it's just an abstract. It seems to be saying "weed smoking correlates with socioeconomic factors", of course it does, weed is typically smoked by less well off people, and their usage of drugs increases the issues they face when it comes to not being unsuccessful. The second one even confirms and agrees that weed can impact educational attainment negatively. What?
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1524733/[/url]
[QUOTE=joes33431;40868289]well it honestly depends, the issue might be a lot more complex than weed = low success. obviously you're not going to do too well at school if you missed six months of it in juvenile hall.[/QUOTE] But kids getting arrested for weed is probably extremely rare, I honestly doubt they ever get jail time. Regardless it'd still be illegal for kids under 21, so it'd still have that effect even if it were legalized. UNLESS for some reason usage rates for children go down when it's legalized, but I don't see why that would happen considering our culture here in America. [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=innerfire34;40868306][url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1524733/[/url][/QUOTE] Not really sure the relevance of brain structure, explain to me how you know that brain structure means anything?
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40868293]First source doesn't have a conclusion because it's just an abstract. It seems to be saying "weed smoking correlates with socioeconomic factors", of course it does, weed is typically smoked by less well off people, and their usage of drugs increases the issues they face when it comes to not being unsuccessful. The second one even confirms and agrees that weed can impact educational attainment negatively. What?[/QUOTE] lol you can't read [quote]Table 3 displays estimated mean changes in MMSE score according to level of cannabis use for men and women separately. Women who were nonusers of cannabis had scores that declined more than those of men who were nonusers. However, within male/female groups, there were no evident differences in score decline by cannabis use for either men or women[/quote]
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40868308]But kids getting arrested for weed is probably extremely rare, I honestly doubt they ever get jail time. Regardless it'd still be illegal for kids under 21, so it'd still have that effect even if it were legalized. UNLESS for some reason usage rates for children go down when it's legalized, but I don't see why that would happen considering our culture here in America. [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] Not really sure the relevance of brain structure, explain to me how you know that brain structure means anything?[/QUOTE] Kids get arrested for weed all the time. They don't get jail-time, they get probation and usually community service. Also what is even being debated in this thread.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40868308]But kids getting arrested for weed is probably extremely rare, I honestly doubt they ever get jail time. Regardless it'd still be illegal for kids under 21, so it'd still have that effect even if it were legalized. UNLESS for some reason usage rates for children go down when it's legalized, but I don't see why that would happen considering our culture here in America. [editline]1st June 2013[/editline] Not really sure the relevance of brain structure, explain to me how you know that brain structure means anything?[/QUOTE] my hippocampus is fucked from pot use and i can barely feel emotions
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40868328]Kids get arrested for weed all the time. They don't get jail-time, they get probation and usually community service. Also what is even being debated in this thread.[/QUOTE] lambdadvanced's infinite wisdom
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40868293]First source doesn't have a conclusion because it's just an abstract. It seems to be saying "weed smoking correlates with socioeconomic factors", of course it does, weed is typically smoked by less well off people, and their usage of drugs increases the issues they face when it comes to not being unsuccessful. The second one even confirms and agrees that weed can impact educational attainment negatively. What?[/QUOTE] the first source is saying that the results of a previous study (which supposedly linked IQ degeneration to use of marijuana) were overestimated, and that the true effects might be none at all. [QUOTE]The association is given a causal interpretation by the authors, but existing research suggests an alternative confounding model based on time-varying effects of socioeconomic status on IQ. A simulation of the confounding model reproduces the reported associations from the Dunedin cohort, suggesting that the causal effects estimated in Meier et al. [B]are likely to be overestimates[/B], and that [B]the true effect could be zero[/B]. Further analyses of the Dunedin cohort are proposed to distinguish between the competing interpretations. Although it would be too strong to say that the results have been discredited, [B]the methodology is flawed and the causal inference drawn from the results premature[/B].[/QUOTE]
all of these sources came from wikipedia does wikipedia link to about.com very often? from wikipedia, in the 'long term effects of cannabis use' page do i think posting random fucking studies that i had no part in makes my argument any more valid? no. because it doesn't matter. it never mattered that you were wrong and that i could pull fucking links out of my ass in ten seconds disclaiming everything you've been ranting on about for six pages, because you as a rational human being should have been able to look at more than one side of the argument.
[QUOTE=innerfire34;40868319]lol you can't read[/QUOTE] MMSE's measure cognitive ability, I don't think that correlates too well with educational attainment. "lol you can't read" [quote=Your Second Source]We found that cognitive decline occurred in all age groups. Age, education, and minority status were all significantly associated wiui greater cognitive decline.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40868308]But kids getting arrested for weed is probably extremely rare, I honestly doubt they ever get jail time. Regardless it'd still be illegal for kids under 21, so it'd still have that effect even if it were legalized. UNLESS for some reason usage rates for children go down when it's legalized, but I don't see why that would happen considering our culture here in America.[/QUOTE] the next thing that comes into question is whether or not people who aren't successful are simply drawn to marijuana. the relationship between the two things might be flipped.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40868328]Kids get arrested for weed all the time. They don't get jail-time, they get probation and usually community service. Also what is even being debated in this thread.[/QUOTE] Underlying argument I guess is that people should admit weed has a negative influence on lives, I've never argued against legalization, just that we should be conscientious of its bad effects.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40868359]MMSE's measure cognitive ability, I don't think that correlates too well with educational attainment. "lol you can't read"[/QUOTE] lol omg they were talking about natural cognitive decline you tard [quote]We conclude that cognitive decline occurs across all age groups, with a significant proportion of persons of all ages showing declines near clinically significant levels after 12 years.[B] Such decline is not associated with cannabis use in either men or women.[/B] A better understanding of predictors of cognitive decline in persons under age 65 years might lead to interventions designed to slow or arrest such decline. This in turn might reduce the incidence of dementia at older ages.[/quote] let me take the good part out of the quote box so you don't miss it [B] Such decline is not associated with cannabis use in either men or women.[/B]
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;40868081]After reading the first page, it becomes clear to me that many people believe Conservatives are mostly old and Christian. Sadly, having lived in a mostly Republican state (Indiana) I can say that is actually not the case. Though that is their primary demographic (and indeed the Church is where they get a huge majority of their support) there is a very frightening amount of young people who are Conservative. I suppose "frightening" is not necessarily the right word here, because it is mostly opinion and I don't think the Conservatives would do a much worse job of handling the government than the Liberals will. My point is that we shouldn't have into these misconceptions of how many young people buy into Conservative ideals. Most of them learn from their parents, just as most Liberals (like me) learned from their parents. I think the demographic will shift very little once the old people die.[/QUOTE] I fully understand what you're saying and for the most part I agree with you but I have quickly put together a diagram using the statistics in the source to outline my point. [t]http://i.imgur.com/RsLDin2.png[/t] At the moment, regardless of political affiliation, people aged 65+ are most likely to oppose cannabis legalisation. In 20-30 years when most of them are dead the people who are currently in the 50-64 bracket will replace them. If the trend continues as it is, the next batch of youths will also be more accepting of legalisation and the total level of acceptance will increase. Of course, This is assuming no one changes their minds and it isn't legalised within the next 30 years. You are right that there are still going to be young conservatives but if the trend continues, some of them will be conservatives that are more accepting of today's liberal ideas.
[QUOTE=innerfire34;40868378]lol omg they were talking about natural cognitive decline you tard let me take the good part out of the quote box so you don't miss it [B] Such decline is not associated with cannabis use in either men or women.[/B][/QUOTE] Okay sorry, I made a mistake. I don't really want to argue anymore. You're blatantly flaming me without much constructive anything going on here besides attempting to antagonize me further.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40868414]Okay sorry, I made a mistake. I don't really want to argue anymore. You're blatantly flaming me without much constructive anything going on here besides attempting to antagonize me further.[/QUOTE] that's funny, i finally do as you ask and give you some concrete studies to dispute yours with and you get all tuckered out
[QUOTE=innerfire34;40868423]i was never antagonizing you, you were just wrong[/QUOTE] You've been constantly attempting to outline my worthlessness and futility in arguing, and you just called me a tard
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.