🌎 Marijuana Use - Interesting Interview

[It Takes Eleven]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-you-arent-reading-about-marijuana-permanent-brain-damage-biden-schedule-iii-9660395e?st=8cv1z0j4gahho2b&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Interesting interview. Link should work, but pdf is also attached.

 

[24and7]

I have got a friend that PILL MILL doctors have totally ruined with with opioids and Xanax..He had a spinal fusion.. But he told me that if he could just get a script for cannabis, he could (and would) stop all of that other stuff (including street drugs)..So maybe we ought to consider making it more legal.. But we still need to slam drug dealers and traffickers..

 

[TerryP]

This is really good bait. I hope it was your intention to draw me out here.

I wonder why.

<Give me a second. Let me load a bowl.>

 

[It Takes Eleven]

This is really good bait. I hope it was your intention to draw me out here.

I wonder why.

<Give me a second. Let me load a bowl.>

Why? I dodge high and texting drivers every morning going into work. The texting ones suck, and the high ones stink. The article lays bare the myth of the innocent, no consequences high.

That being said, I'm against anything that steers things in a direction without proper foresight. During my travels this past week, I found myself in a conversation with a Biden administration policy guy, he's in charge of climate policy - mobile, in other words EV's. I asked him about the unjustified, six-fold multiplier that the Teslas of the world had benefitted from until it "came to light" and was removed just as GM and Ford had ramped up enough EV production to offset their truck production, so they could avoid paying ransom to other companies. He blanched, and responded with "how do you know about that, and who told you?". I told him "I read", and I questioned the timing. He said, the timing was intentional, which I already knew. He took me for a conservative, so asked, "climate change, true or false?". I said, true, it's always changing, but it's disingenuous to pursue climate issues cloaked in other areas. He asked for an example, so I gave him NY saying gas stoves caused asthma, a complete lie, but it gives them a chance to hurt natural gas. His response was precisely why we have checks and balances: "when we do something like that, we've already tried the normal (read: legal) routes. We are running out of time, and you'll just have to trust us."

After hearing him out, I concluded that I'd heard the best reason in some time for a revolution.

 

[TerryP]

I told him "I read",

Hilarious! Well done, sir.

 

[musso]

You know what really harms lives and destroys families? Getting arrested for the victimless crime of consuming a plant that the Earth naturally produces. The prohibition of alcohol and later other drugs, coupled with its twin brother the pharmaceutical industry, has been the most disastrous set of policies in the history of the modern world. It has never been motivated by public heath or public safety.

 

[TerryP]

You know what really harms lives and destroys families?

Stupidity.

This is a subject I really want to talk about. But, as I look up and contemplate, I see Canada.

 

[musso]

Stupidity

Nah. Malevolence far out-harms stupidity. Always has, always will. Ignorance, after all, is bliss.

 

[TerryP]

Nah. Malevolence far out-harms stupidity. Always has, always will. Ignorance, after all, is bliss.

Now we're getting into semantics. That's fair. In this case ...

Stupidity, in my dictionary, reads: "What the hell are you thinking?"

 

[ElephantStomp]

I find it absolutely stupid that marijuana is outlawed in any manner whatsoever

 

[It Takes Eleven]

I find it absolutely stupid that marijuana is outlawed in any manner whatsoever

You’re good with driving while impaired?

 

[TerryP]

You’re good with driving while impaired?

Impaired has different definitions. Literally, had this coversation this week.

Who do you trust? The guy that is stoned or drunk? IF we are in a life or death situation one struggles with the target: the other?

 

[It Takes Eleven]

Impaired has different definitions. Literally, had this coversation this week.

Who do you trust? The guy that is stoned or drunk? IF we are in a life or death situation one struggles with the target: the other?

Why would I want either one? Both, as drivers, are at a greater risk of hurting themselves or others. That is beyond debate.

 

[ElephantStomp]

You’re good with driving while impaired?

Alcohol is legal. More people die from alcohol DUI crashes than people that are stoned

 

[It Takes Eleven]

Alcohol is legal. More people die from alcohol DUI crashes than people that are stoned

As usual, you're not defending your absolute statement, nor answering the question. In the U.S., 100M a year die from fentanyl, and it's illegal in most jurisdictions. Auto deaths bottomed out around 35M a year, and have ballooned to 47M a year since the advent of texting and, lesser so, the relaxation of drug laws.

I never asked what was less or more, just that I think texting and/or high drivers shouldn't be on the road, just like drunks. It's not about what's worst. None of them should be on the road.

Pot smokers have a knee jerk defense for any discussion or findings of the negative aspects of smoking. The positive benefits are murky, and the damage is becoming more clear. They are the tobacco smokers, and the industries standing to benefit, of the fifties and sixties.

 

[musso]

As usual, you're not defending your absolute statement, nor answering the question. In the U.S., 100M a year die from fentanyl, and it's illegal in most jurisdictions. Auto deaths bottomed out around 35M a year, and have ballooned to 47M a year since the advent of texting and, lesser so, the relaxation of drug laws.

MeHh ToO mAnY wOrDs, ToO mUcH dAtA, tOo HaRd To ReAd, MaKe HeAd HuRt.

None of them should be on the road.

A short while ago I saw video clips of local news reporters in rural towns interviewing people about their reactions to new laws forbidding drinking alcohol and driving. An amazing cultural artifact that shows how far we've evolved and softened as a society. Some comments I remember hearing were something like, "Everyone enjoys a nice cold beer on the way home from a hard day's work..." and "This country's becoming socialist more and more..."I want to say the video clip was from the 70s or 80s.

Pot smokers have a knee jerk defense for any discussion or findings of the negative aspects of smoking.

For the record, I don't smoke anything at all ... but there are negative aspects to a wide array of legal drugs, foods, activities, etc. Anything can be misused and abused. So what?

The positive benefits are murky, and the damage is becoming more clear.

The popularity on its face demonstrates the benefits are not murky. Now as data continues to conclude about long term use, then the market will respond accordingly.

 

[ElephantStomp]

As usual, you're not defending your absolute statement, nor answering the question. In the U.S., 100M a year die from fentanyl, and it's illegal in most jurisdictions. Auto deaths bottomed out around 35M a year, and have ballooned to 47M a year since the advent of texting and, lesser so, the relaxation of drug laws.

I never asked what was less or more, just that I think texting and/or high drivers shouldn't be on the road, just like drunks. It's not about what's worst. None of them should be on the road.

Pot smokers have a knee jerk defense for any discussion or findings of the negative aspects of smoking. The positive benefits are murky, and the damage is becoming more clear. They are the tobacco smokers, and the industries standing to benefit, of the fifties and sixties.

So, not sure if you’re aware of this, but I don’t have to defend anything just because you say so right? But, to my point the defense is what I said is absolute facts, the three leading states in drunk driving is Montana, Wyoming, and Texas, how many of those relaxed their drug laws? The state that leads the country in DUI deaths per 100,000 is Wyoming, the state with most DUI arrests is South Dakota, did they lessen their drug laws? So, lets stick to facts instead of saying “weed is bad mmmkay” and all that.

Not sure why you said “pot smokers have a knee jerk reaction” to me because I’m not a pot smoker- it’s illegal here.

Again let’s stick to facts- the benefits aren’t murky according to science, THC is absolutely known to help with anxiety, nerve pain, joint pain from arthritis, migraines, etc. “The damage is becoming more clear”- smoking anything has always been bad, but again THC in edible form or lotion has great benefits that have been proven.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

The popularity on its face demonstrates the benefits are not murky.

Popularity doesn't equate to benefits. The short term highs of pot, alcohol and fentanyl make them all popular...

 

[24and7]

Check out Tommy Chong gummies.. Cruise chews

 

[musso]

Popularity doesn't equate to benefits. The short term highs of pot, alcohol and fentanyl make them all popular...

Popularity DOES equate to benefits. Cannabis is one of humanity's longest used mood altering substances. We wouldn't have artifacts of its use for thousands of years if it wasn't effective and beneficial. Now, perhaps we're talking about largely immediate and short-term benefits, albeit at the risk of possible negative long term effects. But long term harm depends on a long list of variables including frequency of use, dosage, quality/purity of product. But then everything that applies to cannabis applies also to pharmaceuticals and processed foods to an even greater degree! The harm and corruption of the pharmaceutical industry is well documented, just not well addressed due to how much money is made from it. Off the top of my head, I can say that the US is the only country in the world (or maybe one of only two, I forget) that will even allow pharma advertising to the general public! To criticize cannabis use is a total waste of energy and a misplacement of priorities in a society full of artificial and man-made substances that kill exponentially more people every year.