This American Generation Is A Disgrace To Their Forefathers

[andyt]

Is there any new study since 2010? A Complex Link Between Marijuana and Schizophrenia - TIME

"But here's the conundrum: while marijuana went from being a secret shared by a small community of hepcats and beatniks in the 1940s and '50s to a rite of passage for some 70% of youth by the turn of the century, rates of schizophrenia in the U.S. have remained flat, or possibly declined. For as long as it has been tracked, schizophrenia has been found to affect about 1% of the population.(See a photoessay on a father with mental illness.)

One explanation may be that the two factors are coincidental, not causal: perhaps people who have a genetic susceptibility to schizophrenia also happen to especially enjoy marijuana."

 

[cassius]

Those predisposed to schizophrenia may very well have a propensity for addiction as well.

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[-joe-]

Is there any new study since 2010? A Complex Link Between Marijuana and Schizophrenia - TIME

"But here's the conundrum: while marijuana went from being a secret shared by a small community of hepcats and beatniks in the 1940s and '50s to a rite of passage for some 70% of youth by the turn of the century, rates of schizophrenia in the U.S. have remained flat, or possibly declined. For as long as it has been tracked, schizophrenia has been found to affect about 1% of the population.(See a photoessay on a father with mental illness.)

One explanation may be that the two factors are coincidental, not causal: perhaps people who have a genetic susceptibility to schizophrenia also happen to especially enjoy marijuana."

Both the Holland advisory board on drugs and the UK advisory board on drugs have stated that there is no link between Cannabis and Schizophrenia. The general consensus is that people generally start smoking Cannabis about the same time Schizophrenia first begins showing, so obviously people see the correlation and blame it on weed.

 

[Moxie]

Meh, not all blacks were slaves though. Most people don't realize the first legally recognized slave owner was a black man named Anthony Johnson. It was in fact his case that set the legal precedent for slavery.

Not all Jews in Germany ended up in a concentration camp, but you probably wouldn't want to be one if you were teleporting back. Anthony Johnson died over 60 years before George Washington was born.

Most people don't realize that some German WWII soldiers were Jewish, including convicted war crimnial General Erhard Milch.

 

[hellblazer]

blah blah blah usual pseudo-elitist garbage

I just reply to your stupidity because I know other people will read it and consider it.

Yes, even though "nobody takes me seriously", you still feel the need to argue back. LOL.

Anyways, thanks for letting me know your posts are meant for third parties, I won't spend another second reading or replying to them.

Oh also, not sure if someone mentioned it, but many of your glorious forefathers grew weed.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume some of them also smoked it.

Do you understand the difference between hemp 200 years ago and the THC-stuffed weed today?

Wait a minute, aren't you a hard-core conservative Republican who believes in personal liberty and freedom, and absolutely hates the government intruding on your life, telling you what you can and can't do?

If so, why are you so worked up over a naturally growing plant? Go on a rampage about MSG, caffeine, pesticides, fertilizer, or something. It'd make about as much sense.

This thread focuses on weed because of the recent legalizations, but as stated before in the other drug thread, weed is far from the only drug that should be banned.

And I'm not a Republican.

 

[dreamache]

Do you understand the difference between hemp 200 years ago and the THC-stuffed weed today?

at what point do we draw an arbitrary line and distinguish how much THC concentration is legal vs. illegal?

wherever that line is drawn, imprisoning people is an ineffective deterrent and a poor solution.

Violent means used to reach peaceful ends will always achieve the opposite of the intended goals

 

[hellblazer]

imprisoning people is an ineffective deterrent and a poor solution...

Spoken like a true drone.

Violent means used to reach peaceful ends will always achieve the opposite of the intended goals

So true, that's why Hiroshima really achieved the opposite of its intended goal.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Not all Jews in Germany ended up in a concentration camp, but you probably wouldn't want to be one if you were teleporting back. Anthony Johnson died over 60 years before George Washington was born.

Most people don't realize that some German WWII soldiers were Jewish, including convicted war crimnial General Erhard Milch.

Fair enough. I just always thought it was ironic and something not many people were aware of.

 

[hellblazer]

You do realize it's merely namecalling, right? Simply packaged in a pseudo-elitist presentation?

Here, I'll help you out:

I doubt that you ever understood a thing I was talking about.

You post from fear because you're ignorant. You post stuff that is self-refuting.

You cannot construct logical arguments. i.e. (ILLOGICAL)

You never argue ethics that are universal.

Your understanding of history, political theory, economics etc is very, very poor. POOR UNDERSTANDING

You believe in mysticism, mythology and delusional abstractions (I doubt you even know what an abstraction is, you're so deep in them).

I'm not kidding when I say this, but you might be the worst poster on this forum, and you've got serious competition for that spot.

I've tried to get through to you, but your mind is wired to be fed bullshit by right wing media. You're uninterested, or incapable of participating in a discussion based on logic.

I dunno, I just reply to your stupidity because I know other people will read it and consider it. I have given up any hope of making a case to you.

I learned a long time ago you can't convert people who can't reason. Only people who can reason can process new information and reach new conclusions.

It's the same typical "hurr durr right winger" slurs, simply packaged in pseudo-intellectual wrapping.

But if you do a lot of drugs, it works on your damaged brain and you think it's brilliant(see:you).

Probably want to pick your dignity up off the floor, man. Nobody likes to see a sycophant.

 

[quintana]

I don't think plants should be illegal, but TJ never said those words.

You're right, but Thomas Jefferson did say this:

"I smoke weed everyday of my life. I don't give a fuck." - TJ

 

[Casiveo]

As a slave owner, I can't condone the smoking of marijuana. It's immoral.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

 

[cpamurder]

Spoken like a true drone.



So true, that's why Hiroshima really achieved the opposite of its intended goal.

Oh you are pretty much on full retard now.

I resort to name calling when I don't give a shit about the person I am talking to.

 

[sheep123]

IT was sarcasm....

Lol I know I was just going along :costumed-smiley-015

 

[dreamache]

Who gives a fuck? Break the law, go to jail. Laws exist for a reason.

Had to quote this from a previous thread, as I happened to stroll past this image..

 

[samgeneric]

Hellblazer, you ok dude? I think you might be having a stroke.

Why don't you just answer the question about why the government should have any authority regarding what you put in your own body? Oh, also, I see your TIME magazine post, and I raise you mine. Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report - TIME

This is an article that discusses what happened in Portugal when they legalized all drugs. It's been like 12 years now, so we have a pretty good idea of what happens when you decriminalize drugs in a civil society.

in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well

Your turn. If we're going to pretend like data has any merit (a reality which you've thus far ignored), and you can accept Portugal's statistics as valid, then can you answer this: why do you support a system that causes higher rates of addiction, more drug use of a drug you don't support, more addictions to hard drugs like heroine, less people getting treatment for their heinous addictions, and increases the rate of HIV transmission? Seems like decriminalization gets you what you want and the rest of us what we want.

Leaning toward freedom always has better outcomes.

 

[popeye]

Is Obama still President?

Fuck! back to sleep then.................

 

[REIMktg]

Why don't you just answer the question about why the government should have any authority regarding what you put in your own body?

Let's say in the US and assume you accept your Government for what it is. Then it is reasonable that your Government would have the authority over your body.

1. Your Government picks up the tab for your medical bills if what you put into your body has a tendency to create health problems. (hence why the US will see even more laws as Health Care is nationalized, the Govt is taking care of everyone and therefore has more power than ever over what you do with your body - at least before you could claim, if not indigent, that you are paying your own way)
2. Your Government may have to pay for all services related to your untimely death. Given that many people have no Estate or others willing to pay.
3. Some things people put into their bodies affect others. Consider recent reports of those using what the news calls "bath salts". This creates an expense on others, on Government, and impacts public safety.
4. The masses are not responsible nor can be trusted to manage themselves and Marketers will sell you anything for a buck, without regard to its impact on society as a whole. I see your stats on Portugal and it would be interesting to examine the underlying family/culture/religion/morals before extrapolating results in application to the US.
5. From a non-impact perspective - Your Government has been charged with being Mother to its citizens. So they have been given the authority by the people to decide what is good for them and what is not.

tl;dr - What you put in your body has an impact on others in one way or another and given that in the US at least, the Govt is expected to pick up the tab for everything, the Govt then has authority over what you put into your body.

 

[dreamache]

Let's say in the US and assume you accept your Government for what it is. Then it is reasonable that your Government would have the authority over your body.

Let's say I live in the US and assume I don't accept government for what it is. It is reasonable to say that government then does not have authority over my body?

4. The masses are not responsible nor can be trusted to manage themselves

Masses don't exist, just individuals. I consider myself rather responsible and I can be trusted to manage myself. If there are other individuals who are irresponsible, the consequences are theirs, not anyone else.

tl;dr - What you put in your body has an impact on others in one way or another and given that in the US at least, the Govt is expected to pick up the tab for everything, the Govt then has authority over what you put into your body.

I understand you're trying to point out the reasoning behind why the "government" has authority, but of course it's all complete bullshit and immoral. I've never consented to any of it, and simply having been born here is not consent.

 

[mikeshinobi]

Anyone with the capacity to have an argument with themselves knows that marijuana shouldn't be illegal, so I don't know why you're wasting your time arguing with hellblazer. Any argument for the continuation of prohibition can be easily refuted; I just don't see the point in actually refuting them for an internet troll.

Smoking weed while pregnant harms the baby. I THOUGHT YOU SAID IT WAS A VICTIMLESS CRIME XD

Anyone who can't see fallacy in their own arguments isn't worth arguing with (see: every troll ever).