Alaska is the first red state to legalize recreational Marijuana

[BullKurtz]

The Marine Corp and Air Force, where he has said he served with honor, would NOT be terribly proud of his bragging about being a criminal but I wonder if he's telling the truth.

Duddly now hysterical trying to keep up with the other toads obsessed with me. Problem this time is I scored well on a USAF aptitude test and clearly stated I went Army instead. As to being a "criminal" we were a little wild after Vietnam but nobody got hurt and a lot of cannabis was liberated and redistributed....I'd think these toads would all about that.....guess not.

 

[BullKurtz]

A distinction without a difference. You are a self confessed criminal who should have been prosecuted, sentenced and served hard time behind bars where you belong.

See, here's what an obese queer with a scorching dose of herpes like yourself will never understand. Robbery is up front and personal not devious and sneaky. Having no honor, the difference escapes you. And our "victims" couldn't call the cops so there was little danger involved. Now, how about you either produce that imaginary MOS you claimed you have, or hang yourself....one or the other.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A distinction without a difference. You are a self confessed criminal who should have been prosecuted, sentenced and served hard time behind bars where you belong.

See, here's what an obese queer with a scorching dose of herpes like yourself will never understand. Robbery is up front and personal not devious and sneaky. Having no honor, the difference escapes you. And our "victims" couldn't call the cops so there was little danger involved. Now, how about you either produce that imaginary MOS you claimed you have, or hang yourself....one or the other.

Your own posts expose you as a criminal and a congenital liar.

Nothing you post is credible.

You have now officially become a laughing stock in this forum by your own addled posts and you can't even blame the drugs that you stole either.

But the worst thing about you is that you stole the valor of the US marine corps.

That is unforgivable and hopefully one day you will be stupid enough to brag about doing that in a bar where some real marines will teach you a lesson that you will never forget.

 

[BullKurtz]

Your own posts expose you as a criminal and a congenital liar.

Still waiting on your MOS ya lying pile of pig guts....almost a week now....

 

[Steinlight]

This is true, those who use marijuana are definitely more prone to criminal behavior than those who just drink.

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF MARIJUANA USE FROM ADOLESCENCE TO ADULTHOOD PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL ROLE OUTCOMES

Seriously?

Are you really this gullible?

What does the very first sentence say?

"Longitudinal trajectories of marijuana use from adolescence into adulthood were examined for adverse life-course outcomes among African-Americans and Puerto Ricans. "

Who is the study targeting?

Underprivileged minorities, right?

And who are more likely to end up committing crimes?

Underprivileged minorities, right?

But you are gullible enough to believe that growing up as an underprivileged minorities in a crime ridden neighborhood is not the primary cause of becoming a criminal but smoking pot is the cause?



Thanks for destroying your own credibility with your "post smoking" behavior.

Have a nice day.

I agree non-whites are more prone to criminal behavior, 100%, and the stats bear that out. I am glad you agree about disproportionate levels of non-white crime, many on the left don't recognize this.

However, this study shows those Blacks and Puerto Ricans who didn't use marijuana are less prone to criminal behavior as adults than those who used . So my claim i validated, those who use marijuana are more prone to criminal behavior than those who don't.

I don't agree with your racism and your racist study either.

Middle class minorities who don't live in crime ridden areas are less likely to become criminals but racists like you make the fallacious assumption that it has to do with race and not location. Here is a newsflash for you. Underprivileged whites who live in crime ridden areas smoke pot and become criminals at higher rates than whites in middle class areas.

Thanks for admitting to being a gullible racist.

I like how you rant about how, "OMG you racist, whites commit crime as well" for a paragraph only at the end of it to say those who smoke pot are more prone to criminal behavior than those who don't. Thanks for the lulz

 

[Steinlight]

What evidence do you have it is fabricated?

Just look at the statistics of actual users versus the fabricated claims of "harm". If those fabrications were "accurate" there would be millions of people with those symptoms overwhelming the medical system. But they don't exist. The fabrications fail the reality test.

However there is no question that those who fabricate these studies are addicted to their funding. Without that they would be looking for a real job.

There is actual evidence of reduced cognitive function and altered brain composition/chemistry. You just don't accept it. And no, those things don't necessitate the medical system being overwhelmed.

Except that those only occur in underage children. There is no evidence in adults of that fabrication which is why it doesn't overwhelm the medical system.

Not true. The study I cited was 18-25 year olds. Not children.
Even Casual Marijuana Smokers at Risk for Structural Brain Changes
Cannabis Use Is Quantitatively Associated with Nucleus Accumbens and Amygdala Abnormalities in Young Adult Recreational Users

Here is the disclaimer on your first link;

Healthline is for informational purposes and should not be considered medical advice, diagnosis or treatment recommendations. ​

The second study contradicts itself and your contention;

I read with great interest this article correlating neuroanatomical changes in casual cannabis users versus non-users. However, the authors repeatedly and explicitly state a causative relationship between the cannabis use and the anatomic changes throughout the article, only to state in the second-to-last paragraph that no causative relationship can be concluded due to the cross-sectional design of this study​

Once again you have come up snake eyes with your "studies" since they don't substantiate what you are claiming.

Obviously you only read the headlines and not the substance. Is that because you don't understand the subject matter or lack the comprehension abilities to grasp the content?

Either way the end result is the same. There is nothing about marijuana that is significantly different to any other substance that is legal. Plenty of studies have debunked the fake "science" put out by the big tobacco corporations and proven that it does cause cancer and other diseases. Alcohol causes diseases too.

Being a racist hypocrite you have no basis for opposing cannabis except for your racism and hypocrisy.

Have a nice day.

The first link didn't conduct the study, they are reporting on it.

Your correlation does not equal causation argument is shallow at best, considering there is a large body of work establishing how marijuana use results in brain abnormalities. Even critics of that particular study admit there are only two conclusions. Either their abnormal brain composition caused the subjects to be more likely to smoke marijuana or just moderately smoking marijuana created the brain abnormalities. Which makes more sense to you? Especially given that is has been established that chronic use of marijuana alters brain chemistry, and moderate doses for animals does as well. Sorry, the critics position here is naive at best and blatantly dishonest at worse.

Here is another study to that effect
Chronic marijuana smoking affects brain chemistry molecular imaging shows -- ScienceDaily

Maybe you are emotionally charged about this because you never grew up out of your extended adolescence and because of pot spend your days on the internet making inane liberal shitposts?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Onus is on you to prove that your "studies" jibe with reality.

They don't and you can't provide any proof that they do.

We didn't "steal" money you cum-drunk dingo....we ROBBED the hippie-dippies.

You should know about stealing when you tried to steal our Valor by lying about serving in US Armed Forces. Hard to believe you can go outside your hovel without somebody beating the crap out of you.

Reported.

reported?......did you tell the Principal?....

 

[Derideo_Te]

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF MARIJUANA USE FROM ADOLESCENCE TO ADULTHOOD PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL ROLE OUTCOMES

Seriously?

Are you really this gullible?

What does the very first sentence say?

"Longitudinal trajectories of marijuana use from adolescence into adulthood were examined for adverse life-course outcomes among African-Americans and Puerto Ricans. "

Who is the study targeting?

Underprivileged minorities, right?

And who are more likely to end up committing crimes?

Underprivileged minorities, right?

But you are gullible enough to believe that growing up as an underprivileged minorities in a crime ridden neighborhood is not the primary cause of becoming a criminal but smoking pot is the cause?



Thanks for destroying your own credibility with your "post smoking" behavior.

Have a nice day.

I agree non-whites are more prone to criminal behavior, 100%, and the stats bear that out. I am glad you agree about disproportionate levels of non-white crime, many on the left don't recognize this.

However, this study shows those Blacks and Puerto Ricans who didn't use marijuana are less prone to criminal behavior as adults than those who used . So my claim i validated, those who use marijuana are more prone to criminal behavior than those who don't.

I don't agree with your racism and your racist study either.

Middle class minorities who don't live in crime ridden areas are less likely to become criminals but racists like you make the fallacious assumption that it has to do with race and not location. Here is a newsflash for you. Underprivileged whites who live in crime ridden areas smoke pot and become criminals at higher rates than whites in middle class areas.

Thanks for admitting to being a gullible racist.

I like how you rant about how, "OMG you racist, whites commit crime as well" for a paragraph only at the end of it to say those who smoke pot are more prone to criminal behavior than those who don't. Thanks for the lulz

Thank you for confirming that you have a reading comprehension disorder.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Just look at the statistics of actual users versus the fabricated claims of "harm". If those fabrications were "accurate" there would be millions of people with those symptoms overwhelming the medical system. But they don't exist. The fabrications fail the reality test.

However there is no question that those who fabricate these studies are addicted to their funding. Without that they would be looking for a real job.

There is actual evidence of reduced cognitive function and altered brain composition/chemistry. You just don't accept it. And no, those things don't necessitate the medical system being overwhelmed.

Except that those only occur in underage children. There is no evidence in adults of that fabrication which is why it doesn't overwhelm the medical system.

Not true. The study I cited was 18-25 year olds. Not children.
Even Casual Marijuana Smokers at Risk for Structural Brain Changes
Cannabis Use Is Quantitatively Associated with Nucleus Accumbens and Amygdala Abnormalities in Young Adult Recreational Users

Here is the disclaimer on your first link;

Healthline is for informational purposes and should not be considered medical advice, diagnosis or treatment recommendations. ​

The second study contradicts itself and your contention;

I read with great interest this article correlating neuroanatomical changes in casual cannabis users versus non-users. However, the authors repeatedly and explicitly state a causative relationship between the cannabis use and the anatomic changes throughout the article, only to state in the second-to-last paragraph that no causative relationship can be concluded due to the cross-sectional design of this study​

Once again you have come up snake eyes with your "studies" since they don't substantiate what you are claiming.

Obviously you only read the headlines and not the substance. Is that because you don't understand the subject matter or lack the comprehension abilities to grasp the content?

Either way the end result is the same. There is nothing about marijuana that is significantly different to any other substance that is legal. Plenty of studies have debunked the fake "science" put out by the big tobacco corporations and proven that it does cause cancer and other diseases. Alcohol causes diseases too.

Being a racist hypocrite you have no basis for opposing cannabis except for your racism and hypocrisy.

Have a nice day.

The first link didn't conduct the study, they are reporting on it.

Your correlation does not equal causation argument is shallow at best, considering there is a large body of work establishing how marijuana use results in brain abnormalities. Even critics of that particular study admit there are only two conclusions. Either their abnormal brain composition caused the subjects to be more likely to smoke marijuana or just moderately smoking marijuana created the brain abnormalities. Which makes more sense to you? Especially given that is has been established that chronic use of marijuana alters brain chemistry, and moderate doses for animals does as well. Sorry, the critics position here is naive at best and blatantly dishonest at worse.

Here is another study to that effect
Chronic marijuana smoking affects brain chemistry molecular imaging shows -- ScienceDaily

Maybe you are emotionally charged about this because you never grew up out of your extended adolescence and because of pot spend your days on the internet making inane liberal shitposts?

"National Institute on Drug Abuse,"

Still swallowing their Koolaid like a gullible fool?

 

[Papageorgio]

I love how left wing nutter liberals love science until science disagrees with the left wing nutter liberals agenda. Then science is wrong and made up.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I love how left wing nutter liberals love science until science disagrees with the left wing nutter liberals agenda. Then science is wrong and made up.

So you are denying that corporate special interests deliberately try to misuse science in order to promote their agenda?

All those "scientists" paid by big tobacco were actually "right" and there is no link at all between smoking and cancer?

It is quite easy to tell the difference between "junk science" and the real thing by just following the money. If the funds for the study are coming from a special interest promoting an agenda then the results are probably bogus.

And that isn't rocket science either, it is pragmatism.

 

[JohnAdams]

There will be negative social effects with the legalization of marijuana. This has been the case in Colorado. About what kind of freedom are you talking about? How does promoting narcotic use, getting high, and exposing children to drugs promote "freedom"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

There will be negative social effects with the legalization of marijuana.

Such as...?

 

[Katzndogz]

There will be negative social effects with the legalization of marijuana. This has been the case in Colorado. About what kind of freedom are you talking about? How does promoting narcotic use, getting high, and exposing children to drugs promote "freedom"?

Maybe that's why the Colorado governor said it was a mistake.

 

[Papageorgio]

I love how left wing nutter liberals love science until science disagrees with the left wing nutter liberals agenda. Then science is wrong and made up.

So you are denying that corporate special interests deliberately try to misuse science in order to promote their agenda?

All those "scientists" paid by big tobacco were actually "right" and there is no link at all between smoking and cancer?

It is quite easy to tell the difference between "junk science" and the real thing by just following the money. If the funds for the study are coming from a special interest promoting an agenda then the results are probably bogus.

And that isn't rocket science either, it is pragmatism.

So where does the money come from for pro-marijuana and anti-marijuana coalitions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derideo_Te]

I love how left wing nutter liberals love science until science disagrees with the left wing nutter liberals agenda. Then science is wrong and made up.

So you are denying that corporate special interests deliberately try to misuse science in order to promote their agenda?

All those "scientists" paid by big tobacco were actually "right" and there is no link at all between smoking and cancer?

It is quite easy to tell the difference between "junk science" and the real thing by just following the money. If the funds for the study are coming from a special interest promoting an agenda then the results are probably bogus.

And that isn't rocket science either, it is pragmatism.

So where does the money come from for pro-marijuana and anti-marijuana coalitions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The DEA has been funding the anti-cannabis studies in order to justify the bogus "war on drugs".

Furthermore the government has stymied legitimate research and studies into marijuana so what is out there is largely "unfunded" because of that.

 

[MeBelle]

Marijuana was legal in Alaska before it wasn't, then was again.

Cannabis in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[HenryBHough]

Of course, legalization of marijuana explains this:

Alaska troopers bust marijuana commercial grow seize over 100 plants Alaska Dispatch News

 

[Roadrunner]

Alcohol and cigarettes may have higher rates of addiction, but are less harmful as far as cognitive function goes. Moderate Marijuana use in the immediate term is far more harmful than cigarette use and certainly more so than moderate alcohol consumption.

Read the studies I linked in the thread, they aren't but a couple pages back. But in reality, you don't care about the science behind the issue, so what's the point? Your view wouldn't change even if you read the studies and admitted marijuana is more harmful. Because at the end of the day, you just don't think the government has the right to tell someone not to toke, regardless of harm level. I would be curious to see if that logic applies to cocaine and heroin as well? We shouldn't be inconsistent right?

And right back at you.

At the end of the day you think the government does have the right to tell people what they can- or cannot smoke- unless of course it is alcohol or cigarettes......

You fail to apply your 'logic' to alcohol- why would we expect you to use the same logic for alcohol and cocaine and heroin?

Because alcohol in moderate use does not harm an individual's health, whereas marijuana, cocaine, and heroin do. My view isn't inconsistent. But if your view is based off the claim that the government doesn't have to dictate what someone puts in their body, or that you support legalizing marijuana to reduced organized violence, than you should support legalizing hard drugs as well.

But yes, I think the government has the right to tell people what they can and cannot put in their bodies.

i smoked for 30 years and all the exams i have had say that for my age i am in good health....must be a fluke.....

Been smoking it for 50 years, and, doc says I am in great shape.

Of course, I could go in the next five seconds, if my Lord calls me.

I am ready to face Him, head up and confident He will grant me the Grace promised.

 

[Roadrunner]

A distinction without a difference. You are a self confessed criminal who should have been prosecuted, sentenced and served hard time behind bars where you belong.

See, here's what an obese queer with a scorching dose of herpes like yourself will never understand. Robbery is up front and personal not devious and sneaky. Having no honor, the difference escapes you. And our "victims" couldn't call the cops so there was little danger involved. Now, how about you either produce that imaginary MOS you claimed you have, or hang yourself....one or the other.

One, followed by the other, would be nice.