CA: Marijuana Legalization

By agreeing they are only biased you are admitting that they have jsut a somewhat slanted point of view. Not that they are outright lieing.

But by your logic there might as well not believe ANYTHING. Since after all man is so fallible and prone to lieing. Nothing can be true that you haven't first proven to yourself the hard way.

Humility! The first trick in every Japanese person's book! Don't let this fool you, guys. He's soaking up them compliments. :P

This is true, about the humility lol

Hmmm yeah he's been banned for awhile.

It's kinda hard to describe him. Best to just read his stuff.

The thread he got banned in is a good start

But he's not japanese...

I still agonize about my decision to ban Korpg, by the way. More than you probably expect from someone with the banhammer.

I really do only like to use it as a last resort, and not an up-front tool to craft the forums into how I want them. But he left me with no choice.

Why wouldn't you?

It's a major decision in a way and people tend to always question their past actions. Especailly ones with that kind of effect

BTW in reference to your articles, this one is newer http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7592
Yes, one went as low as 14 year olds, so you're right, that was only one test, (it went even younger than that), but mixed it with up to 24 year olds, so 14-24 year olds? We taint the pool with underdeveloped brains so we still get our statistics? What is this? Why don't we just test 21+? One of the other links doesn't work, and the last one isn't about psychosis. This is a pathetically low blow, test involving 14-24 year olds, are supposed to prove what in reference to 21+ only pot use?

Whatever. You are just looking for reasons not to beleive what you don't want to. Keep on token dude.

Oh and sorry for that last link not working

I like that, good idea, I won't trust anyone.


I'm sad I never got the chance to demolish him.

Though that technically means you can't trust me and my thoughts on that about trusting people... Probably can't trust yourself for that matter.

Wanna join me when I make my end of the world get away deep inside a volcano in iceland?

I don't think we've ever banned someone without trying to talk it out with them first. So if you've never had one of "those" little talks with one of us, you're okay so far.

We've banned a few anon trolls and spammers on first offense, but only because there's generally no way to privately warn them first.

I've warned some people publicly before, instead of privately, but only because I've felt they're the personality type who would blow me off unless I called them out in front of other people.

Only if Bjork can come with us.

Why do you think I picked Iceland? Other than it's pretty awesome anyways?

On a relevant sidenote. There are contradicting studies. http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7592

So you have no problem with them testing 14-24 year olds? You realize even these test say "in adolescents"? Meaning it doesn't necessarily imply 21+. So, how is your post even relevant to this thread? This is supposed to be an argument why it should remain illegal and your citing test done on kids.

There was no history of psychosis in my family (that we're aware of) until my brother got it. He's only recently finished his third or fourth visit to a mental ward/institution in the last 15 years or so, is still fairly closely monitored, and will most likely be in and out of various mental wards for the rest of his life. Now it's completely impossible to say whether or not this is something that would have happened to him at some stage in his life anyway, but the fact is that smoking pot was, at the very least, the catalyst that brought this illness on.

That's not to say though, that pot is any better or worse than any other recreational drug. A lot of people can take it and not have it affect their life badly in any way, while others just have a very addictive nature and will let it screw up their life even without having psychosis, just as alcohol can. Taking any sort of recreational drug is something that should be strongly considered by the individual before taking it, but never is.

I think the dangers of pot in it's usual form, whatever they may be, would be no better or worse from legalisation. It's an incredibly common drug, and I suspect there's a very small minority that haven't at least had the opportunity to try it. So to me, I think the real issue is what changes we'll see to the drug when it starts being commercially produced. I somewhat suspect that tobacco itself isn't actually all that bad for you, but the 20 million other chemicals they add to cigarettes are the real killers. So if pot is legalised, I figure we'll see companies making marijuana cigarettes, and adding all the same chemicals to them. Then in 50 years time, it'll be common knowledge that pot can give you 27 different types of cancer.

Raenryong, if youre out there can you make us a graph of increased schizophrenia risk due to marijuana use vs haste vs double atk?

I think marijuana use might have increasing returns...

Why should I have a problem with testing on 14-24 year olds?

The second one though hard to find tested older people at least in part of it.

And the last one which didn't work for some reason was actually the follow on yes one done on late teens since they were conscripts and easy to go by the 10s of thousands. Basically showed that even many years later they had increased risk of schizophrenia. This link is more or less the same thing but might wor. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7374/1199?ck=nck

Inb4 semantics debate

Your story about your brother if true is unfortunate, although like you said, we can't really be sure what caused, if not anything at all.

In this sense, if its legalized in CA you wont see that, anyone company that starts to produce it in CA will be shutdown by the fed for sure, as well as any chain business that decides to sell it. What this law will simply do (because its state only) is simply take the paranoia out of people doing it, walking around with it, growing it in their backyard, whatever.

As far as companies adding things to it, that may later cause cancer...ehhh...its speculative cause lets assume they even do add some chemicals: do these chemicals actually cause cancer (like in cig's)? And would people buy it like they buy cigs? I know a few growers, I know more cig smokers, I dont know any tobacco growers, so wherein things will be added to it seems off. And if we're talking about people adding things to it, as a means to keep it illegal thatd be dumb, they can add rat poison and nicotine to doritos, that doesn't mean doritos should be illegal.

Dont misunderstand, I don't mean you should have a problem with it on some moral standing, I mean you should have a problem with it in the sense that this law is about 21+.

Meh I give up. Smokers gunna smoke

Hmmmmm! <3