Age of Marijuana Use and Psychosis

In that other thread Fallen brought up the point that none of my studies controlled for age of exposure to marijuana, which was correct! I in turn said I would get in touch with some New Zealand people and keep him apprised, but the professor who responded to me put so much work into it I thought it would be a shame to only share it with one person.

Quick background: cable hasn't been invented yet in New Zealand, so people there have a lot of time on their hands. Three distinct groups have set up long-term (as in decades) cohort studies. They select a cohort at birth, subject them (and caregivers and somewhat ominously named "informants") to a questionnaire, then ask them the same questions again every year or so from that day to this. This form of study obviously allows for by far the most controls and sturdiest conclusions, the downside is that is enormously time-consuming but as I said, Kiwis have a LOT of time on their hands.

One of these studies is run by the University of Otago in Christchurch, and is imaginatively called the Christchurch Health & Development Study. I asked them Fallen's question, and a very nice Professor Horwood wrote back. He attached a study on ages 18-25 which I think I've already linked on this forum but here it is again. Its conclusion: "The present study suggests that: (a) the association between cannabis use and psychotic symptoms is unlikely to be due to confounding factors; and (b) the direction of causality is from cannabis use to psychotic symptoms." However, the study doesn't explicitly break down into age bins, so Dr. Horwood notes:

"Although it’s not obvious from the paper, this conclusion would not alter if we adjusted for age of onset of cannabis use."

And more important to our discussions, he goes on to state:

"We haven’t published on this issue beyond age 25 but similar associations persist between current cannabis use and the occurrence of psychotic symptoms up to age 35."

Obviously "similar" means "less" but more importantly "still present". It is worth noting two important things. The study only goes up to age 35, so the above statement does not imply that they observed marijuana to be safe beyond age 35. Second, the study and Dr. Horwood specifically refer to daily marijuana use rather than any, so it is possible that there is some lower level of marijuana consumption that while causing psychotic symptoms in adolescents will not do so for adults. Again, though, this is not implied. As everyone has insisted with comparing the numbers I cite with daily (or even higher) use for other drugs, this is not an important distinction.

.

TL;DR: Marijuana use causes mental health issues up to age 35 at least. "Regular cannabis use at any age is associated with increased rates of psychotic symptoms." I'm glad that's settled! :)

https://eclecticoddsnsods.files.word...-blah-blah.jpg

There's something you're missing. Good effort though!

Honestly, I really struggle to understand your defense of alcohol given how a little potential for harm from marijuana causes you to decry it.

Well over 50 percent of people with PTSD end up abusing alcohol.

Maybe it doesn't destroy their life, maybe some are lucky like myself and figure it out and stop before things get too bad. But alcohol has a clinical, well defined horrific impact on mentally ill people and otherwise perfectly healthy people alike, and you're not saying we should make alcohol illegal.

Caffeine can kill people with heart conditions, but we don't outlaw coffee.

I don't want to see studies showing the harm of marijuana, I want to see studies and objective evidence showing it's more harmful than other drugs we have controlled and legalized. Show me studies that demonstrate the harm of marijuana is worse than alcohol.

This attitude is extremely frustrating because you think you're helping mentally ill people, but you really are not. Because it's these beliefs that keep various drugs from being able to be tested, experimented with, and synthesized into effective medicine. I'm probably biased because I'm going to be participating in a PTSD-MDMA study in 6 months in Vancouver, but it bugs the fuck out of me that people want to crusade on my behalf and people who are suffering like me and in doing so they're actually pushing effective medicine and potential cures further out of our grasp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mighty Nikkisaurus

Honestly, I really struggle to understand your defense of alcohol given how a little potential for harm from marijuana causes you to decry it.

Well over 50 percent of people with PTSD end up abusing alcohol.

Maybe it doesn't destroy their life, maybe some are lucky like myself and figure it out and stop before things get too bad. But alcohol has a clinical, well defined horrific impact on mentally ill people and otherwise perfectly healthy people alike, and you're not saying we should make alcohol illegal.

Caffeine can kill people with heart conditions, but we don't outlaw coffee.

I don't want to see studies showing the harm of marijuana, I want to see studies and objective evidence showing it's more harmful than other drugs we have controlled and legalized. Show me studies that demonstrate the harm of marijuana is worse than alcohol.

This attitude is extremely frustrating because you think you're helping mentally ill people, but you really are not. Because it's these beliefs that keep various drugs from being able to be tested, experimented with, and synthesized into effective medicine. I'm probably biased because I'm going to be participating in a PTSD-MDMA study in 6 months in Vancouver, but it bugs the fuck out of me that people want to crusade on my behalf and people who are suffering like me and in doing so they're actually pushing effective medicine and potential cures further out of our grasp.

---

His mentality is that alcohol in small doses does no harm while cannabis in small doses is always risky.

Small doses of SSRIs can trigger psychological issues.

I was put onto zoloft for Post Partum Anxiety and every time I took my medicine I had dissociative episodes. My mind is absolutely blank, cannot remember those periods of time, but friends and family have told me it was absolutely terrifying and that I was just completely flat and non-responsive. Like a robot. I did things and reacted but had absolutely zero emotional reception. How is that safe or healthy for my marriage or for my child?

And yet, zoloft is still proscribed to tons of people every day.

I honestly don't get how Latrin can justify this and justify keeping marijuana illegal. Anything that alters brain and gut chemistry is going to have risks, period. The question is not "Is there risk" the question is whether the rewards out weigh the risk, and I want Latrin to demonstrate that they don't for marijuana using legalized drugs like alcohol and caffeine as comparisons.

Fuck SSRIs. I was put on one, lexipro I believe, and I wanted to jump in front of a train.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mighty Nikkisaurus

I honestly don't get how Latrin can justify this and justify keeping marijuana illegal. Anything that alters brain and gut chemistry is going to have risks, period. The question is not "Is there risk" the question is whether the rewards out weigh the risk, and I want Latrin to demonstrate that they don't for marijuana using legalized drugs like alcohol and caffeine as comparisons.

---

I've already linked studies showing that aspirin can triple your chances of developing stomach ulcers and thus doubling your chances of dying from stomach ulcers but Latrin concluded none of this mattered because aspirin "only" had a 1 in 1000 chance of killing someone while marijuana had a whooping 5 in 1000 chance of developing psychosis and since 5 is greater than 1 obviously marijuana is more dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I'm already linked studies showing that aspirin can triple your chances of developing stomach ulcers and thus doubling your chances of dying from stomach ulcers but Latrin concluded none of this mattered because aspirin "only" had a 1 in 1000 chance of killing someone while marijuana had a whooping 5 in 1000 chance of developing psychosis and since 5 is greater than 1 obviously marijuana is more dangerous.

---

You must have missed his post about psychosis being more dangerous than death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I'm already linked studies showing that aspirin can triple your chances of developing stomach ulcers and thus doubling your chances of dying from stomach ulcers but Latrin concluded none of this mattered because aspirin "only" had a 1 in 1000 chance of killing someone while marijuana had a whooping 5 in 1000 chance of developing psychosis and since 5 is greater than 1 obviously marijuana is more dangerous.

---

This reminds me of the tit nazis who say the amount of women who can't breastfeed is "negligible" and never talk about it or acknowledge their campaigns seriously harm women, despite the fact that the number of women who physically are unable to breastfeed are about the same percentage wise as women who get breast cancer.

The pick and choose bullshit is infuriating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mighty Nikkisaurus

This reminds me of the tit nazis who say the amount of women who can't breastfeed is "negligible" and never talk about it or acknowledge their campaigns seriously harm women, despite the fact that the number of women who physically are unable to breastfeed are about the same percentage wise as women who get breast cancer.

---

This reminded me of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me9yrREXOj4

God I love that commercial. I could go on forever about the competitive and fucking stupid state of modern parenting, but I won't. There definitely are parallels when it comes to clinging to scientifically shoddy or objectively stupid ideas because of ego.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mighty Nikkisaurus

I don't want to see studies showing the harm of marijuana, I want to see studies and objective evidence showing it's more harmful than other drugs we have controlled and legalized. Show me studies that demonstrate the harm of marijuana is worse than alcohol.

---

Easily done! Marijuana's specific causation of schizophrenia is 5 cases per 1000 people. Every other legal drug, including alcohol but not including tobacco, has direct threats lower than that value. This does not mean the threat is 0 cases, just that is lower than 5. You mention Zoloft, we can look at Zoloft here and find that the highest threat is nausea at 4.3 per 1000. Alcohol poisoning is between 1 and 10 per 1,000,000 depending on who you ask, but obviously even at 10 per 1,000,000 it's not close.

Quote:

---

This attitude is extremely frustrating because you think you're helping mentally ill people, but you really are not. Because it's these beliefs that keep various drugs from being able to be tested, experimented with, and synthesized into effective medicine. I'm probably biased because I'm going to be participating in a PTSD-MDMA study in 6 months in Vancouver, but it bugs the fuck out of me that people want to crusade on my behalf and people who are suffering like me and in doing so they're actually pushing effective medicine and potential cures further out of our grasp.

---

Strictly speaking I think I'm helping people from becoming mentally ill in the first place. Fallen has already sourced a study that says CBD is pretty much clozapine (I can go back and look for the citation if you want) which tells us two things: clearly someone's investigating these drugs somewhere somehow, and just as clearly there's no magic bullet lurking in cannabis. It's a painkiller; we already have painkillers. It's an atypical anti-psychotic; we already have those too.

Quote:

---

I honestly don't get how Latrin can justify this and justify keeping marijuana illegal. Anything that alters brain and gut chemistry is going to have risks, period. The question is not "Is there risk" the question is whether the rewards out weigh the risk, and I want Latrin to demonstrate that they don't for marijuana using legalized drugs like alcohol and caffeine as comparisons.

---

I went into alcohol above, I can't find any proper studies for caffeine-generated psychosis, but this cross-sectional one concludes that "schizophrenia symptomatology
was not associated with caffeine intake" after controlling for other drug use. Do you have anything else in mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I've already linked studies showing that aspirin can triple your chances of developing stomach ulcers and thus doubling your chances of dying from stomach ulcers but Latrin concluded none of this mattered because aspirin "only" had a 1 in 1000 chance of killing someone while marijuana had a whooping 5 in 1000 chance of developing psychosis and since 5 is greater than 1 obviously marijuana is more dangerous.

---

Your source had aspirin at a 1 in 10,000 chance of killing someone. The 1 in 1000 chance was to cause stomach bleeding at all. :)

What about risks of people who need Zoloft also having elevated risk of alcohol abuse? What about risks of people who are simply at elevated risk levels? Every single study I've seen is done on a healthy population, not people who are sick. AKA the people who receive these drugs.

And really, that's cute, that's great you're preventing people from becoming mentally ill. Maybe you could stop attempting to fuck those of us who simply are?


What purpose exactly does alcohol provide that justifies keeping it legal and available despite the harm it does to mentally ill people and otherwise healthy people? How is that purpose different than legalizing marijuana?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Your source had aspirin at a 1 in 10,000 chance of killing someone. The 1 in 1000 chance was to cause stomach bleeding at all. :)

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

I've heard that being put in jail increases people's chances of mental illness and death. I'd love to see this investigated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mighty Nikkisaurus

What about risks of people who need Zoloft also having elevated risk of alcohol abuse? What about risks of people who are simply at elevated risk levels? Every single study I've seen is done on a healthy population, not people who are sick. AKA the people who receive these drugs.

---

You've lost me on the first two, but it's certainly plausible that people who are ill could suffer other side effects. Do you have any specific ones in mind, for any of the drugs we're talking about?

Quote:

---

And really, that's cute, that's great you're preventing people from becoming mentally ill. Maybe you could stop attempting to fuck those of us who simply are?

---

Why would I want to f*** myself? My hair's not that amazing. Okay, well it is, but... what were we talking about?

Quote:

---

What purpose exactly does alcohol provide that justifies keeping it legal and available despite the harm it does to mentally ill people and otherwise healthy people? How is that purpose different than legalizing marijuana?

---

My point is not that alcohol provides more benefit than marijuana, I would guess it provides less although I haven't seen either's analgesic potential quantified. My point is that the risk of marijuana is more more than the benefit of alcohol is less, which is why I think it's so important to quantify when we can.

Shut up, Latrin.

And yet alcohol kills over a hundred thousand people on a yearly basis.

CBD, despite any attempts to vilify it by saying it has the same side effects of a different drug (with no proof or evidence whatsoever)has yet to be shown to have any withdrawal symptoms.

http://www.medicinalgenomics.com/wp-...aschi_2011.pdf

It's ironic that those so worried about schizophrenia would seek to mindlessly dismiss one of the most promising treatments for the disease to appear in years.

Quote:

---

A previous case report of a teenager diagnosed with schizophrenia who experienced severe side effects after treatment with conventional antipsychotics demonstrated significant improvement of symptoms with no adverse effects after hospitalization and 4 weeks of treatment with increasing doses of CBD up to 1,500mg/day [80]. More recently, CBD monotherapy was administered to three patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (initial oral dose of 40 mg, increased to 1,280mg/day) for up to 4 weeks with no side effects reported, even at the highest dose [81].A similar result was observed in two patients with bipolar affective disorder who received CBD (600-1,200mg/day) for Current Drug Safety, 2011, Vol. 6, No. 4 Bergamaschi et al.up to 24 days [82]. A double-blind study with 42 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder(DSM-IV) in an acute episode showed that CBD (800mg)significantly reduced psychotic symptoms after 2 to 4 weeks of treatment and induced fewer side effects, such a sextrapyramidal symptoms, increased prolactin levels, and weight gain, compared to amilsupride [83].

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Dr. Cox

---

I assume we agree that this is your post, and this is the study cited therein. Stated in that study:

"The incidence of serious gastrointestinal complications has been estimated to be in the order of one case per 1,000 persons per year, with a fatality rate around 5–10 percent. This incidence was around two and four times higher for users of aspirin and nonaspirin NSAIDs, respectively."

1 per 1000 * 7.5% = .075 per 1000 without aspirin
.075 per 1000 * 3 = .215 per 1000 with aspirin
.215 - .075 = .145 per 1000 caused by aspirin = 1.45 per 10,000 caused by aspirin
rounds off to 1 per 10,000

No?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

You've lost me on the first two, but it's certainly plausible that people who are ill could suffer other side effects. Do you have any specific ones in mind, for any of the drugs we're talking about?

---

Comorbidity is a thing. Reputable studies will account for it. Funny though, almost every drug study won't.

Quote:

---

Why would I want to f*** myself? My hair's not that amazing. Okay, well it is, but... what were we talking about?

---

I'm glad you think it's amusing. It's not to me, or my family. Detoxing from booze and having a seizure wasn't funny, either, but I guess I just don't have a good sense of humor. Looking at my sleeping child and pleading internally that I get to watch him grow up and not die because of my illness or addiction, really hilarious. Following doctor's protocol and behaving in a frightening way with a total mental black out... very LOL. How hilarious.

Quote:

---

My point is not that alcohol provides more benefit than marijuana, I would guess it provides less although I haven't seen either's analgesic potential quantified. My point is that the risk of marijuana is more more than the benefit of alcohol is less, which is why I think it's so important to quantify when we can.

---

What is the benefit of alcohol? What can you possibly tell me alcohol is good for? Most people don't become addicted to it but most of the people who do have pasts that consist of being abused and traumatized? Wow, yay! What a great thing to protect.

You absolutely ARE a hypocrite. You'll hold up a drug that causes absolutely horrific harm (go to a week's worth of AA meetings then get back to me if you disagree) but slap at a drug that has minor potential complications.

I'm happy you're able to happily hold your position. Meanwhile, I got to have a long 4 hour sit down with my husbands work because I want to not suffer from the effects of PTSD my whole life. I got to spill my life story to strangers, have a urine and hair check, get attached to a bunch of shit for a lie detector test, all because I'm going to try to get my PTSD cured by MDMA. The only reason my husband won't lose clearance is because I live in a state that protects this sort of thing. Yeah, pardon me for thinking that's fucked and really not liking people like you.

Let me know how the MDMA treatment goes. I've been hearing good things about it in regards to PTSD treatment. Psilocybins too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mighty Nikkisaurus

Comorbidity is a thing. Reputable studies will account for it. Funny though, almost every drug study won't.



I'm glad you think it's amusing. It's not to me, or my family. Detoxing from booze and having a seizure wasn't funny, either, but I guess I just don't have a good sense of humor. Looking at my sleeping child and pleading internally that I get to watch him grow up and not die because of my illness or addiction, really hilarious. Following doctor's protocol and behaving in a frightening way with a total mental black out... very LOL. How hilarious.



What is the benefit of alcohol? What can you possibly tell me alcohol is good for? Most people don't become addicted to it but most of the people who do have pasts that consist of being abused and traumatized? Wow, yay! What a great thing to protect.

You absolutely ARE a hypocrite. You'll hold up a drug that causes absolutely horrific harm (go to a week's worth of AA meetings then get back to me if you disagree) but slap at a drug that has minor potential complications.

I'm happy you're able to happily hold your position. Meanwhile, I got to have a long 4 hour sit down with my husbands work because I want to not suffer from the effects of PTSD my whole life. I got to spill my life story to strangers, have a urine and hair check, get attached to a bunch of shit for a lie detector test, all because I'm going to try to get my PTSD cured by MDMA. The only reason my husband won't lose clearance is because I live in a state that protects this sort of thing. Yeah, pardon me for thinking that's fucked and really not liking people like you.

---

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-F...fffff7d3/1.png

Glad to hear you're enrolled in such a study, Nikki. I donate regularly to MAPS, which does absolutely fantastic work. Are you in any way affiliated with them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Let me know how the MDMA treatment goes. I've been hearing good things about it in regards to PTSD treatment. Psilocybins too.

---

I am super hopeful. They only recently opened things up to non-combat PTSD sufferers. I've been having twice a month talks with a therapist they have provided via Skype. I really, really hope this makes things better. As far as I know we do a session where I revisit my trauma, and then we do an altered session where I revisit the trauma with MDMA in my system. So many people are cured after this... I don't want to hope for too much but I desperately want to be cured. I hate the grip that PTSD has on my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mighty Nikkisaurus

I am super hopeful. They only recently opened things up to non-combat PTSD sufferers. I've been having twice a month talks with a therapist they have provided via Skype. I really, really hope this makes things better. As far as I know we do a session where I revisit my trauma, and then we do an altered session where I revisit the trauma with MDMA in my system. So many people are cured after this... I don't want to hope for too much but I desperately want to be cured. I hate the grip that PTSD has on my life.

---

Incoming PMS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

Glad to hear you're enrolled in such a study, Nikki. I donate regularly to MAPS, which does absolutely fantastic work. Are you in any way affiliated with them?

---

MAPS is amazing. My husband works for a government contractor and they helped me navigate through all of the paper work to make sure his clearance doesn't get revoked. They also provided me information of others who underwent the study I'm scheduled to go through, so I have a lot of "friends" and people who get what it's like to live with PTSD, the nightmares, etc but also have recovery experience. '

MAPS is just fantastic. I encourage anyone to donate to them. They help people and provide hope that otherwise doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

CBD, despite any attempts to vilify it by saying it has the same side effects of a different drug (with no proof or evidence whatsoever)has yet to be shown to have any withdrawal symptoms.

http://www.medicinalgenomics.com/wp-...aschi_2011.pdf

It's ironic that those so worried about schizophrenia would seek to mindlessly dismiss one of the most promising treatments for the disease to appear in years.

---

I do not vilify or dismiss. I merely quote from your source. Do you dispute that CBD has a pharmacological profile similar to clozapine, and that clozapine has withdrawal symptoms that include psychosis? Your new source's only mention of withdrawal effects is that one 19-year-old didn't have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mighty Nikkisaurus

Comorbidity is a thing. Reputable studies will account for it. Funny though, almost every drug study won't.

---

Can you be more specific about what effect that would have in this case? That is: are the risks of Zoloft are higher or lower than the stated values, are the risks of marijuana higher or lower? In general, would comorbidity have a different effect from drug to drug?

Quote:

---

I'm glad you think it's amusing. It's not to me, or my family. Detoxing from booze and having a seizure wasn't funny, either, but I guess I just don't have a good sense of humor. Looking at my sleeping child and pleading internally that I get to watch him grow up and not die because of my illness or addiction, really hilarious. Following doctor's protocol and behaving in a frightening way with a total mental black out... very LOL. How hilarious.

---

The joke is that I too suffer from mental illness. See? Funnier now, right? :)

Quote:

---

What is the benefit of alcohol? What can you possibly tell me alcohol is good for? Most people don't become addicted to it but most of the people who do have pasts that consist of being abused and traumatized? Wow, yay! What a great thing to protect.

---

Recreation is a benefit for both alcohol and marijuana.

Quote:

---

You absolutely ARE a hypocrite. You'll hold up a drug that causes absolutely horrific harm (go to a week's worth of AA meetings then get back to me if you disagree) but slap at a drug that has minor potential complications.

---

I don't really follow you here either. You react quite negatively to someone making a joke related to mental illness, but then dismiss it as "minor potential complications". You request studies and objective evidence for a drug's harmfulness, but then tell me to go to AA meetings. I make no judgment as to the appropriateness of any of these four positions, I'm just trying to figure out where you stand.

Have you ever noticed how frequently people who agree with you accuse people who agree with me of hypocrisy? I'm sure I don't need to inform you of the definition, so isn't it possible that I honestly believe marijuana to be worse than alcohol? Why is it so important that I be labeled a hypocrite, as opposed to simply wrong?

Quote:

---

Studies in Humans

In human studies, CBD administration did not induce side effects across a wide range of dosages, including acute and chronic dose regimens, and tolerance to CBD did not develop.

Acute Studies In the 1970s, human studies showed that oral CBD intake from 15 to 160mg [61-63], inhalation of 0.15mg/kg bw [64]or intravenous injection from 5 to 30mg [4][61] were not followed by ill effects.

CBD does not interfere with several psychomotor and psychological functions in humans. CBD does not affect heart rate, blood pressure, or performance in the verbal paired-associate learning test as measured by recall score at doses up to 600mg [5][62][65][74].

Subsequent studies concerning the antipsychotic effects of CBD have not reported any side effects after CBD intake[75-77].

Chronic Studies Chronic oral administration of 10mg CBD daily for 21 days did not induce any changes in neurological (including electroencephalogram (EEG)), clinical (including electrocardiogram (EKG)), psychiatric, blood or urine examinations [78].

Likewise, oral CBD administration in healthy participants (3mg/kg bw daily for 30 days) and in epileptic patients (200-300mg daily for 135 days) was well tolerated and no signs of toxicity or serious side effects were detected on neurological and physical examinations, blood and urine analysis, or EKG and EEG, which were performed at weekly intervals [10].

CBD was evaluated for symptomatic efficacy and safety in 15 neuroleptic-free patients with Huntington's Disease.Effects after oral CBD (10mg/kg bw /day for 6 weeks) or placebo (sesame oil for 6 weeks) intake were evaluated weekly under a double-blind, randomized crossover design.

CBD showed no significant or clinical differences compared to placebo in the Cannabis side effect inventory, clinical lab tests or other safety outcome variables. Also, weekly plasma levels of CBD (mean range 5.9 to 11.2 ng/ml), assayed by GC/MS, did not differ significantly over the 6 weeks of CBD administration [79].

---

.

My contention is that CBD withdrawal can cause psychosis, just like other atypical anti-psychotics. Why you insist on showing me what its side effects are while being taken is beyond me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

I do not vilify or dismiss. I merely quote from your source. Do you dispute that CBD has a pharmacological profile similar to clozapine, and that clozapine has withdrawal symptoms that include psychosis? Your new source's only mention of withdrawal effects is that one 19-year-old didn't have them.Can you be more specific about what effect that would have in this case? That is: are the risks of Zoloft are higher or lower than the stated values, are the risks of marijuana higher or lower?

---

Clearly not. You think because you have mental illness you deserve to control the health and well being of others. You are so full of shit I wish you'd stop pretending.


You are literally the worst kind of asshole and I'm so happy you have no power.

And seriously, you disgust me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mighty Nikkisaurus

And seriously, you disgust me.

---

Did you see how he first 1. only read what I quoted, then 2. Completely dismissed the mountains of evidence I showed concerning the safety of CBD?

Seriously, just put him on ignore and be done with it. There is no reasoning with the man. He will talk about harm reduction in one second, and throwing people into prisons he admits are fucked up in the next. He will rail against schizophrenia then jump through all sorts of hoops to trivialize a fantastic tool for its treatment.

Just leave Latrin alone. He's a nazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mighty Nikkisaurus

Clearly not. You think because you have mental illness you deserve to control the health and well being of others. You are so full of shit I wish you'd stop pretending. You are literally the worst kind of asshole and I'm so happy you have no power. And seriously, you disgust me.

---

Well, I'm not sure what specifically you're responding to with "clearly not", but if I can address your other points:

1. I think that the government has a responsibility to protect the health and well being of its citizens, and I think everyone thinks this to varying degrees. Even "get rid of the FDA" Thondalar thinks the government should provide for the national defense. As it happens, I think that you and I actually support the same degree of government control. Our only disagreement is factual: the risk posed by marijuana relative to other substances.

2. I brought up my history of mental illness in an attempt to defuse the sense of us vs. them that I felt from your posts. Obviously this did not work out quite the way I intended, but we really are all in this together.

3. My position could be stated most succinctly as marijuana should remain illegal. "literally the worst kind of a**hole", I mean, come on. I've tried a couple ways of phrasing this without sounding confrontational but I'm just going to say it's not intended to be: don't be ridiculous.

I have made a good faith effort to answer the criticisms raised of my data.
I started with a study linking marijuana use to psychotic symptoms.
People raised the question of a specific disease, I produced studies linking it to schizophrenia.
People raised the question of self-medication or otherwise reverse causation, I produced studies with longitudinal models.
People raised the question of family history, I produced a study that explicitly controlled for that.
People raised the question of age of exposure, I produced a study that controlled for that.

The only question I have dismissed is WB's request for cell pathologies of schizophrenia, and I stand by dismissing that. How is it that I answer every question raised of me, nobody ever answers the questions I raise, and I'm the jerk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

Did you see how he first 1. only read what I quoted, then 2. Completely dismissed the mountains of evidence I showed concerning the safety of CBD?

---

This is not true. I noticed that your quote contained no mention of withdrawal at all, so I opened your source and looked for it there, finding only "that one 19-year-old didn't have them." This is explicit, inarguable evidence that I read your source, not just what you quoted, and somehow you'll still be right. I asked you a question that you did not answer. Answering some other question, no matter how well you answer it, is irrelevant, and somehow you're still right.

Quote:

---

Seriously, just put him on ignore and be done with it. There is no reasoning with the man. He will talk about harm reduction in one second, and throwing people into prisons he admits are fucked up in the next. He will rail against schizophrenia then jump through all sorts of hoops to trivialize a fantastic tool for its treatment.

---

I could not ask for a better example of what I talked about above. I have said multiple times that CBD is an atypical anti-psychotic; that is, the premier treatment for schizophrenia. There is literally no higher praise I could offer for CBD in this context, and you read that as trivializing it. How am I being the unreasonable one? How is pointing out that drugs have side effects jumping through hoops?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Well, I'm not sure what specifically you're responding to with "clearly not", but if I can address your other points:

1. I think that the government has a responsibility to protect the health and well being of its citizens, and I think everyone thinks this to varying degrees. Even "get rid of the FDA" Thondalar thinks the government should provide for the national defense. As it happens, I think that you and I actually support the same degree of government control. Our only disagreement is factual: the risk posed by marijuana relative to other substances.

2. I brought up my history of mental illness in an attempt to defuse the sense of us vs. them that I felt from your posts. Obviously this did not work out quite the way I intended, but we really are all in this together.

3. My position could be stated most succinctly as marijuana should remain illegal. "literally the worst kind of a**hole", I mean, come on. I've tried a couple ways of phrasing this without sounding confrontational but I'm just going to say it's not intended to be: don't be ridiculous.

I have made a good faith effort to answer the criticisms raised of my data.
I started with a study linking marijuana use to psychotic symptoms.
People raised the question of a specific disease, I produced studies linking it to schizophrenia.
People raised the question of self-medication or otherwise reverse causation, I produced studies with longitudinal models.
People raised the question of family history, I produced a study that explicitly controlled for that.
People raised the question of age of exposure, I produced a study that controlled for that.

The only question I have dismissed is WB's request for cell pathologies of schizophrenia, and I stand by dismissing that. How is it that I answer every question raised of me, nobody ever answers the questions I raise, and I'm the jerk?This is not true. I noticed that your quote contained no mention of withdrawal at all, so I opened your source and looked for it there, finding only "that one 19-year-old didn't have them." This is explicit, inarguable evidence that I read your source, not just what you quoted, and somehow you'll still be right. I asked you a question that you did not answer. Answering some other question, no matter how well you answer it, is irrelevant, and somehow you're still right.I could not ask for a better example of what I talked about above. I have said multiple times that CBD is an atypical anti-psychotic; that is, the premier treatment for schizophrenia. There is literally no higher praise I could offer for CBD in this context, and you read that as trivializing it. How am I being the unreasonable one? How is pointing out that drugs have side effects jumping through hoops?

---

It's all the same as your "defense" of intelligent design.

Has Latrinsorm ever been drunk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Has Latrinsorm ever been drunk?

---

I wouldn't doubt it. The "casual drinking" line tends to come up from people who are rationalizing.

It's funny. Marijuana prohibition has actually lead to a tremendous increase in use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

I wouldn't doubt it. The "casual drinking" line tends to come up from people who are rationalizing.

---

Think he's catholic, too. So that's a slam dunk.

Has Latrin ever raped anyone while drunk?

http://hotmeme.net/media/i/3/8/9Zh-a...-brutality.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

Did you see how he first 1. only read what I quoted, then 2. Completely dismissed the mountains of evidence I showed concerning the safety of CBD?

Seriously, just put him on ignore and be done with it. There is no reasoning with the man. He will talk about harm reduction in one second, and throwing people into prisons he admits are fucked up in the next. He will rail against schizophrenia then jump through all sorts of hoops to trivialize a fantastic tool for its treatment.

---

I have witnessed mental illness my entire life and this obsession he seems to have with this appears to not be... well... sane.

Latrinsorm appears fixated on graphs and charts and statistical analysis, not real life. It really doesn't matter the topic, from my experience, it's more about picking issues apart and the sport of debate.

I also believe he leans so far right in terms of Western Medicine and traditional conservative funded research that he cannot hear anything other than the propaganda. I have many family members and friends who are equally rigid in their belief systems, many of whom coincidentally, are also alcoholics.

One of the things that I have finally accepted in life is that you cannot TELL someone to understand something, believe something, or do something. They have to be ready to receive that information and openly accept it and make the move themselves. I pray for his sake that his lesson isn't too painful when he has to look outside the tiny box.

Knowledge may come with study, but wisdom comes with experience.

Respect(fully yours)...as per Subzero's rec!

I'll give Latrin credit for one thing; marijuana obviously isn't always Cheech and Chong and someone doing 5 MPH down the road while consuming large amounts of chips. I linked to a story in the other thread where someone ingested a large amount of marijuana and basically went temporarily insane and jumped off a 5 story building. Another person ingested a large amount of marijuana and went crazy and shot his wife after she called 911 because she was worried he was going to kill himself.

Latrin's side of the argument is often mocked for "falling for the propaganda" against a harmless drug while those who say such things usually refuse to believe any negative evidence associated with marijuana use.

I still think marijuana should be legalized but I'm starting to lean away from this whole free for all that people can just enter a pot shop and walk away with 10 pounds of weed. If we're going to get serious about an obviously very serious drug it should have more oversight and regulation than some schmuck working at a pot shop saying "Ddduuudddeee! These cookies are like, potent and shit! Only eat a fifth of a cookie at a time!"

People often bring up alcohol as a comparison against marijuana. Okay, that's great. Alcohol has some heavy regulations regarding it:

21 years older to purchase/drink it
Stores held liable if they don't properly card people
No open containers while driving
Laws against driving while intoxicated
Bars are supposed to recognize when someone has had enough to drink and cut them off
Need a license to sell alcohol
Many states and cities have laws against being drunk in public or drinking in public

All sorts of laws and regulations. But when it comes to marijuana it's usually "Dude! It's safe! What's the worse that can happen, someone drives 5MPH in the right hand lane? LOL!"

I'd push legalization age to 25... the point where they think our brain is fully developed.

I don't think anyone here (latrin aside) would object to those same restrictions being placed on marijuana sales. On top of that, I would have it mandatory to have information on the THC to CBD ratios and possibly concentration on the marijuana you're looking to acquire. It's like the difference between hard liquor versus a beer in the potency of the drug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

I don't think anyone here (latrin aside) would object to those same restrictions being placed on marijuana sales. On top of that, I would have it mandatory to have information on the THC to CBD ratios and possibly concentration on the marijuana you're looking to acquire. It's like the difference between hard liquor versus a beer in the potency of the drug.

---

+1. And the whole free-for-all candy and cookie edibles shit has got to be reigned in as well. Why the fuck does it need to come in a cookie or a fucking chocolate bar? If you want to ingest it that way, it should be portioned out into single dose pills in a kid-proof pill container. I mean for fuck's sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I'll give Latrin credit for one thing; marijuana obviously isn't always Cheech and Chong and someone doing 5 MPH down the road while consuming large amounts of chips. I linked to a story in the other thread where someone ingested a large amount of marijuana and basically went temporarily insane and jumped off a 5 story building. Another person ingested a large amount of marijuana and went crazy and shot his wife after she called 911 because she was worried he was going to kill himself.

Latrin's side of the argument is often mocked for "falling for the propaganda" against a harmless drug while those who say such things usually refuse to believe any negative evidence associated with marijuana use.

I still think marijuana should be legalized but I'm starting to lean away from this whole free for all that people can just enter a pot shop and walk away with 10 pounds of weed. If we're going to get serious about an obviously very serious drug it should have more oversight and regulation than some schmuck working at a pot shop saying "Ddduuudddeee! These cookies are like, potent and shit! Only eat a fifth of a cookie at a time!"

People often bring up alcohol as a comparison against marijuana. Okay, that's great. Alcohol has some heavy regulations regarding it:

21 years older to purchase/drink it
Stores held liable if they don't properly card people
No open containers while driving
Laws against driving while intoxicated
Bars are supposed to recognize when someone has had enough to drink and cut them off
Need a license to sell alcohol
Many states and cities have laws against being drunk in public or drinking in public

All sorts of laws and regulations. But when it comes to marijuana it's usually "Dude! It's safe! What's the worse that can happen, someone drives 5MPH in the right hand lane? LOL!"

---

Marijuana stores/dispensarys have an age limit too and they are also heavily licensed and regulated so your argument is moot. Also, there is nothing that prevents people from buying alcohol at a store and abusing it.

Marijuana sold over the counter also needs to be sent to a lab beforehand for testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

+1. And the whole free-for-all candy and cookie edibles shit has got to be reigned in as well. Why the fuck does it need to come in a cookie or a fucking chocolate bar? If you want to ingest it that way, it should be portioned out into single dose pills in a kid-proof pill container. I mean for fuck's sake.

---

Why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Marijuana stores/dispensarys have an age limit too and they are also heavily licensed and regulated so your argument is moot. Also, there is nothing that prevents people from buying alcohol at a store and abusing it.

---

Apparently they aren't too regulated if someone can sell a cookie to someone and say "Now promise to only eat a fifth of this at a time" and then sells the dude at least 2 cookies.

I'm just saying if more than a fifth of a cookie is "too much" then maybe they should put less marijuana or whatever in the cookie and make the whole cookie safe and say okay, only one cookie for you mister.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Apparently they aren't too regulated if someone can sell a cookie to someone and say "Now promise to only eat a fifth of this at a time" and then sells the dude at least 2 cookies.

I'm just saying if more than a fifth of a cookie is "too much" then maybe they should put less marijuana or whatever in the cookie and make the whole cookie safe and say okay, only one cookie for you mister.

---

So you want it more regulated than alcohol?

Seriously, I can buy as many bottles of 150+ proof alcohol as I like. Do we need to have a law passed making it mandatory for the cashier to tell me not to drink the whole bottle at once?

The problem again boils down to potency/concentration. There should be laws in place requiring this information be displayed, just as it is for alcohol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

Latrinsorm appears fixated on graphs and charts and statistical analysis, not real life. It really doesn't matter the topic, from my experience, it's more about picking issues apart and the sport of debate. I also believe he leans so far right in terms of Western Medicine and traditional conservative funded research that he cannot hear anything other than the propaganda. I have many family members and friends who are equally rigid in their belief systems, many of whom coincidentally, are also alcoholics. One of the things that I have finally accepted in life is that you cannot TELL someone to understand something, believe something, or do something. They have to be ready to receive that information and openly accept it and make the move themselves. I pray for his sake that his lesson isn't too painful when he has to look outside the tiny box. Knowledge may come with study, but wisdom comes with experience. Respect(fully yours)...as per Subzero's rec!

---

A student asked me once about the physics concept of work, which is traditionally troubling because it is askew from the common definition. "But what does it mean?" she asked. I said to her, "math is the fundamental reality." She got an A on the test. (But not a hundred. No smiley face.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

I'd push legalization age to 25... the point where they think our brain is fully developed.

---

You disagree with Dr. Horwood, I take it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

You disagree with Dr. Horwood, I take it?

---

Because I'm not a Young Earth Creationist I agree with Dr. Jensen. I also have some knowledge of the developmental ages of schizophrenia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

So you want it more regulated than alcohol?

---

Yes because marijuana is not all about driving 5MPH in the right lane while eating chips. LOL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

Seriously, I can buy as many bottles of 150+ proof alcohol as I like. Do we need to have a law passed making it mandatory for the cashier to tell me not to drink the whole bottle at once?

---

I'm by no means an expert but I think there is a huge difference between drinking 10 times the "safe" amount of 150+ proof alcohol than there is in eating 2 cookies when you should only be eating a fifth of a cookie.

Again, no expert, but I think someone drinking that much 150+ proof alcohol in the amount of time it takes to eat 2 cookies is probably going to be too sick or black out before they even get that far. I dunno though. Just going from the couple of times I drank alcohol and I couldn't even imagine just chugging down that shit in a matter of seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Why not?

---

Well, we don't flavor our oxys like starburst and put em in a candy wrapper, do we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Again, no expert, but I think someone drinking that much 150+ proof alcohol in the amount of time it takes to eat 2 cookies is probably going to be too sick or black out before they even get that far. I dunno though. Just going from the couple of times I drank alcohol and I couldn't even imagine just chugging down that shit in a matter of seconds.

---

You can drink enough alcohol in a few minutes if prepared properly to kill yourself. Mixing it with certain things will quite readily kill the taste (jungle juice, etc). You can actually get 17-18 oz of alcohol into a jello shooter if made correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

Well, we don't flavor our oxys like starburst and put em in a candy wrapper, do we?

---

Well, no. That's because oxy isn't sold OTC. But we do sell alcoholic drinks that have chocolate in them or other sweet ingredients.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Yes because marijuana is not all about driving 5MPH in the right lane while eating chips. LOL!



I'm by no means an expert but I think there is a huge difference between drinking 10 times the "safe" amount of 150+ proof alcohol than there is in eating 2 cookies when you should only be eating a fifth of a cookie.

Again, no expert, but I think someone drinking that much 150+ proof alcohol in the amount of time it takes to eat 2 cookies is probably going to be too sick or black out before they even get that far. I dunno though. Just going from the couple of times I drank alcohol and I couldn't even imagine just chugging down that shit in a matter of seconds.

---

The reason why they might warn consumers with edibles is because they work much differently than marijuana that is aimed. Usually when you smoke you can feel the effects almost immediately. When you eat it there is a delayed reaction, upwards of an hour. This can and has less many inexperienced people to over compensate, thinking they haven't eaten enough, when they have, this making things.. worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

The reason why they might warn consumers with edibles is because they work much differently than marijuana that is aimed. Usually when you smoke you can feel the effects almost immediately. When you eat it there is a delayed reaction, upwards of an hour. This can and has less many inexperienced people to over compensate, thinking they haven't eaten enough, when they have, this making things.. worse.

---

That's exactly what I'm getting at. People obviously don't know enough about this shit so we should be selling them less of this stuff, not more.

If one cookie is 5 times too much then we should be selling smaller cookies or less potent cookies, not selling them at least 2 cookies and saying "Okay, just cut one of these in fifths."

If people actually listened to experts and didn't think they knew more than everyone else we wouldn't even be having this problem in the first place.

It's sounds like we're arguing over facets of the same generally agreed upon principle. Edibles need to be better labelled to reflect dose concentration.

Quote:

---

How are edibles sold in Washington marijuana stores?
The Washington State Liquor Control Board issued rules for edible packaging and labeling on June 24th, 2014. All marijuana edibles sold in Washington state recreational marijuana stores must be approved (both the product itself and its label) in advance. Packaging must not appeal to children by using cartoons, depictions of kids, or images of toys, and all edibles must be sold in child-resistant packaging (such as the 4mil sealed plastic packaging in the picture above). Additionally, the marijuana must be homogenized throughout the product, so that it is evenly distributed, and serving sizes must be clearly marked or scored on the product. - See more at: http://learnaboutmarijuanawa.org/fac....VOhxnAxj.dpuf

---

A good start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

That's exactly what I'm getting at. People obviously don't know enough about this shit so we should be selling them less of this stuff, not more.

If one cookie is 5 times too much then we should be selling smaller cookies or less potent cookies, not selling them at least 2 cookies and saying "Okay, just cut one of these in fifths."

If people actually listened to experts and didn't think they knew more than everyone else we wouldn't even be having this problem in the first place.

---

I don't think we need to over regulate just because people can't follow directions.

It should be at least as regulated as alcohol and tobacco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

It should be at least as regulated as alcohol and tobacco.

---

How is it not already regulated in the same manner?

Apparently serving sizes with a regulated amount of THC are already mandatory for edibles. At least in Colorado.

c) Serving size statement that reads“The standardized serving size for this productincludes no more than ten milligrams of active THC.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

I don't think we need to over regulate just because people can't follow directions.

---

If people are literally eating these things and jumping out of windows an hour later how can you say more regulation isn't needed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

If people are literally eating these things and jumping out of windows an hour later how can you say more regulation isn't needed?

---

Only 1 person did that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

Apparently serving sizes with a regulated amount of THC are already mandatory for edibles. At least in Colorado.

c) Serving size statement that reads“The standardized serving size for this product includes no more than ten milligrams of active THC.”

---

Ahh. I didn't know that existed. I've no problems with it then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

If people are literally eating these things and jumping out of windows an hour later how can you say more regulation isn't needed?

---

People are drinking and driving an hour later. Why not bring on more regulation? You can't dummy proof the world.

You yourself like to joke about aspirins with Latrin. You take a handful of those at once, which is easily done, and you're dead. Why don't people do this? Because the bottle clearly tells you this fact. The labelling on your edible also tells you the recommended dosage as well.

Quote:

---

By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year. - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/caus....4TggevEe.dpuf

---

I know in Colorado you are limited to how much cannabis you can buy. 1 ounce if you are a resident and a quarter of an ounce if you are out of state. I'm guessing it is also the same with edibles but I'm not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Only 1 person did that.

---

Right. Only one person in the whole world has ever ingested too much marijuana and done something like that. Cheech and Chong time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

People are drinking and driving an hour later. Why not bring on more regulation?

---

Sounds good to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

You yourself like to joke about aspirins with Latrin. You take a handful of those at once, which is easily done, and you're dead. Why don't people do this? Because the bottle clearly tells you this fact. The labelling on your edible also tells you the recommended dosage as well.

---

I think the problem is with perception. You have people like pk insisting marijuana is safe and cures cancer and shit so when someone says to only take a fifth of a cookie they have probably heard so much "weed is safe as shit!" propaganda that they don't think there is any harm in not following the directions.

No one (except Latrin) ever says aspirin is always safe. No one tells anyone that drinking alcohol and driving is safe and it might even cure your cancer. No one says smoking cigarettes is safe.

Maybe once everyone finally meets in the middle and gets serious about the effects of marijuana then we can start expecting adults to act like adults.

As long as we have adults ignoring all of the negative data on marijuana and downplaying the negative effects they can't ignore:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Only 1 person did that.

---

Then we're going to have an entire segment of the population thinking it's no big deal to eat 5 cookies at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

I know in Colorado you are limited to how much cannabis you can buy. 1 ounce if you are a resident and a quarter of an ounce if you are out of state. I'm guessing it is also the same with edibles but I'm not sure.

---

Apparently not, unless it was changed after the cookie incident.

Actually, I honestly wouldn't mind if by law there was a requirement that the cashier must warn you of the strength of any edible that contains more than X times the recommended amount in one package. You wouldn't be able to purchase it until you state that you understand that you should not eat the whole thing in one sitting. Hell, add a form that has to be signed too.

Beyond that and we're getting ridiculous.

Hey, you're the one that mentioned people jumping out of windows because of an edible. No shifting the goal post now. Also, I've never said cannabis was safe for everybody and I've never said it was a cure all for everything. Thanks for playing. Try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Apparently not, unless it was changed after the cookie incident.

---

Source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

I know in Colorado you are limited to how much cannabis you can buy. 1 ounce if you are a resident and a quarter of an ounce if you are out of state. I'm guessing it is also the same with edibles but I'm not sure.

---

One ounce per shop...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

I don't think we need to over regulate just because people can't follow directions.

---

The entire 20th century disagrees with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Hey, you're the one that mentioned people jumping out of windows because of an edible. No shifting the goal post now.

---

For the love of everything. Is that your baseline or something? Is that what you consider "unsafe"? Anything less than jumping off of a fourth story balcony is fine?

I also mentioned the guy ingesting marijuana and shooting his wife after she called 911 because she was worried he would shoot himself. That doesn't quite rise to the level of jumping off a fourth story balcony or something?

If these are just two incidents of this happening after Colorado legalized marijuana for personal use then obviously this shit happens quite often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

For the love of everything. Is that your baseline or something? Is that what you consider "unsafe"? Anything less than jumping off of a fourth story balcony is fine?

I also mentioned the guy ingesting marijuana and shooting his wife after she called 911 because she was worried he would shoot himself. That doesn't quite rise to the level of jumping off a fourth story balcony or something?

If these are just two incidents of this happening after Colorado legalized marijuana for personal use then obviously this shit happens quite often.

---

You mentioned one particular case and I responded. If you would like to revise your original statement I may reply to tbat one too based upon your new variables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

One ounce per shop...

---

Not only is it not illegal to visit more than one shop, the law just says a single "transaction" can't be more than 1/4th of an ounce for non Colorado residents. Apparently most pot stores are limiting people to 1/4th of an ounce a day just to play it safe but even then, that limit is just for out of state residents.

There are no limits to how much weed a Colorado resident can buy in a single day, they can just never possess more than an ounce on them at a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

You mentioned one particular case and I responded. If you would like to revise your original statement I may reply to tbat one too based upon your new variables.

---

My good God man. Do you have stock in a pot company or something? The way you jump through these hoops to downplay anything bad said about marijuana is quite silly.

I think an ounce is a fine amount. Me, personally, that would last at least a month.

IMHO if you use pot you are a moron, and you deserve what you get. Enough said.

It would be awesome if some of you who favor regulation, there's more you can do than argue amongst yourselves. Hell, please write these legislators and stop this stupid bill that is NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.

Quote:

---

Senate Bill 5052 to shut down dispensaries in the state and to establish a mandatory patient registry has been assigned to the House Health Care and Wellness Committee (it's already been approved by the full Senate); please contact members of the committee and ask them to oppose this unwanted proposal!

---

http://leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/H...bersStaff.aspx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Candor

IMHO if you drink beer you are a moron, and you deserve what you get. Enough said.

---

Oh the hypocrisy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

For the love of everything. Is that your baseline or something? Is that what you consider "unsafe"? Anything less than jumping off of a fourth story balcony is fine?

I also mentioned the guy ingesting marijuana and shooting his wife after she called 911 because she was worried he would shoot himself. That doesn't quite rise to the level of jumping off a fourth story balcony or something?

If these are just two incidents of this happening after Colorado legalized marijuana for personal use then obviously this shit happens quite often.

---

If people doing stupid shit while under the influence is our baseline for whether a drug should be legal or not, be prepared to take a hard look at alcohol. Or watch any random episode of COPS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

If people doing stupid shit while under the influence is our baseline for whether a drug should be legal or not, be prepared to take a hard look at alcohol. Or watch any random episode of COPS.

---

Hell take a look at anything that could possibly be dangerous. Should we get verbal warnings at fat food restaurants over the dangers of obesity? Are you sure you want to supersize that soda, sir?

The point is, if we're going to start rattling off the dumb shit people do while high as a reason it should stay banned, well, one could fill these boards with the craziness of drunks for the next seventy years and not even scratch the surface. Still doesn't mean it should be illegal.

WB you casual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

If people doing stupid shit while under the influence is our baseline for whether a drug should be legal or not, be prepared to take a hard look at alcohol. Or watch any random episode of COPS.

---

I didn't say marijuana should be outlawed. I said I think we need more/better regulation than some dude at a pot shop saying "Make sure you just take one fifth of this cookie at once."

As I said before I think a huge part of the problem is the legalize crowd usually completely downplays or outright ignores any negative side effects of marijuana (see pk's posts) so you have some people out there who are led to believe that marijuana is 100% safe no matter what and the worst thing that can happen to you is you might raid the fridge at midnight.

Maybe the more regulation that is needed is some straight forward education at the register:

Only eat a fifth of this cookie at once. Hey motherfucker! Listen! I'm fucking serious. One fifth of this motherfucking cookie or you might feel the urge to jump out of the window.

Educating people should never be viewed as a bad thing. Even if it's education on the 100% safe drug known as marijuana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

The point is, if we're going to start rattling off the dumb shit people do while high as a reason it should stay banned, well, one could fill these boards with the craziness of drunks for the next seventy years and not even scratch the surface. Still doesn't mean it should be illegal.

---

I'm proof of that theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

WB you casual.

---

It was pointless. He'll talk about how going beyond the recommended serving sizes for fats and sugars is "no longer casual use."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I didn't say marijuana should be outlawed. I said I think we need more/better regulation than some dude at a pot shop saying "Make sure you just take one fifth of this cookie at once."

As I said before I think a huge part of the problem is the legalize crowd usually completely downplays or outright ignores any negative side effects of marijuana (see pk's posts) so you have some people out there who are led to believe that marijuana is 100% safe no matter what and the worst thing that can happen to you is you might raid the fridge at midnight.

Maybe the more regulation that is needed is some straight forward education at the register:

Only eat a fifth of this cookie at once. Hey motherfucker! Listen! I'm fucking serious. One fifth of this motherfucking cookie or you might feel the urge to jump out of the window.

Educating people should never be viewed as a bad thing. Even if it's education on the 100% safe drug known as marijuana.

---

I agree. I think it touches on a problem with the whole legalization movement- on the one hand you have folks who yell about how important of a MEDICATION marijuana is, and on the other hand go on about how it's just harmless fun and as adults they should be able to enjoy getting high if they feel like it.

Come to think of it... doesn't that strike you as sort of... SCHIZOPHRENIC??????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

I'm proof of that theory.

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I didn't say marijuana should be outlawed. I said I think we need more/better regulation than some dude at a pot shop saying "Make sure you just take one fifth of this cookie at once."

As I said before I think a huge part of the problem is the legalize crowd usually completely downplays or outright ignores any negative side effects of marijuana (see pk's posts) so you have some people out there who are led to believe that marijuana is 100% safe no matter what and the worst thing that can happen to you is you might raid the fridge at midnight.

Maybe the more regulation that is needed is some straight forward education at the register:

Only eat a fifth of this cookie at once. Hey motherfucker! Listen! I'm fucking serious. One fifth of this motherfucking cookie or you might feel the urge to jump out of the window.

Educating people should never be viewed as a bad thing. Even if it's education on the 100% safe drug known as marijuana.

---

Quit being such a fucking Latrin. "See pks posts." Dumbass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Quit being such a fucking Latrin. "See pks posts." Dumbass.

---

So sensitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

So sensitive.

---

I have a low tolerance for idiocy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

I have a low tolerance for idiocy.

---

Waking up in the morning must be tough :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

I agree. I think it touches on a problem with the whole legalization movement- on the one hand you have folks who yell about how important of a MEDICATION marijuana is, and on the other hand go on about how it's just harmless fun and as adults they should be able to enjoy getting high if they feel like it.

Come to think of it... doesn't that strike you as sort of... SCHIZOPHRENIC??????????

---

I don't see cannabis being a versatile substance as being negative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

I have a low tolerance for idiocy.

---

Yeah! You tell that mirror what's what PK!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Quit being such a fucking Latrin. "See pks posts." Dumbass.

---

Fuck! Why so hostile?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

I don't see cannibals being a versatile substance as being negative.

---

http://galeri12.uludagsozluk.com/507...lly_636563.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

http://galeri12.uludagsozluk.com/507...lly_636563.jpg

---

Holy shit. Back actually made me laugh so hard.

You mentioning me and being hard makes me uncomfortable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Fuck! Why so hostile?

---

The board trolls keep implying that I think cannabis is danger free and also a cure all wonder drug. It doesn't help their stance any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

http://galeri12.uludagsozluk.com/507...lly_636563.jpg

---

Hah! The X Files episode I'm on now is actually about a cannibal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

The board trolls keep implying that I think cannabis is danger free and also a cure all wonder drug. It doesn't help their stance any.

---

Losing your shit is what trolls want.

Weed. Weed? Who gives two fucks about weed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

I don't see cannabis being a versatile substance as being negative.

---

I don't necessarily disagree, it just doesn't make for a very cohesive presentation.

We need this serious medication for our <insert whatever random ailment>!!!
What's the big deal about getting a little high?! Don't be such a square, marijuana is totally benign!

Your average joe is gonna be suspicious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Hah! The X Files episode I'm on now is actually about a cannibal.

---

Have you ever seen a cannibal ..... on weeeeed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

One fifth of this motherfucking cookie or you might feel the urge to jump out of the window.

---

Oh let the druggies kill themselves off. Would solve several problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Candor

Oh let the druggies kill themselves off. Would solve several problems.

---

Like robin Williams?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Apparently they aren't too regulated if someone can sell a cookie to someone and say "Now promise to only eat a fifth of this at a time" and then sells the dude at least 2 cookies.

I'm just saying if more than a fifth of a cookie is "too much" then maybe they should put less marijuana or whatever in the cookie and make the whole cookie safe and say okay, only one cookie for you mister.

---

That's like blaming the vendor because someone bought a gallon of whiskey and then chugged the whole thing.

Quote:

---

I didn't say marijuana should be outlawed. I said I think we need more/better regulation than some dude at a pot shop saying "Make sure you just take one fifth of this cookie at once."

---

What do you suggest though? That the clerk follow the customer home and if they try to eat more than 1/5 the cookie he slaps their hand and says "No no!" and takes their cookie away?

Quote:

---

Just going from the couple of times I drank alcohol and I couldn't even imagine just chugging down that shit in a matter of seconds.

---

This is the problem with people in this thread. The ones railing against things to such a huge degree have little to no first hand experience with the stuff they're talking about. DON'T RUIN POT LIKE YOU RUINED GEMSTONE!!!!!11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

That's exactly what I'm getting at. People obviously don't know enough about this shit so we should be selling them less of this stuff, not more.

---

Should we only sell vodka in single shot bottles too?

Quote:

---

If people are literally eating these things and jumping out of windows an hour later how can you say more regulation isn't needed?

---

Because you can't regulate stupid. Otherwise everything would need to be banned. And taking some 1 in a million case and acting like it happens regularly is making you look like Latrin, and you must stop that immediately!

There's nothing wrong with making it mandatory to present more information to the consumer. There's a lot wrong with overregulating/banning something because a consumer chooses to be a retard and ignore said information.

Quote:

---

The way you jump through these hoops to downplay anything bad said about marijuana is quite silly.

---

It's because most if not all of those cases end up boiling down to human stupidity as opposed to reefer madness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Candor

Oh let the druggies kill themselves off. Would solve several problems

---

How long do you think it would take for those potheads to kill themselves off, with pot being such a dangerous drug that's responsible for millions upon millions of deaths?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagweed

Latrinsorm appears fixated on graphs and charts and statistical analysis, not real life. It really doesn't matter the topic, from my experience, it's more about picking issues apart and the sport of debate. I also believe he leans so far right in terms of Western Medicine and traditional conservative funded research that he cannot hear anything other than the propaganda. I have many family members and friends who are equally rigid in their belief systems, many of whom coincidentally, are also alcoholics. One of the things that I have finally accepted in life is that you cannot TELL someone to understand something, believe something, or do something. They have to be ready to receive that information and openly accept it and make the move themselves. I pray for his sake that his lesson isn't too painful when he has to look outside the tiny box. Knowledge may come with study, but wisdom comes with experience. Respect(fully yours)...as per Subzero's rec!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

A student asked me once about the physics concept of work, which is traditionally troubling because it is askew from the common definition. "But what does it mean?" she asked. I said to her, "math is the fundamental reality." She got an A on the test. (But not a hundred. No smiley face.)You disagree with Dr. Horwood, I take it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous Wise Man That PM'd Me Once

I actually think worse of Latrin than just thinking he's a liar. I suspect he's some sort of anti-social home schooled semi autistic guy who's rarely spoken to a real human in his life. I don't think he understands how the human mind works, and thinks he can explain life with numbers. The guy won't even commit to picking his favorite NBA team. He's a weird cat.

---

^

Leave cats out of this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

That's like blaming the vendor because someone bought a gallon of whiskey and then chugged the whole thing.



What do you suggest though? That the clerk follow the customer home and if they try to eat more than 1/5 the cookie he slaps their hand and says "No no!" and takes their cookie away?



This is the problem with people in this thread. The ones railing against things to such a huge degree have little to no first hand experience with the stuff they're talking about. DON'T RUIN POT LIKE YOU RUINED GEMSTONE!!!!!11



Should we only sell vodka in single shot bottles too?



Because you can't regulate stupid. Otherwise everything would need to be banned. And taking some 1 in a million case and acting like it happens regularly is making you look like Latrin, and you must stop that immediately!

There's nothing wrong with making it mandatory to present more information to the consumer. There's a lot wrong with overregulating/banning something because a consumer chooses to be a retard and ignore said information.



It's because most if not all of those cases end up boiling down to human stupidity as opposed to reefer madness.



How long do you think it would take for those potheads to kill themselves off, with pot being such a dangerous drug that's responsible for millions upon millions of deaths?







^

---

You're missing the point, my friend. Everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING that happens is someone or something else's fault and we have to know who to sue. Without regulation WHO WILL WE SUE FOR BAD THINGS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

You're missing the point, my friend. Everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING that happens is someone or something else's fault and we have to know who to sue. Without regulation WHO WILL WE SUE FOR BAD THINGS?

---

Oh yeah. My bad. :(

Wait, whose fault is it when someone sharts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Oh yeah. My bad. :(

Wait, whose fault is it when someone sharts?

---

Certainly not the sharter, so we can rule him/her out. Hmm. I'm not sure. Where's Back when you need him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceyrin

Just leave Latrin alone. He's a nazi.

---

Close. He's a fascist. Unless he's just hiding his antisemitism...although I would be interested to hear his take on Scientific Racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

If people doing stupid shit while under the influence is our baseline for whether a drug should be legal or not, be prepared to take a hard look at alcohol. Or watch any random episode of COPS.

---

There are already laws about doing stupid shit while under the influence of alcohol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Hell take a look at anything that could possibly be dangerous. Should we get verbal warnings at fat food restaurants over the dangers of obesity? Are you sure you want to supersize that soda, sir?

---

There are already laws regulating foodstuffs (i.e. 2003 FDA ruling that trans fats must be on ingredients list, at the state and local level there are TONS of these laws).

So... yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

There are already laws about doing stupid shit while under the influence of alcohol.



There are already laws regulating foodstuffs (i.e. 2003 FDA ruling that trans fats must be on ingredients list, at the state and local level there are TONS of these laws).

So... yeah.

---

Everyone knows that Americans don't read though. Which is why the cashier should be like HEY...JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT YOU'RE GONNA GET EVEN FATTER IF YOU EAT THIS CHICKEN SHIT BULLSHIT!!!

I personally look for those products with extra trans fats. They taste better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

I personally look for those products with extra trans fats. They taste better.

---

Saturated > trans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

That's like blaming the vendor because someone bought a gallon of whiskey and then chugged the whole thing.



What do you suggest though? That the clerk follow the customer home and if they try to eat more than 1/5 the cookie he slaps their hand and says "No no!" and takes their cookie away?



This is the problem with people in this thread. The ones railing against things to such a huge degree have little to no first hand experience with the stuff they're talking about. DON'T RUIN POT LIKE YOU RUINED GEMSTONE!!!!!11



Should we only sell vodka in single shot bottles too?



Because you can't regulate stupid. Otherwise everything would need to be banned. And taking some 1 in a million case and acting like it happens regularly is making you look like Latrin, and you must stop that immediately!

There's nothing wrong with making it mandatory to present more information to the consumer. There's a lot wrong with overregulating/banning something because a consumer chooses to be a retard and ignore said information.



It's because most if not all of those cases end up boiling down to human stupidity as opposed to reefer madness.



How long do you think it would take for those potheads to kill themselves off, with pot being such a dangerous drug that's responsible for millions upon millions of deaths?







^

---

Actually you're right; if someone wants to eat 20 cookies and jump out of a window who am I to stop them?

However if someone can very easily overdose on these things that they start waving a gun around and shooting their wife who is trying to summon help for him then maybe things need to be looked at more carefully. Is the clerk even required to tell the dude to only eat a fifth of a cookie? I kind of thought that was just the clerk doing a "by the way" thing to cover their own ass.

If eating a high amount of trans fats could cause one to pull out a gun and start firing randomly then yes, I also think the cashier/server/whathaveyou should be required to educate the customer on that very real possibility and probably make sure not to serve him two hamburgers if one hamburger has the possibility of going insane. This is especially true if most of your customers walk in thinking hamburgers are 100% safe and can never make you do shit like that no matter how many you eat.

If the state wants to get into the business of making money off this shit then they should get into the business of investing some of that money back into making sure as many people as possible are doing so safely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

This is the problem with people in this thread. The ones railing against things to such a huge degree have little to no first hand experience with the stuff they're talking about. DON'T RUIN POT LIKE YOU RUINED GEMSTONE!!!!!11

---

Do you have personal experience with drinking 10 times the considered "safe" limit of alcohol in the time it would take you to consume two regular sized cookies? :/

I still say it would probably be almost impossible to do so without vomiting/getting sick or even passing out. That would be like, what, drinking 50 beers in 20 seconds?

ETA: A quick Google search states someone died of alcohol poisoning from consuming 24 shots of liquor in 2 hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Do you have personal experience with drinking 10 times the considered "safe" limit of alcohol in the time it would take you to consume two regular sized cookies? :/

I still say it would probably be almost impossible to do so without vomiting/getting sick or even passing out. That would be like, what, drinking 50 beers in 20 seconds?

---

Amateur.

No one is going to OD off 2 cannabis edibles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

No one is going to OD off 2 cannabis edibles.

---

Source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

No one is going to OD off 2 cannabis edibles.

---

Did you not read the story I linked? Or are you saying the experts and friends and everyone else involved in the case are wrong? Or are you saying their behavior was normal for even consuming a normal amount of marijuana?! :O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Did you not read the story I linked? Or are you saying the experts and friends and everyone else involved in the case are wrong? Or are you saying their behavior was normal for even consuming a normal amount of marijuana?! :O

---

Pain pills and marijuana.

http://www.9news.com/story/news/crim...urder/7832479/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Pain pills and marijuana.

http://www.9news.com/story/news/crim...urder/7832479/

---

So?

Even if you're trying to claim "See?! Marijuana PLUS other drugs = bad" that's still, like, bad and stuff and people should be educated on the dangers. Right on the prescription bottle it will say "Do not operate heavy machinery or drink alcohol while on this medication." Does it say the same for the marijuana candy bar?

From what I read the guy jumping out the window had no documented mental disorders and his friends attested he only took marijuana and they only found marijuana in his system.

How do you account for that one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

So?

Even if you're trying to claim "See?! Marijuana PLUS other drugs = bad" that's still, like, bad and stuff and people should be educated on the dangers. Right on the prescription bottle it will say "Do not operate heavy machinery or drink alcohol while on this medication." Does it say the same for the marijuana candy bar?

From what I read the guy jumping out the window had no documented mental disorders and his friends attested he only took marijuana and they only found marijuana in his system.

How do you account for that one?

---

General retardation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Actually you're right; if someone wants to eat 20 cookies and jump out of a window who am I to stop them?

However if someone can very easily overdose on these things that they start waving a gun around and shooting their wife who is trying to summon help for him then maybe things need to be looked at more carefully. Is the clerk even required to tell the dude to only eat a fifth of a cookie? I kind of thought that was just the clerk doing a "by the way" thing to cover their own ass.

If eating a high amount of trans fats could cause one to pull out a gun and start firing randomly then yes, I also think the cashier/server/whathaveyou should be required to educate the customer on that very real possibility and probably make sure not to serve him two hamburgers if one hamburger has the possibility of going insane. This is especially true if most of your customers walk in thinking hamburgers are 100% safe and can never make you do shit like that no matter how many you eat.

If the state wants to get into the business of making money off this shit then they should get into the business of investing some of that money back into making sure as many people as possible are doing so safely.

---

What regulations are in place to stop .000000001% of drunk people from chugging down a big bottle of whiskey and then whipping out his gun and shooting people?

What regulations are in place to stop .00000001% of drivers from having a bad day and snapping and running someone over in a fit of rage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

How do you account for that one?

---

Darwin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

What regulations are in place to stop .000000001% of drunk people from chugging down a big bottle of whiskey and then whipping out his gun and shooting people?

What regulations are in place to stop .00000001% of drivers from having a bad day and snapping and running someone over in a fit of rage?

---

We obviously need labels on vehicles advising drivers against that course of action, Mr. "Cars are so safe".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

We obviously need labels on vehicles advising drivers against that course of action, Mr. "Cars are so safe".

---

You are obviously a shill for the label industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

What regulations are in place to stop .000000001% of drunk people from chugging down a big bottle of whiskey and then whipping out his gun and shooting people?

What regulations are in place to stop .00000001% of drivers from having a bad day and snapping and running someone over in a fit of rage?

---

I think you're downplaying the dangers of overdosing on marijuana.

According to this story Colorado's Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center had 56 marijuana related calls from people 19 and older in 1 year. Also that same year Children’s Hospital Colorado admitted 14 children under the age of 10 for ingesting marijuana edibles.

Maybe not everyone is overdosing and going on a homicidal rampage but it's kind of hard to deny that people are overdosing. Whether that's because they are morons or because they are not properly educated I can't say. But in either case more education certainly can't hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Darwin.

---

Anything but blaming the weed, am I rite?! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Do you have personal experience with drinking 10 times the considered "safe" limit of alcohol in the time it would take you to consume two regular sized cookies? :/

I still say it would probably be almost impossible to do so without vomiting/getting sick or even passing out. That would be like, what, drinking 50 beers in 20 seconds?

ETA: A quick Google search states someone died of alcohol poisoning from consuming 24 shots of liquor in 2 hours.

---

Technically, 1 drink per hour is what's considered the "safe" limit I'm pretty sure.

I've definitely had binges before where I nailed down 10 drinks in an hour. I was pretty trashed of course and probably barfed all over the place later that night, but I survived and so did everyone else, and nothing bad happened to anybody, unless you count being really wasted as something bad happening to you.

The next day was pretty rough though. Good thing weed is great for hangovers.

Some people just aren't meant to do certain things. Some people can drink a case of beer and not lose control of themselves, whereas other people can drink a few beers and become a complete out of control retard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I think you're downplaying the dangers of overdosing on marijuana.

According to this story Colorado's Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center had 56 marijuana related calls from people 19 and older in 1 year. Also that same year Children’s Hospital Colorado admitted 14 children under the age of 10 for ingesting marijuana edibles.

Maybe not everyone is overdosing and going on a homicidal rampage but it's kind of hard to deny that people are overdosing. Whether that's because they are morons or because they are not properly educated I can't say. But in either case more education certainly can't hurt.



Anything but blaming the weed, am I rite?! :D

---

More like you are trying to inflate the risk. Captain Hyperbole as usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

More like you are trying to inflate the risk. Captain Hyperbole as usual.

---

Right. 70 cases of overdosing plus 2 cases where people were killed = "inflating the risk."

And these are just the cases we know of; how many people overdosed and did crazy shit that never made the news?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Right. 70 cases of overdosing plus 2 cases where people were killed = "inflating the risk."

And these are just the cases we know of; how many people overdosed and did crazy shit that never made the news?

---

3

It's amazing that this humongous train wreck of a conversation is even going about pot of all things.

You'd think they legalized cocaine or something by reading this thread. Except for the parts that say pot/weed/marijuana of course. And Latrinsorm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Right. 70 cases of overdosing plus 2 cases where people were killed = "inflating the risk."

And these are just the cases we know of; how many people overdosed and did crazy shit that never made the news?

---

Going to the hospital because you feel dizzy doesn't mean you overdosed. And out of the staggering amount of cannabis sold in Colorado last year you're concerned with 2 deaths? One of whom was also on prescription pain meds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

It's amazing that this humongous train wreck of a conversation is even going about pot of all things.

You'd think they legalized cocaine or something by reading this thread. Except for the parts that say pot/weed/marijuana of course. And Latrinsorm.

---

It's funny that the people railing against marijuana are the ones who've never tried it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Going to the hospital because you feel dizzy doesn't mean you overdosed. And out of the staggering amount of cannabis sold in Colorado last year you're concerned with 2 deaths? One of whom was also on prescription pain meds?

---

Keep on downplaying this shit. So all those 70 people, including 14 kids under the age of 10, went to the hospital because they were feeling dizzy huh? And yes, quite frankly I'm concerned with all preventable deaths, aren't you? :/

And what does him being on prescription pain meds have anything to do with anything? Did his prescription pain meds cause him to go insane and shoot his wife?

Honest question here pk, do you really think you're doing anyone any favors by trying to hide/downplay the dangerous of consuming too much marijuana?

If someone who literally had no knowledge about the dangers of alcohol asked you about alcohol would you consider yourself a good person if you said hey man, alcohol is 100% safe! Feel free to drink that shit until you can't drink no more then drive yourself home!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

It's funny that the people railing against marijuana are the ones who've never tried it.

---

Why do people keep harping on this? I would hope the ones legislating about murder have never committed murder yet still have enough information on the subject to be able to properly legislate it.

I also find it funny that the ones trying to downplay the dangers of marijuana are the ones who apparently smoke it like it's going out of style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Why do people keep harping on this? I would hope the ones legislating about murder have never committed murder yet still have enough information on the subject to be able to properly legislate it.

I also find it funny that the ones trying to downplay the dangers of marijuana are the ones who apparently smoke it like it's going out of style.

---

Who is smoking like its going out of style? Stop being such a latrine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Who is smoking like its going out of style?

---

THIS GUY

Fear: an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Because I'm not a Young Earth Creationist I agree with Dr. Jensen. I also have some knowledge of the developmental ages of schizophrenia.

---

Ah, do tell! I assume you are not going to for reasons that remain unclear, and I further assume that you are referring to the fact that the majority of schizophrenia occurs between the ages of 15 and 25. That is a fact! But "majority" doesn't mean "all"; in fact, I found one source that attests the distribution is bimodal, and in fact increases from age 25 to age 30. It also turns out that marijuana use beyond the age of 25 still causes schizophrenia. Ask this Dr. Jensen (whoever they are) to their face whether they have ever tested that hypothesis. See if their eyes can convince you of the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

No one (except Latrin) ever says aspirin is always safe.

---

I specifically specified the cases where aspirin was dangerous, you specious specie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

What do you suggest though? That the clerk follow the customer home and if they try to eat more than 1/5 the cookie he slaps their hand and says "No no!" and takes their cookie away?

---

If our friend the federal government had cameras in everyone's houses, we could outfit them with mechanical hands to slap people who eat more than 1/5 of a cookie, marijuana or otherwise.

Quote:

---

It's amazing that this humongous train wreck of a conversation is even going about pot of all things.

---

For the record, my intent in making this thread was to address a specific point Fallen raised that I thought was pretty interesting: age of marijuana use and psychosis. It's not my fault you people went off topic within the first reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

Close. He's a fascist. Unless he's just hiding his antisemitism...although I would be interested to hear his take on Scientific Racism.

---

You mentioned once before how our discussions never go anywhere, and here is another way they have! From time to time I make the claim that everyone is religious, because what it means to be religious is not belief in a Christian God but a division of the world into sacred and profane. Sacred: that at which thou shalt not laugh. Sacred: that which thou shalt not question. I make the objectively mild claim that marijuana should remain illegal, and I am accused of being a Nazi, a closet Nazi, and as bad as a Nazi (or worse) in the same thread. These are objectively unreasonable responses. Where, then, do they come from? Those who trespass the sacred are the worst, by definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

Fear: an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.

---

Dang I wish I had refreshed the page before replying, because this is another perfect description for my last point. Have I called people Nazis, or told them that they disgust me? Everyone can agree that I have relied incessantly and interminably on dry, boring facts. This is not how fear works. Emotion does not assemble citations. Emotion produces epithets. Why am I not emotional about this? Because it's not sacred to me. It's just math. I respectfully submit that this is a more productive and reliable way of finding the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Dang I wish I had refreshed the page before replying, because this is another perfect description for my last point. Have I called people Nazis, or told them that they disgust me? Everyone can agree that I have relied incessantly and interminably on dry, boring facts. This is not how fear works. Emotion does not assemble citations. Emotion produces epithets. Why am I not emotional about this? Because it's not sacred to me. It's just math. I respectfully submit that this is a more productive and reliable way of finding the truth.

---

I didn't quote you in particular for a reason, Latrin, and I believe I already called you out specifically on your divine belief in figures. I do feel that there is a general fear that feeds this discussion, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

I didn't quote you in particular for a reason, Latrin, and I believe I already called you out specifically on your divine belief in figures. I do feel that there is a general fear that feeds this discussion, however.

---

You referring to people who are worried about any additional regulations because reasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

You referring to people who are worried about any additional regulations because reasons?

---

Clearly you have missed ALL my posts. Herpa derp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rofj9M5owGI

Quote:

---

Reactions to Jon Snow trying Skunk while studies are linking it to an increased risk of psychosis.

---

Russell Brand is here to reason this out. I think he probably follows the PC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

Clearly you have missed ALL my posts. Herpa derp.

---

I asked for clarification on your post. Chill.

Why is everyone so hostile in a thread about weed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I asked for clarification on your post. Chill.

Why is everyone so hostile in a thread about weed?

---

I am completely not hostile. I'm quite docile, in fact! However, you might call my retort 'reactionary' or 'frustrated' at the need to go back and remind you of my position on regulation. In fact, my last post in this thread was a link to details about said position. lrn2rd before you troll?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Ah, do tell! I assume you are not going to for reasons that remain unclear, and I further assume that you are referring to the fact that the majority of schizophrenia occurs between the ages of 15 and 25. That is a fact! But "majority" doesn't mean "all"; in fact, I found one source that attests the distribution is bimodal, and in fact increases from age 25 to age 30. It also turns out that marijuana use beyond the age of 25 still causes schizophrenia. Ask this Dr. Jensen (whoever they are) to their face whether they have ever tested that hypothesis. See if their eyes can convince you of the truth.

---

It's fine that you're a Creationist. They make pretenses to scientific understanding too. I think the head of an Ivy League neuroscience department might actually outgun your entry in the Mark Twain PHD race.

See, that's the thing in the end. I did my research and came to a well reasoned conclusion. You've come to a conclusion and then constantly worked on your research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

See, that's the thing in the end. I did my research and came to a well reasoned conclusion. You've come to a conclusion and then constantly worked on your research.

---

THIS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

It's funny that the people railing against marijuana are the ones who've never tried it.

---

Which isn't surprising. At all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54xWo7ITFbg

I also missed the post a few pages back about overdosing on pot.

There's no such thing as overdosing on pot. There is such a thing as not being able to handle your shit, but that isn't the same as overdosing.

Overdosing typically involves things like permanent damage and/or risk of death. Like what happens with real drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

I am completely not hostile. I'm quite docile, in fact! However, you might call my retort 'reactionary' or 'frustrated' at the need to go back and remind you of my position on regulation. In fact, my last post in this thread was a link to details about said position. lrn2rd before you troll?

---

You're hostile/not hostile because I didn't read all of your posts on this subject and couldn't decipher your other post to know exactly what you were referring to? :/

I think everyone in this thread is suffering from psychosis!

I'm not sure where hostility even comes into play?

I'll just leave this here:

https://beefyhouse.files.wordpress.c...its-patent.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

There's no such thing as overdosing on pot.

---

What about the cases I linked to where people were rushed to the hospital and went insane and jumped out of a window and shot people? :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Overdosing typically involves things like permanent damage and/or risk of death. Like what happens with real drugs.

---

Overdosing means taking too much of a drug as to make it dangerous. I'd say having to be admitted to the ER or jumping out of a window falls into the category of taking too much of a drug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

It's fine that you're a Creationist. They make pretenses to scientific understanding too. I think the head of an Ivy League neuroscience department might actually outgun your entry in the Mark Twain PHD race. See, that's the thing in the end. I did my research and came to a well reasoned conclusion. You've come to a conclusion and then constantly worked on your research.

---

What specifically did your head of &c. say? ...that schizophrenia cannot develop after age 25? ...that environmental effects cease to induce it after age 25? ...that marijuana specifically does not induce it, after age 25 or otherwise? You have a fine authority, and I am glad to hear her contribution, but I would like to hear it for myself, not rely on your summary. I quote my sources, surely you can as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagweed

THIS!

---

I've cited over a dozen papers, and I've cited posts that demonstrate how I used to hold a different position. Why doesn't that count as research leading to a well reasoned conclusion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

THIS GUY

---

I don't somehow doubt tgo was referring to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

What about the cases I linked to where people were rushed to the hospital and went insane and jumped out of a window and shot people? :/



Overdosing means taking too much of a drug as to make it dangerous. I'd say having to be admitted to the ER or jumping out of a window falls into the category of taking too much of a drug.

---

Going to the hospital is the definition of an overdose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Going to the hospital is the definition of an overdose?

---

Uh...yeah? Unless normal usage of a drug usually requires a trip to the ER.

Is this a trick question?

ETA: No, going to the hospital is not the "definition" of over dosing, but people going to the ER obviously did OD. I guess it was a trick question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Uh...yeah? Unless normal usage of a drug usually requires a trip to the ER.

Is this a trick question?

ETA: No, going to the hospital is not the "definition" of over dosing, but people going to the ER obviously did OD. I guess it was a trick question.

---

Millions of ER visits are caused by people having adverse reactions to drugs at prescribed dosages. That isn't called an overdose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Millions of ER visits are caused by people having adverse reactions to drugs at prescribed dosages. That isn't called an overdose.

---

A) "Adverse drug reactions" include people overdosing on drugs.
B) Are you really going to nitpick someone having an "adverse reaction" and someone overdosing on a drug?

If someone goes to the ER because of <insert drug here> shouldn't we be concerned enough that we want people to be informed of what's going inside of them?

If my doctor prescribed me medication that might cause me to go insane and want to stab myself in the heart then I would want my doctor to inform me of that risk; whether the risk was 1 in 10 or 1 in 1,000,000. Whether it was from overdosing or from normal usage.

Wouldn't you want to be informed of said possible side effects? Or would you want this information to be swept under the rug because reasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

What specifically did your head of &c. say? ...that schizophrenia cannot develop after age 25? ...that environmental effects cease to induce it after age 25? ...that marijuana specifically does not induce it, after age 25 or otherwise? You have a fine authority, and I am glad to hear her contribution, but I would like to hear it for myself, not rely on your summary. I quote my sources, surely you can as well. I've cited over a dozen papers, and I've cited posts that demonstrate how I used to hold a different position. Why doesn't that count as research leading to a well reasoned conclusion?

---

Let's think about your take a little bit. If this were a position you held, you'd already claim it was accurate.

When you go to seek out information for a particular goal, you're doing it wrong, to be honest.

I did a bunch of reading. You were somewhat right. I changed my take on the matter. When do we get to the point where you actually read anything but stuff that directly supports your theory? It'll never happen.

It doesn't take us, even if it did, from the sociological hell that you and your like unleash on American society. I'm glad that in this small regard you're losing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

A) "Adverse drug reactions" include people overdosing on drugs.
B) Are you really going to nitpick someone having an "adverse reaction" and someone overdosing on a drug?

If someone goes to the ER because of <insert drug here> shouldn't we be concerned enough that we want people to be informed of what's going inside of them?

If my doctor prescribed me medication that might cause me to go insane and want to stab myself in the heart then I would want my doctor to inform me of that risk; whether the risk was 1 in 10 or 1 in 1,000,000. Whether it was from overdosing or from normal usage.

Wouldn't you want to be informed of said possible side effects? Or would you want this information to be swept under the rug because reasons?

---

It isn't nit picking. It isn't semantics. There is a complete difference between having an adverse reaction and overdosing on something. If I take 1 aspirin and develop a stomach ulcer I won't go around saying I overdosed on aspirin.

It would be amazing if some of you redirected this level of energy and aimed it at the drug companies that pump chemicals into you and your loved ones.

They give disclaimers, alright. It takes 2 minutes for them to get through the 'most common' ones on TV ads. There is a giant pamphlet on each one and their toxic effects on the body.

Pop another Tylenol for your headache like it's a tic-tac and don't worry about the cumulative effect on your liver, then you can get back to typing again how 1/5 of a cannabis medible is going to kill someone.

BTW, Tgo01, this is hostility aimed at the drug companies! I have been pretty vocal about my feelings on this matter, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

It isn't nit picking. It isn't semantics. There is a complete difference between having an adverse reaction and overdosing on something. If I take 1 aspirin and develop a stomach ulcer I won't go around saying I overdosed on aspirin.

---

When it comes to your position of not wanting to inform people of the dangers of marijuana because of reasons then yes, it is nit picking and it is semantics. People are being rushed to the ER for overdosing on marijuana. This has been a documented fact. One person has jumped out of a window after consuming 10 times the recommended amount of THC. This is a documented fact.

You don't want people to be informed of this this. That has been well documented in this thread. You go to lengths to say "No they didn't overdose, they just 'had an adverse reaction.'" Who gives a shit?

What is your game plan here exactly, pk? You got your wish in Colorado and Washington, weed has been legalized for recreational use. Why are you so against any and all evidence that suggests weed isn't all peaches and cream and drinking 10 liters of Mountain Dew?

You keep bringing up alcohol but do you think alcohol laws were what they are today right at the onset? I think the current .08% blood content was as recent as 1992 or 1998, well past the repeal of prohibition.

Breathalyzers in drunk drivers' cars so they have to prove they aren't drunk before starting up their car, that was relatively recent.

All of the research done about liver disease and cancer associated with drinking alcohol, a lot of that came about within the past 50 years.

Adding more regulations.

Making the public aware of the dangers of alcohol through social campaigns and classes.

AA.

Holding people liable for serving people too many drinks.

Age limits.

All sorts of shit happened after alcohol was legalized to keep people informed about the decisions they make and to try and keep people as safe as possible while still allowing them to enjoy their beer.

But if you had your way this whole time I guess it would just be a simple "Well alcohol is legal now! No no, don't publish any research on alcohol about the negative side effects of it. No! No drunk driving laws! None of that shit! Alcohol is LEGAL! Drink up!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

It would be amazing if some of you redirected this level of energy and aimed it at the drug companies that pump chemicals into you and your loved ones.

They give disclaimers, alright. It takes 2 minutes for them to get through the 'most common' ones on TV ads. There is a giant pamphlet on each one and their toxic effects on the body.

Pop another Tylenol for your headache like it's a tic-tac and don't worry about the cumulative effect on your liver, then you can get back to typing again how 1/5 of a cannabis medible is going to kill someone.

---

I'm really confused by this post of yours.

You say we should get upset with the drug companies for pumping chemicals into our bodies yet you go on to state that drug companies don't hide the side effects of their drugs :/

There is all sorts of research done about how aspirin usage can have a cumulative adverse side effect. This is a good thing, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

When it comes to your position of not wanting to inform people of the dangers of marijuana because of reasons then yes, it is nit picking and it is semantics. People are being rushed to the ER for overdosing on marijuana. This has been a documented fact. One person has jumped out of a window after consuming 10 times the recommended amount of THC. This is a documented fact.

You don't want people to be informed of this this. That has been well documented in this thread. You go to lengths to say "No they didn't overdose, they just 'had an adverse reaction.'" Who gives a shit?

What is your game plan here exactly, pk? You got your wish in Colorado and Washington, weed has been legalized for recreational use. Why are you so against any and all evidence that suggests weed isn't all peaches and cream and drinking 10 liters of Mountain Dew?

You keep bringing up alcohol but do you think alcohol laws were what they are today right at the onset? I think the current .08% blood content was as recent as 1992 or 1998, well past the repeal of prohibition.

Breathalyzers in drunk drivers' cars so they have to prove they aren't drunk before starting up their car, that was relatively recent.

All of the research done about liver disease and cancer associated with drinking alcohol, a lot of that came about within the past 50 years.

Adding more regulations.

Making the public aware of the dangers of alcohol through social campaigns and classes.

AA.

Holding people liable for serving people too many drinks.

Age limits.

All sorts of shit happened after alcohol was legalized to keep people informed about the decisions they make and to try and keep people as safe as possible while still allowing them to enjoy their beer.

But if you had your way this whole time I guess it would just be a simple "Well alcohol is legal now! No no, don't publish any research on alcohol about the negative side effects of it. No! No drunk driving laws! None of that shit! Alcohol is LEGAL! Drink up!"

---

You are a riot. Seriously. You keep implying things that contradict what I say. I've already said in this thread that I am for regulations. The marijuana is tested in a lab. Precise THC numbers are labeled on packaging as well as dosage and max dosage. You also need to show an ID.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

You are a riot. Seriously. You keep implying things that contradict what I say. I've already said in this thread that I am for regulations. The marijuana is tested in a lab. Precise THC numbers are labeled on packaging as well as dose amounts.

---

Are side effects listed? Is literature handed out to people about the dangers of not adhering to the suggested dose amounts? Are they limiting how much THC laced candy/cookies people can buy? Are they doing more about keeping candy/cookies out of children's hands?

You go to extreme lengths to downplay anything negative said about marijuana usage (adverse reactions not overdosing!) then claim you are in favor of regulations and people being informed about the possible side effects of marijuana? Who exactly do you think you're fooling? Oh and "testing" the THC. Give me a break. THC numbers are labeled? Are these tested by any government agency at all? I did a quick Google search and found that people are already lying about the amount of THC in the shit they sell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Are side effects listed? Is literature handed out to people about the dangers of not adhering to the suggested dose amounts? Are they limiting how much THC laced candy/cookies people can buy? Are they doing more about keeping candy/cookies out of children's hands?

You go to extreme lengths to downplay anything negative said about marijuana usage (adverse reactions not overdosing!) then claim you are in favor of regulations and people being informed about the possible side effects of marijuana? Who exactly do you think you're fooling? Oh and "testing" the THC. Give me a break. THC numbers are labeled? Are these tested by any government agency at all? I did a quick Google search and found that people are already lying about the amount of THC in the shit they sell.

---

You're going to extreme lengths to make yourself look foolish and ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

You're going to extreme lengths to make yourself look foolish and ignorant.

---

There ya go. Keep proving you're not in favor of regulations while claiming you are.

Again, what's your game plan, pk? What is wrong with educating people? So far your idea of "regulation" is "testing" the THC in a lab and having to show an ID? Really?

Circular bullshit and deflection.

This guy wants them to add 'may cause you to jump off balconies if you consume 10 times the legal dose' to a pack of High CBD gummy bears. Okay, sure. I can't even count how many Spring Break tragedies have ended this way from alcohol, so maybe they can add that line to Bartles & Jaymes bottles, too?

I believe in medical marijuana use and regulation and I believe that regulation should be based on real science. I also wholeheartedly believe in natural remedies and modalities that have cured and healed for centuries. I have seen Western medicine put beautiful, previously healthy people in the grave. I have seen acupuncture save a life. My beliefs are based on my experiences primarily and yet I myself struggle with the propaganda fed to me that doctors can fix everything and the drug companies are there to help me.

My point about synthetic drugs and alcohol is this: If you really believe that you are 'safe' after 2 alcoholic drinks chased with 2 OTC painkillers, you are kidding yourself about your health. Have I done this? Yes. But I am not kidding myself about it's effects on my body, any more or less than I do caffeine or chamomile or morphine or, in my case, the very toxic DAIRY. I understand that ANYTHING that I ingest will affect my body.

While I appreciate the efforts and acknowledge the responsibility of our government to regulate foods and drugs for our safety, it's up to ME to truly understand what I am doing to MY BODY, with what, why, and how to improve.

/done arguing for the sake of arguing

Tgo won't be happy until the nanny state sends a court appointed expert home with the consumer to make sure they follow dose requirements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

This guy wants them to add 'may cause you to jump off balconies if you consume 10 times the legal dose' to a pack of High CBD gummy bears.

---

Reductio ad absurdum. Wanting warning labels on drugs does not mean I want them to specifically say "This may cause you to jump off of a fourth story balcony." Didn't you just get finished reaming drug companies for pumping chemicals into us that have adverse effects while at the same time mentioning that they warn us about the adverse effects? :/

Would it be better if drug companies didn't have warning labels? The labels don't warn that it may cause drowsiness or depression or suicidal thoughts or that you shouldn't operate heavy machinery or drink alcohol while taking the medications?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

Okay, sure. I can't even count how many Spring Break tragedies have ended this way from alcohol, so maybe they can add that line to Bartles & Jaymes bottles, too?

---

Sounds good to me. There also isn't a single sane person of drinking age who hasn't heard of the negative side effects of alcohol nor has any reason to disbelieve them. Can we say the same about marijuana? Judging by this thread alone: no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

I believe in medical marijuana use and regulation and I believe that regulation should be based on real science.

---

Okay...well real science says you can overdose on THC and one of the side effects is paranoia and psychotic episodes. Should it be labeled on the marijuana candy? Should there be campaigns involving TV ads and popular rappers making the public aware of these very real and possibly very dangerous side effects?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

While I appreciate the efforts and acknowledge the responsibility of our government to regulate foods and drugs for our safety, it's up to ME to truly understand what I am doing to MY BODY, with what, why, and how to improve.

---

Okay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

/done arguing for the sake of arguing

---

Yes, you are arguing for the sake of arguing at this point because half of your post has literally zero to do with what I've been saying yet you accuse me of "circular bullshit and deflection."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Tgo won't be happy until the nanny state sends a court appointed expert home with the consumer to make sure they follow dose requirements.

---

Tell us again how you're in favor of regulations.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/37913899.jpg

>Tell us again how you're in favor of regulations.

Why? Are you having trouble understanding that I'm for safe, responsible use as well as guidelines and regulations for both recreational and medicinal sales?

http://abaranski.pl/wp-content/uploa...ling-36345.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Reductio ad absurdum.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/37913899.jpg

---

You reeeeally like playing neener neener, don't you?

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/94/9458...ae1974c01b.jpg

Let's just hug instead, mmkay?

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/fa/faa6...db76b6fd7d.jpg

The reason i'm not against more idiot-proofing of edibles is because it is the one of the few things people are gaining any traction on when attacking marijuana sales. That's why I don't mind if they put the more potent edibles behind the counter and require that they spoon feed you literature stating that if you eat highly concentrated edibles you will get very high. They can cover every inch of the packaging in these warnings if they like, too. As long as they can continue to be for sale, then it doesn't matter what manner of packaging there is and what annoying hoops you have to jump through to get it.

As long as you can still get it.

Each week new legislation is introduced in an attempt to expand medical and recreational marijuana. Vermont will likely be the first state to legalize recreational MJ through their own congress, perhaps followed by Michigan. Those that can't manage to pass in that manner will have their chance come 2016, which should see another slew of legalizations.

With so much bullshit being flung at legal weed, the worry over edible marijuana is one of the very few things which stick. Lets address the most rational of these concerns by moving potent edibles behind the counter, covering them with warnings, and requiring signatures and a lecture on risks from your local cashier. It might actually save 1 or 2 lives out of the millions who will consume the product. That's not all that terrible, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/94/9458...ae1974c01b.jpg

---

Who said I was against marijuana? Now who is trolling by not reading every single post by the other person yet still responding to their posts? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

The reason i'm not against more idiot-proofing of edibles is because it is the one of the few things people are gaining any traction on when attacking marijuana sales. That's why I don't mind if they put the more potent edibles behind the counter and require that they spoon feed you literature stating that if you eat highly concentrated edibles you will get very high. They can cover every inch of the packaging in these warnings if they like, too. As long as they can continue to be for sale, then it doesn't matter what manner of packaging there is and what annoying hoops you have to jump through to get it.

As long as you can still get it.

Each week new legislation is introduced in an attempt to expand medical and recreational marijuana. Vermont will likely be the first state to legalize recreational MJ through their own congress, perhaps followed by Michigan. Those that can't manage to pass in that manner will have their chance come 2016, which should see another slew of legalizations.

With so much bullshit being flung at legal weed, the worry over edible marijuana is one of the very few things which stick. Lets address the most rational of these concerns by moving potent edibles behind the counter, covering them with warnings, and requiring signatures and a lecture on risks from your local cashier. It might actually save 1 or 2 lives out of the millions who will consume the product. That's not all that terrible, is it?

---

Aren't they already behind counters? I know many of the edibles are now sold in child proof containers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Aren't they already behind counters? I know many of the edibles are now sold in child proof containers.

---

Child proofing is a requirement from what i've read. It has to do with the difficulty of getting the packaging open.

I haven't read of any specific requirements about where the edibles are stored. That may be a feature now, but I didn't see anything on it. I'll poke around a bit. The only thing that will satisfy people like TGO1 is making strong edibles like the cold medicine that is only available if you ask the cashier (or in that case, pharmacist) for it. They then could pile on the pamphlets and verbal warnings.

This article talks about the new steps in place, but again, probably not far enough to truly make a stab making them completely idiot proof: http://www.thecannabist.co/2015/01/2...s-feb-1/28775/

I'm actually 100% fine with the changes proposed in that article. They're common sense steps to make it harder to OD unless you choose to completely ignore any and all warnings. I'd be curious to hear TGO1's take on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

Child proofing is a requirement from what i've read. It has to do with the difficulty of getting the packaging open.

I haven't read of any specific requirements about where the edibles are stored. That may be a feature now, but I didn't see anything on it. I'll poke around a bit. The only thing that will satisfy people like TGO1 is making strong edibles like the cold medicine that is only available if you ask the cashier (or in that case, pharmacist) for it. They then could pile on the pamphlets and verbal warnings.

---

I've got some family in Colorado that use for medicinal reasons. I'll see what they know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

I've got some family in Colorado that use for medicinal reasons. I'll see what they know.

---

That'd work nicely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

Child proofing is a requirement from what i've read. It has to do with the difficulty of getting the packaging open.

I haven't read of any specific requirements about where the edibles are stored. That may be a feature now, but I didn't see anything on it. I'll poke around a bit. The only thing that will satisfy people like TGO1 is making strong edibles like the cold medicine that is only available if you ask the cashier (or in that case, pharmacist) for it. They then could pile on the pamphlets and verbal warnings.

---

There is no child-proofing going on right now with medibles in WA State. Most flowers are sold in child-proof containers, but I think the gummy bears are more at risk to that age group than a pile of leaves.

Fallen, I appreciate your sensibility and logical approach to the discussion. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

This article talks about the new steps in place, but again, probably not far enough to truly make a stab making them completely idiot proof: http://www.thecannabist.co/2015/01/2...s-feb-1/28775/

I'm actually 100% fine with the changes proposed in that article. They're common sense steps to make it harder to OD unless you choose to completely ignore any and all warnings. I'd be curious to hear TGO1's take on it.

---

Quote:

---

Packaging: Each standardized 10-milligram serving must be demarked “in a way that enables a reasonable person to intuitively determine how much of the product constitutes a single serving of active THC.”

Labeling: There will be more explicit warnings and thorough information on labels, including warning statements such as “This product is unlawful outside the State of Colorado” and “The intoxicating effects of this product may be delayed by two or more hours.”

Potency: The Marijuana Enforcement Division is providing incentives for companies to produce 10 milligram products by putting greater burdens on manufacturers of products between 10 and 100 milligrams.

---

Plus child proofing containers? All sounds very good to me. That's like exactly what I've been asking for this whole thread.

I also like your idea Fallen about having these things behind the counter.

Also the article isn't too thorough on what the warnings all include but it really should have a warning about the dangers of overdosing. I still think there is too much misinformation out there that the only thing that might happen if you take too much THC is you might savagely eat a whole pizza.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leifastagsweed

Fallen, I appreciate your sensibility and logical approach to the discussion. :)

---

He's saying the exact same thing I am :/

Only difference is he is for it to apparently shut people like me up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Only difference is he is for it to apparently shut people like me up.

---

Recreational marijuana is a relatively new phenomenon, as such it will need to go through a growing period where the laws and regulations are refined in order to better serve the situation. Other states have been watching Colorado and Washington in order to learn lessons on every facet of the business so that they can better institute their own practices. New states will learn from the old, and the whole process will be streamlined in the years to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

Recreational marijuana is a relatively new phenomenon, as such it will need to go through a growing period where the laws and regulations are refined in order to better serve the situation.

---

That's what I said earlier too. You're catching a break from everyone cause you said it second :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

That's what I said earlier too. You're catching a break from everyone cause you said it second :p

---

Or because he is rational and not blowing this out of proportion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Or because he is rational and not blowing this out of proportion.

---

All I did was cite the exact same things the article he linked to cited; namely the number of children admitted to the hospital for ingesting THC and the guy who jumped to his death.

A website called "the cannabist" agreed with basically everything I have said so far. The "industry is speaking out in favor of the regulations" I have been asking for. When do you realize you were wrong? How many more slaps across the face do you need?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

All I did was cite the exact same things the article he linked to cited; namely the number of children admitted to the hospital for ingesting THC and the guy who jumped to his death.

A website called "the cannabist" agreed with basically everything I have said so far. The "industry is speaking out in favor of the regulations" I have been asking for. When do you realize you were wrong? How many more slaps across the face do you need?

---

Yeah, sure, that's all you did. You came across as an ignorant latrin wannabe.

In Colorado how it works is you enter the store, they take and electronically verify your ID, you wait till a private room is open, you go in and they close the door, everything is kept behind the counter. The cashier/weed guy explains everything and anything you buy is placed in a special childproof plastic locking envelope. The weed itself comes in non-childproof plastic bottles. Everything is cash. You get your ID back upon exiting the store. It's more stringent than liquor by far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Yeah, sure, that's all you did. You came across as an ignorant latrin wannabe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

How many more slaps across the face do you need?

---

At least one more apparently.

Here is what my posts have looked like in this thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I'll give Latrin credit for one thing; marijuana obviously isn't always Cheech and Chong and someone doing 5 MPH down the road while consuming large amounts of chips. I linked to a story in the other thread where someone ingested a large amount of marijuana and basically went temporarily insane and jumped off a 5 story building. Another person ingested a large amount of marijuana and went crazy and shot his wife after she called 911 because she was worried he was going to kill himself.

Latrin's side of the argument is often mocked for "falling for the propaganda" against a harmless drug while those who say such things usually refuse to believe any negative evidence associated with marijuana use.

I still think marijuana should be legalized but I'm starting to lean away from this whole free for all that people can just enter a pot shop and walk away with 10 pounds of weed. If we're going to get serious about an obviously very serious drug it should have more oversight and regulation than some schmuck working at a pot shop saying "Ddduuudddeee! These cookies are like, potent and shit! Only eat a fifth of a cookie at a time!"

People often bring up alcohol as a comparison against marijuana. Okay, that's great. Alcohol has some heavy regulations regarding it:

21 years older to purchase/drink it
Stores held liable if they don't properly card people
No open containers while driving
Laws against driving while intoxicated
Bars are supposed to recognize when someone has had enough to drink and cut them off
Need a license to sell alcohol
Many states and cities have laws against being drunk in public or drinking in public

All sorts of laws and regulations. But when it comes to marijuana it's usually "Dude! It's safe! What's the worse that can happen, someone drives 5MPH in the right hand lane? LOL!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Apparently they aren't too regulated if someone can sell a cookie to someone and say "Now promise to only eat a fifth of this at a time" and then sells the dude at least 2 cookies.

I'm just saying if more than a fifth of a cookie is "too much" then maybe they should put less marijuana or whatever in the cookie and make the whole cookie safe and say okay, only one cookie for you mister.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

That's exactly what I'm getting at. People obviously don't know enough about this shit so we should be selling them less of this stuff, not more.

If one cookie is 5 times too much then we should be selling smaller cookies or less potent cookies, not selling them at least 2 cookies and saying "Okay, just cut one of these in fifths."

If people actually listened to experts and didn't think they knew more than everyone else we wouldn't even be having this problem in the first place.

---

Here is what your posts have been like in this thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

I don't think we need to over regulate just because people can't follow directions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Quit being such a fucking Latrin. "See pks posts." Dumbass.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

I have a low tolerance for idiocy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

No one is going to OD off 2 cannabis edibles.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Going to the hospital because you feel dizzy doesn't mean you overdosed. And out of the staggering amount of cannabis sold in Colorado last year you're concerned with 2 deaths? One of whom was also on prescription pain meds?

---

And yet I'm the one who came across as an "ignorant latrin wannabe."

You have grandeured your last delusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I'm the one who came across as an "ignorant latrin wannabe."

---

That's what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Here is what my posts have looked like in this thread:

---

Not that I'm the biggest fan of Androidpk in the world, but you were trolling leifa pretty hard too.