Age of Marijuana Use and Psychosis

[Tgo01]

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!"

[Tgo01]

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?

[Androidpk]

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.

[Tgo01]

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.

[Androidpk]

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.

[Tgo01]

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?

[leifastagsweed]

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

[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.

[Tgo01]

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?

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.

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?

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?

/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."

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.

[Androidpk]

>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?