FREQUENT WEED SMOKERS AND MASS MURDERERS

Egads. Another "war on drugs" warrior. How much damage are you prepared to do to society before you learn more about the impact of legalizing marijuana and other drugs.

 

To lump marijuana in with crack and heroin by labeling them all as "drugs", is like lumping a BB gun in with a Howitzer.

Yeah, you can technically call them both guns, but they are not the same thing.

 

Democrats just want your compliance. Shut up and obey. They don't want you to have guns because then they can't send their police to enforce their compliance... A citizenry that can say no isn't what they want....

 

I thought no one was denied the right to have a gun?

 

I suppose this kind of misses the point. The assertion was that stronger weed destabilizes mentally unstable folks. If that relationship leads to more mass shooting, how would you address this?

 

The thing with stronger weed is that it just means that it takes you less to get where you want to go. This is not all that different from beer and whiskey. You can get falling down drunk on either one.

Unlike alcohol where you have the ability to just keep getting more and more drunk the more you drink, with weed, you can only get so high, at which point ingesting more is a waste of time and money.

 

Perhaps doing more investigation is necessary to find out if there is an actual substance that is triggering the violence in these folks.

 

One can concoct all sorts of scenarios that a person could theorize might be the cause of a new societal norm. It is easy to say "more investigation" but what does that even mean? Medical studies require the ability to isolate down to just one variable and for it to be empowered with enough endpoint participants to be able to achieve statistical significance which is what would prove something, which is basically impossible with this topic. There are far too many variables involved, and even if you could isolate to one variable, there are not enough violent school shooters that you would actually capture any in your study, and even if you did, it would not be enough to be statistically significant.

What this leaves us with is common sense. Common sense would tend to point to things such as social media and the lack of socialization that young kids have today where they spend all of their lives online rather than with face to face interaction with others. That seems like a reasonable attempt at searching for a reason. Pointing to stronger marijuana is a stretch in logic to say the very least, especially when you consider that one of the primary results of being high is to make people mellow which is the very opposite of violent.

Something tells me that the people pushing that theory are the same people that have demonized marijuana their entire lives and this is just the latest iteration of such.

 

Actually, it shouldn't be difficult to find folks who have both consumed the weed, and then also commit violent crimes. And by isolating those substances ingested, find the one that seems to trigger the actual violent behavior. Kind of like not consuming PCP.. But then, it seems far more interesting to me that some might not even want to have the investigation. As if, wink, it's an expected outcome.... But that would be hugely conspiratorial... so, let's just say that it never hurts to do some studies. And we shouldn't be fearful of those results, should we?

 

Sure you can find people that have consumed weed and committed violent crimes, but what else have they consumed or done that could be causative?
Have they drank alcohol (probably)? Have they been drinking bourbon which is on the rise? In truth, since almost everyone who consumes weed also consumes alcohol it is virtually impossible to delineate the two. Did they skip school regularly? Have they spent an inordinate amount of time online by themselves? How does this online time compare with their less violent counterparts? The list of potential causes is literally endless. In other words, what other variables are involved. Hence my statement that you cannot isolate down to just one variable which is the cornerstone of any legit scientific study. It cannot be done with a topic such as this with a strong sociological component.

This is what is meant by isolating down to one variable. Having spent several years in the pharma realm, specifically in psychiatry, I know a fair amount about this topic, and I have in fact had this conversation with too many psychiatrists to count. Yes, a fair amount of people having their first psychotic break, did so while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. This does not mean that the drugs and or alcohol caused the psychosis, it only means that it was the trigger. The psychosis was in them and it was going to come out regardless. A person that ends up being schizophrenic which is the cause of the vast majority of psychosis, has had that condition their entire life, it was just waiting to come out. In hindsight, you can always look back after it has come out and identify that they were always a little off. It is not uncommon for the family to blame acid for that persons illness because they were on it during their first psychotic break, but the acid did not cause them to be schizophrenic. It was inherent in their genes which is something most families do not willingly accept. It is easier to blame something else. This is another of those topics where you cannot isolate down to one variable, so nobody can say any of this with certainty, but if you have a frank conversation with a psychiatrist this is their general explanation. Officially, they cannot and will not commit to this because they only speak to what has been scientifically proven, but in their own circles they too apply common sense, and common sense says that schizophrenia is not caused by a drug or alcohol, rather it is only triggered by drugs or alcohol.

Ironically, I happened to have lived one year in college with a brother of one of my roommates who had just had his first psychotic break maybe 6 months prior. Their mother was schizophrenic. His first episode was on acid. When he lived with us and would drink and or get high, he would definitely get weird and start laughing to himself. Should he have stayed away from drugs and alcohol? ABSOLUTELY. Did drugs and alcohol cause his condition? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Would I take this information and conclude that therefore alcohol needs to be banned because it triggers psychosis in the mentally ill? Absolutely not. That is basically the same logic being applied to marijuana with this latest suggestion.

 

Whadya mean?

 

I find it ironic that people who have been mentally impaired by smoking weed will argue that mj does not cause mental impairment and expect to be taken seriously,

 

What about people that have been mentally impaired by drinking alcohol? Do you apply the same logic?

 

And the marijuana on the streets today is many magnitudes more powerful than what your parents smoke in college. It's associated with a number of mental disorders and mass shootings. I vote for legalization because I tend toward Libertarianism, but I don't use the stuff, but then I don't use any drugs of this type.

But, if we are going to think about ways to casually burned the rights of others to lawful effective self-defense, this needs to be considered as well. Personally I'm against casually burdening the rights of others.

 

Drunk people killing others... oh no.. that NEVER happens

 

Don't handle weapons when you have been drinking. And don't CCW while drinking, if you want to keep your permit.

https://aliengearholsters.com › blog › concealed-carry-and-alcohol
Concealed Carry and Alcohol - What's the Bottom Line?
"Most states reserve the right to revoke a concealed carry pistol permit under reasonable suspicion and chemical analysis. That means, if a police officer has probable cause that you may have been drinking and you have a weapon on you, he has the authority granted to him by the state to immediately revoke that permit."

 

I think that you should have the right to do any drug you want, once you indemnify the rest of the population against any burden of your drug use on the rest of the population

 

The difference is one happens to be constitutionally protected. Weed is not proven to cause mental illness but it’s safe to say there is a link. I would rather have guns over legalized drugs all day long

 

If pot smoking can be linked to mental illness then what makes you think legalizing it won’t do harm to society. In fact it’s arguable that since states started legalizing weed we have see a strong uptick in violence.

 

Alcohol is constitutionally protected? Are you sure about that?

There is also a link between alcohol and mental illness, which is the point that you and many others seem to be missing. Nobody is claiming that marijuana is harmless, but in comparison to alcohol, it is darn near impossible to argue that it is more harmful and rather easy to argue that it is less so. Just ask anyone that has regularly done both, and thus understands both, in a way that a person without adequate experience with each ever could.

As far as guns or drugs ( and more specifically marijuana), that is a false choice. It does not exist. If we are going to pretend as if such a choice were legit, and lets take away the notion of guns being a right, would you choose guns over alcohol? Why should your preference be binding upon others?

 

There is no increase in the murder rate attributable to marijuana, at least not at this point.

 

I smoke or vape marijuana on a fairly frequent basis, its legal, I'm an adult. It is an amazing medicine.

At no point would I ever think of being violent while high, quite the contrary.

 

Tulsa police say gunman bought rifle hours before hospital shooting, targeted doctor (yahoo.com)

the shooter complained that he was in pain, which might have been alleviated by some of that extra strong marijuana that laura ingraham has been claiming to be the reason for mass murders.