She Was Denied Citizenship for Working in Legal Cannabis.

OK, well I already commented on her plight, and since that's what I thought the thread was about, that's it.

 

She is not going to prison, she just can't become a citizen because he her violations of Federal law. As a matter of fact, Florida pot legalization in 2020 was taken off the ballot because it failed to mention that pot was still illegal according to Federal law. Her ignorance is no excuse.

Anyway, she has a green card, so she is free to stay in US, and full rights except she can't vote, and that she could potentially get deported, if she commits more serious infractions.

 

Show me one which definitely says there is no correlation between use of mj and degradation of the brain.

 

There is a correlation. The psycho-toxins in pot can be very harmful, and even trigger mental idleness in some addicts. If legalized, there should be a warning label like there is in cigs. Some countries even put pics of damaged lungs and hearts on the cigarette packs, and in case of pot, there could be a pic of someone in a straight-jacket

 

If you look at who lives in these high crime areas, the gun laws give criminals an advantage. Poor people suffer while politicians enjoy armed security.

 

https://www.healthline.com/health/does-weed-kill-brain-cells#effects-on-iq

A well-known 2012 study from New Zealand evaluated marijuana use and cognitive ability in more than 1,000 individuals over a 38-year period.

The researchers reported an association between ongoing marijuana use and cognitive decline.

In particular, they found that:

• People who started using marijuana heavily as adolescents and continued as adults lost an average of six to eight IQ points by the time they reached midlife.
• Among the group above, people who stopped using marijuana as adults didn’t regain lost IQ points.
• People who started using marijuana heavily as adults didn’t experience any IQ loss.

This study had a significant impact for a few reasons.

First, it was among the first large, longitudinal (long-term) studies to assess marijuana use and cognitive functioning.

Next, the results suggest that marijuana use during adolescence may have an irreversible effect on adolescent brain development. Some additional research supports this conclusion.

However, the New Zealand study also has significant limitations.

For one, it isn’t possible to conclude that marijuana use causes lower intelligence based on this study alone.

While the researchers controlled for differences in participant education levels, they didn’t rule out additional factors that may have contributed to cognitive decline.

A 2013 reply to the New Zealand study suggests that personality factors may play a role in both marijuana use and cognitive decline.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1218571110

The author cited conscientiousness as an example. Low conscientiousness might explain both drug use and poor performance on tests of cognition.

Genetic factors may also contribute to cognitive decline, as suggested by a longitudinal twin study from 2016.

In this case, the researchers compared changes in IQ between twins who used marijuana and their abstinent siblings. They didn’t find any significant differences in IQ decline between the two groups.

The key takeaway? More research needs to be done to understand how marijuana use affects intelligence over time.

What are the odds I won't find more 'limitations' in your 'studies'.

 

That says exactly what I have been saying. They are saying marijuana effects intelligence over time. They are saying they need further study to understand why.

I don't consider requiring more study to be a limitation. Like anything of a scientific nature, there is always more to learn.

I am still waiting on a study which says there is no effect.

 

BING AI search engine reports:

The claim that "gun laws give criminals an advantage" is a topic of significant debate and is influenced by various perspectives and interpretations of data.

Here are some arguments and considerations from different viewpoints:

1. Proponents of Stricter Gun Laws:
   • They argue that stricter gun laws reduce the overall availability of firearms, which in turn limits access for potential criminals.
   • Research in some regions has shown that stricter gun laws correlate with lower rates of gun violence and gun-related deaths.
   • The focus is often on reducing the ease of obtaining guns illegally and implementing measures like background checks to prevent firearms from reaching high-risk individuals.
2. Opponents of Stricter Gun Laws:
   • This group often asserts that criminals do not follow laws, so stricter gun regulations would primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, potentially making them more vulnerable.
   • They argue that areas with strict gun laws still experience high rates of crime, suggesting that these laws don't effectively deter criminals.
   • The emphasis is often on the right to self-defense, suggesting that armed citizens can deter or stop criminal activities.
3. Research and Statistical Analysis:
   • The relationship between gun laws and crime rates is complex and influenced by many factors, including socioeconomic conditions, law enforcement practices, and cultural attitudes towards guns.
   • Studies often show mixed results, with some indicating that stricter laws reduce crime, while others show little to no correlation.
4. International Comparisons:
   • Comparing different countries can provide insights. For example, countries with stringent gun laws often have lower rates of gun violence, but cultural, economic, and other policy differences make direct comparisons challenging.
5. Context-Specific Factors:
   • The effectiveness of gun laws can vary significantly based on the specific context of a region, including existing crime rates, the presence of illegal firearms, and the effectiveness of law enforcement.

In summary, the impact of gun laws on giving criminals an advantage is a complex issue that depends on various factors, including the specific nature of the laws, the context in which they are implemented, and the broader social and economic environment. It's important to approach such claims with a nuanced understanding and consider a wide range of research and perspectives.

My view, based on the above, is that your opinion is simplistic, and is not substantive.

 

That the studies are 'limited' means ''inconclusive' but 'worthy of more study'.

It does say that the argument isn't settled, my original point.

 

Notice that it does not say if marijuana use affects intelligence over time. It says "how" marijuana affects intelligence over time. And like I said before "I don't consider requiring more study to be a limitation. Like anything of a scientific nature, there is always more to learn.'

Face it. Marijuana negatively affects intelligence over time, especially in younger people. Or do you believe that it enhances your intelligence over time? If you believe that, show me a single study.

I have been around several people on mj who thought they were great philosophers, but they were spouting garbage.

 

"How" does not have a positive or negative connotation.

I know that, though i don't smoke it much anymore, but, as a musician, I find music sounds better in my ears when I'm high, but I would never perform being high, because it affects my memory of the music, but, when I'm back to normal, my memory is back to normal. Other than that, I've never had any lasting permanent harm, this is over a 50 year period of using pot recreationally and occasionally. Alcohol, drugs, they affect the brain, no doubt, but as to their severity, that's not conclusive as much as is known about alcohol, the liver, etc. But this not a reason to justify prohibition. it's not for you to tell someone else whether they should, or shouldn't, consume cannabis. I mean, WTF, I thought you were a conservative or someone 'on the right', and as one, you'd be more libertarian than most on the left and you wouldn't agree to argue for prohibition, especially given the history of it. I think you are rather rare, on this point. Did you know that William F Buckley favored the legalization of narcotics (at least I recall him expressing that, somewhere)?

Again, results need 'further study' which means 'results inconclusive'

You are the last person I would trust on the subject of 'philosophy'.

 

Again. Show me a single study which says that using MJ increases the cognitive power of your brain.

Further study means just what it says. There are few scientific areas in which they are not engaging in further study. That does not mean they are inconclusive.

They understand that mj causes the loss of cognitive power. They do not fully know how much and the exact process. With further knowledge, it is possible that the effects could be reversed.

I "am the last person you would trust on the study of philosophy". That only demonstrates your lack of reasoning. Out of the billions of people on this earth, how could you possibly know that I am the last person you would trust?

 

None of which are reasons for prohibition.

It's a sentiment employing a figure of speech. Don't nitpick on semantics.

What, I have to explain this to you? How old did you say you were?

 

You were making the claim that it had no negative effects.

Again. Show me a study which says mj has no negative effects on cognitive ability.

 

Why get into personalities at all? It adds nothing to the conversation at all. Your opinion of me is of no consequence.

 

No,I said the results you point to are limited in so far as they are not conclusive.

But you're arguing for prohibition and you're using these things to support your argument. But none of these things are legitimate arguments for prohibition

 

And why do you ignore the salient point which was and I repeat:

It's a sentiment employing a figure of speech. Don't nitpick on semantics.

Had you understood that there would have been no second part to the comment.

 

Do you deny that mj causes brain damage? If you do deny it, show me one study that supports your position.

DON'T BRING PERSONALITIES INTO IT TO START WITH. Just comment on the ideas presented, not the person who presented them.

 

You use the 'studies' to support your argument for prohibition.

THAT is the argument.

Even if it were true, it's not a reason for prohibition,.

Moreover, studies are inconclusive.

That makes it all the more reason not to support prohibition.

If you take something literally that is a figure of speech, i'm going to call you out on it.

What is your problem?

 

But you deny that mj causes brain damage. The studies are not inconclusive. They want further study so they can better understand them. Show me a single study to the contrary. Just one little study.

You insulted me with your "figure of speech" and I made fun of your insult.

 

Maybe I missed this, but can you show where PDS claimed this?

Goal post change. That's not what you asked for before.

 

And heroin comes from a plant, Coke comes from a plant, Mushrooms are a plant, yes we should ban plants and I am 100% in support of everything you complain about in the OP. If you just legalize these plants you will make everything bad about them come to light. Now… if we regulate their use to the medical (not recreational use) industry only we will have use for them. But never would I support the overdose rate skyrocketing like in Washington and Oregon just because someone wants to get high.


Even opioids come from a plant. I’m sorry but your plant argument amuses me.

 

Well, a libertarian you are not.

My view is that mankind is arrogant for making a plant illegal, when it was given to us by nature or 'God' (or whatever your belief system is).

The point is that prohibition never works, pushes it all underground and breeds crime, puts people in jail who aren't criminals, usurps resources that could be better spent chasing real criminals.

You argument is not amusing, it is tragic.

Even Bill Buckley, one of the granddaddy's of conservative thought, founder of the National Review, advocated to legalize drugs, or at least cannabis.

https://time.com/3724131/conservatives-marijuana-buckley/

 

And when they ended prohibition in certain states of all so called plants we found sky rocketing rates of overdose, homelessness, and crime

I never claimed to be libertarian. I think libertarians are people who have no sense of reality.

 

Well, I suggest you grow another layer of skin, if you are that sensitive.

Or. you can cry to the mods.

Again, the argument is prohibition.

Studies thus far are inconclusive.