But, as DD brought up in the last thread, "those studies aren't valid in the US because they are a more compact country and they don't drive as much." LOL And I never said that this was the ONLY reason to regulate, there are MUCH better reasons. This is just one MORE example of the good that regulation would do.
But, as DD brought up in the last thread, "those studies aren't valid in the US because they are a more compact country and they don't drive as much." LOL His point was similar to that of gun laws. Gun laws would work very differently here than in the Netherlands because of cultural, regional, access, and economic differences. The same certainly applies to MJ laws. However, a study on effects on an individual's mind/brain is not going to be affected unless you believe that the European body functions differently than an American body. And I never said that this was the ONLY reason to regulate, there are MUCH better reasons. This is just one MORE example of the good that regulation would do. But it's not even a good benefit from MJ legalization because it doesn't allow us to get any more useful data than we can already get from the Netherlands. This is not at all a reason to or not to legalize MJ.
Good point about the effects on the mind, but the difference is that the population of Holland is about 17 million according to http://www.nidi.nl/data/nidi7100.html that link. 17 million people just isn't enough to have NEARLY as thorough a study as we could do in the states, especially since a much smaller percentage of their population uses MJ. Besides, as I said, there are much bigger and better reasons to regulate MJ specifically as well as drugs in general. We need to do it for the kids.
You know this isn't true. You did not post the timeline you claim is "VERY different" from the "made-up evidence". If so, you did not post it in the Roe thread.
Here is a fact where Drug War is having a positive effect on American society. As the American government continues to pump money into the drug war, the homicide rate has dropped siginificantly (in terms of number of homicides per 100,000 people) between 1993 and 2001.
That may be the case, but please keep in mind that some people are just stupid, whether they smoke dope or not. The first reply to this thread proves that.
Exactly. Dirt seems to think that his one example in reality is enough info for him to deem ALL mar1juana smokers bad workers. Nice logic. I guess that 'one' example should be enough to sway everyone's opinion eh?
If all pot smokers are bad workers then we have a freaking ton of people that cant work in this country.
I looked through that thread and can't find it. Could you tell me the date and time of that post? I don't see it. Thanks. Edit: I see it now in the fetal development thread.
If we want to go back to the number of homicides, remember that even now, we are significantly above the level of homicides for the 40s and 50s. I would love to see your chart to add it onto mine so that we can have more accurate data to talk about. Look, during the late 50s, the homicide rate dropped to its lowest level at under 5 per 100,000. At the end of my chart, it is around 7 which would be a 40% increase.
I looked myself and didn't find it either. I must not have hit post. Here is the link to the timeline my OB gave me. http://www.babycenter.com/fetal/
Please post the ethnic background of this worker and also the schools which he's attended so those of us with the power to hire don't make the same mistake your boss did.
I went back and looked and you said that the number in 1950 was 4.6 and in 2001, it was at 5.7. This is still a 20% higher murder rate after the rate has declined dramatically over the past decade. I was asked in the other thread what else could have factored in and one thing that comes to mind is the fact that forensics has become a much more exact science. With the TV pumping out cop show after cop show where the murderer gets caught, people may have a strong deterrent that they did not have in the 40s and 50s.
Another unintended consequence of the WOD Editorial: Not Just in Texas http://www.drcnet.org/wol/294.shtml#notjustintexas David Borden, Executive Director, borden@drcnet.org, 7/3/03 One of the greatest but least-discussed problems in modern medicine is the under-treatment of patients living with severe, chronic pain. More than 30 million patients suffer from chronic pain, and seven million of them cannot relieve their pain without opiates (narcotics), but only 4,000 doctors in the country are willing to prescribe them, according to the National Chronic Pain Outreach Association. A New England Journal of Medicine editorial stated that 56 percent of cancer outpatients and 82 percent of AIDS outpatients were under-treated for pain, as were 50 percent of hospitalized patients with a range of conditions. Today's massive denial of pain medication is a consequence of the social, regulatory and law enforcement climate created by the war on drugs. Doctors can suffer loss of license or even incarceration, when the inevitable mistake of providing medicine to a dishonest patient who may be misusing or diverting medication occurs. The climate has led to a situation in which most physicians are incorrectly trained in pain management and under- or non-treatment of pain is the norm. Doctors who treat pain correctly typically must exceed the usual prescribed dosages, and in so doing draw the scrutiny of state medical boards, the DEA and other agencies. Any overdose, any death of an ill or elderly patient, any billing of public health insurers (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid) to pay for opiates therapy, is a potential red flag, no matter how reasonable the prescription or how innocent the circumstances. And for the typical physician, the possible legal and financial ramifications, even if imposed only infrequently, tend to represent a greater legal and financial risk than they are willing or able to afford. One of the most recent possible "witch-hunts" in this arena is that of Dr. Daniel Maynard, whose Dallas whose home, office and bank were raided by dozens of state and federal cops three weeks ago. The massive force of massively armed anti-drug agents handcuffed 30-40 of Maynard's patients while running warrant checks on them and seized Maynard's records, and the state of Texas has frozen his ability to be reimbursed by Medicare. Maynard is of course being tried in the media for his supposed crimes, and his former patients are scrambling to find new doctors who will take their pain treatment needs seriously. I'd bet money at least one of them gets treated for handcuff bruises. The reason for the raid? Eleven of Dr. Maynard's patients had died subsequent to receiving opiate prescriptions from him. But it is unclear what relation some of the reported causes of death would have to opiate use -- hypertensive cardiovascular disease and chronic alcoholism, for example -- and in those cases where drug overdose was a possible cause, it is unclear whether the fault or responsibility would lie with Dr. Maynard as opposed to the patients themselves. And this is only based on the limited information that came out in the press. The real facts, once they are presented, may tell a different story yet. I don't know enough about Dr. Maynard's case to say with certainty whether he is being persecuted for nothing or whether his prescribing practices did have problems. My guess is the former, but only the medical evidence, interpreted correctly, with the benefit of medical experience and knowledge and free from the mind-numbing grip of opiophobia, can tell for sure. At least one of Dr. Maynard's patients has spoken out publicly in his defense. What I don't need the evidence to be able to say, with substantial confidence, is what will happen -- or rather what is already happening -- to those of Dr. Maynard's patients who live with painful, long-term conditions, and who need narcotics in relatively strong doses to be able to manage. Those patients will go to their new doctors, and those doctors, regardless of their professional opinions, will decide -- or rather, have already decided -- that they would be crazy to write the same kinds of prescriptions, that doing so would be equivalent to asking a District Attorney to investigate them and the medical board to suspend their right to practice, or for comparable assaults on their practices, reputations and freedom. Those doctors will assume that some of the very seriously ill patients formerly treated by Dr. Maynard will die during the period of time for which they are those doctors' patients -- due to their age or illnesses, in all likelihood, because they intend to be careful -- but they will assume that any such death will draw scrutiny with a greatly increased likelihood of prosecution, administrative sanctions or lawsuits, and that their colleagues as a group won't take a stand on their behalf. I also don't need Dr. Maynard's records to determine what will happen -- or rather, has happened -- to doctors and patients in Dr. Maynard's county or state, indeed throughout all the United States. Cowboy drug enforcement isn't limited to Texas. Doctors will conclude -- long have concluded -- that prescribing narcotics beyond a certain dosage level, or to more than a certain number of patients, right as that may be, is far too risky an endeavor under the prevailing police state of medicine. Most won't write those prescriptions, and countless needless tragedies will take place -- have taken place -- every day. Or rather, day after day, for the suffering people whose palliative is known and available, yet not truly available enough. So be Dr. Maynard without fault, or have he fault, the state's approach to him is wrong and works great destructive effect against the welfare of patients everywhere. The police state of medicine is the enemy of health, not the friend. Dr. Maynard has the benefit of my doubt, at least, but the state does not.
Batman, I know your post was in jest,but let me fill you in on the circumstances of my post.Unlike what seems to be the vast majority of people here,I don't have an office job,a job in the field of academia,or in music. I work in a lumberyard stacking boards+preparing them for shipping abroad. Our work is extremely repeticious[sp]. We have a board that tells us what lengths to put togather,what lengths to keep seperate+how many different grades we have to seperate. We also know that "export" packs,regardless of the species, get 3 "heavy"bands+paint,LX+SHIP packs get 2 small bands+RIP packs get 1 small band. You also learn that "export" packs get a stencil on them,SHIP,LX+RIP packs get marked with a marker.At some point [maybe a month or so???],you expect a person to spot these tendancies.When after 6 months,said person still has to ask you after every pack has been pushed out [and in some cases marked] how many bands it gets,does it get painted,which lengths go togather on a pack [remember this is all written up on a board!!!],you have a tendency to wonder what the problem is,which is why I have a hard time taking this article seriously.I could probably do a search+find some "off the wall" article from an "expert" that says that there is no link between a high fat diet+obesity,or smoking+lung cancer ect,but I think common sense would make you draw a different conclusion,but that's just my opinion.
Statistically, though, you are likely to know eight to ten people who smoke pot regularly that you would never suspect. I mean, over half of the graduating seniors every year since the 70s has reported pot use at some point so half the people you know have probably smoked pot at some point.
andymoon, No doubt you're right with your stats. No doubt not everyone that uses mj or has used it is a headcase like my co-worker.It's just beyond the realm of my imagination to believe that there is'nt long term side effects to this. Than,people want to legalize it,which confounds me even more.I don't profess to have any "cut and dry" answers+I'm probably in the vast majority of people that have never been around it,nor ever had any desire to partake in it.
Then you are on the smarter side of the equation. The only thing I will ask you to do is to keep an open mind about regulating the industry. There are SERIOUS social costs associated with prohibition that outweigh the negative effects of drugs themselves. I don't claim to have all the answers either, but I do know that we could have a more effective drug policy for the amount of money we spend on it.
