REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ok fine, death might not be a side effect of the mother smoking pot - but death isnt the only thing one has to worry about.

Id be worried about cognitive and sensory-motor development too, amongst other things.

Instead of "worrying", you could just look it up. It's not like it hasn't been studied.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It looks like you want to start a thread about drugs. Would you like to revisit an existing topic, or start a new one?
                        /



A sample of existing threads which discuss marijuana / effects / legalization:

So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT: 40 pages

Pot/drugs: An all-encompassing explanation.: 48 pages

Paid to smoke Pot: a mere 6 pages!

War on Drugs finally makes sense!: 11 pages

California to legalize pot!: 16 pages

Well, there goes prohibition south of the border: 5 pages

Have you met my friend Mary?: 7 pages

Psychedelics question: 27 pages

Drug cartels sully US forests: Solution: Hate pot smokers.: 7 pages

THE PROPITIATION OF ST GULIK: 7 pages

average length: 17.4 pages

[Adios]

I posted in this thread, thereby meeting my contract obligations.

[The Johnny]

Ok fine, death might not be a side effect of the mother smoking pot - but death isnt the only thing one has to worry about.

Id be worried about cognitive and sensory-motor development too, amongst other things.

Instead of "worrying", you could just look it up. It's not like it hasn't been studied.

I think my google-fu isnt good enough to find a study about specifically that, that isnt fluff.

I was more than anything pointing out that death shouldnt be one's only concern in regards to a baby.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ok fine, death might not be a side effect of the mother smoking pot - but death isnt the only thing one has to worry about.

Id be worried about cognitive and sensory-motor development too, amongst other things.

Instead of "worrying", you could just look it up. It's not like it hasn't been studied.

I think my google-fu isnt good enough to find a study about specifically that, that isnt fluff.

I was more than anything pointing out that death shouldnt be one's only concern in regards to a baby.

Why form an opinion on a subject you haven't researched?

[Adios]

Ok fine, death might not be a side effect of the mother smoking pot - but death isnt the only thing one has to worry about.

Id be worried about cognitive and sensory-motor development too, amongst other things.

Instead of "worrying", you could just look it up. It's not like it hasn't been studied.

I think my google-fu isnt good enough to find a study about specifically that, that isnt fluff.

I was more than anything pointing out that death shouldnt be one's only concern in regards to a baby.

Why How the fuck can you form an opinion on a subject you haven't researched?

Fixed.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ok fine, death might not be a side effect of the mother smoking pot - but death isnt the only thing one has to worry about.

Id be worried about cognitive and sensory-motor development too, amongst other things.

Instead of "worrying", you could just look it up. It's not like it hasn't been studied.

I think my google-fu isnt good enough to find a study about specifically that, that isnt fluff.

I was more than anything pointing out that death shouldnt be one's only concern in regards to a baby.

Why How the fuck can you form an opinion on a subject you haven't researched?

Fixed.

That's better.

[The Johnny]

I think that burden of proof is on those arguing that pot is good for babies.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think this board really needs another thread about pot.

Nothing enriches my day more than a handful of braindead stoners arguing the same points over and over again to people who would largely agree with those points if they didn't have to listen to a bunch of potheads.

[Adios]

I think this board really needs another thread about pot.

Nothing enriches my day more than a handful of braindead stoners arguing the same points over and over again to people who would largely agree with those points if they didn't have to listen to a bunch of potheads.

By your command!

Hawk,
always willing to help out.

[Adios]

I will now hide from ECH for one week.

[Phox]

I think that burden of proof is on those arguing that pot is good for babies.

Isn't the burden of proof on those arguing that something has negative effects? Innocent until proven guilty, right? Not saying you are wrong, just saying that I don't know whether it has negative or positive effects, though, I would expect negative, if anything. I didn't click any links, because this subject isn't all that interesting to me, but so far all I've seen is that statistically lower infant fatality rates, so that seems to suggest my expectations may be skewed or completely off. 

[Cain]

I think that burden of proof is on those arguing that pot is good for babies.

Isn't the burden of proof on those arguing that something has negative effects? Innocent until proven guilty, right? Not saying you are wrong, just saying that I don't know whether it has negative or positive effects, though, I would expect negative, if anything. I didn't click any links, because this subject isn't all that interesting to me, but so far all I've seen is that statistically lower infant fatality rates, so that seems to suggest my expectations may be skewed or completely off. 

I think you're confusing drugs with people. 

We already know pot has an effect on the physiological system of humans.  Whether that is positive or negative is for the evidence to tell us.  Nothing more.  "Innocence" is a legal term, and has no place in a scientific discussion.

As for the burden of proof, it lies on whoever is making a claim.  If someone claims pot is good for babies, they need to prove that claim.  If they claim it is bad for babies, they need to back up that claim.  If there is an ongoing dispute between two parties holding those positions, both of them need to back up their claims.

[Phox]

I think that burden of proof is on those arguing that pot is good for babies.

Isn't the burden of proof on those arguing that something has negative effects? Innocent until proven guilty, right? Not saying you are wrong, just saying that I don't know whether it has negative or positive effects, though, I would expect negative, if anything. I didn't click any links, because this subject isn't all that interesting to me, but so far all I've seen is that statistically lower infant fatality rates, so that seems to suggest my expectations may be skewed or completely off. 

I think you're confusing drugs with people. 

We already know pot has an effect on the physiological system of humans.  Whether that is positive or negative is for the evidence to tell us.  Nothing more.  "Innocence" is a legal term, and has no place in a scientific discussion.

As for the burden of proof, it lies on whoever is making a claim.  If someone claims pot is good for babies, they need to prove that claim.  If they claim it is bad for babies, they need to back up that claim.  If there is an ongoing dispute between two parties holding those positions, both of them need to back up their claims.

Oh, I agree with you. The "innocent until proven guilty" thing was just a phrase that I felt summed up the idea in layman's terms, but you are right that it's not quite the same.

I didn't realize someone was actually arguing that pot-smoking was good for babies, aside from the one article (which offered its proof, such as it was). I'm still not quite seeing that, having reread the thread more carefully.

I worded my first sentence poorly, the idea I was trying to get across was exactly what you said.  You are right, and I defer to you.

[AFK]

I've got a rather busy week, plus I'm still sick, so I won't be participating in this one.