REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[LMNO]

I still appreciate them as a keeping informed sort of thing.  Doesn't mean the thread needs to turn into a "weed is good, durrrr" circle jerk.

Odd, though, that the only links Tel posts are indeed of the "weed is good" type.

[Disco Pickle]

I still appreciate them as a keeping informed sort of thing.  Doesn't mean the thread needs to turn into a "weed is good, durrrr" circle jerk.

Odd, though, that the only links Tel posts are indeed of the "weed is good" type.

Confirmation bias can be pretty damn powerful stuff.

[Cramulus]

Considering that this entire subject will be almost completely one sided now that RWHN is gone, how about giving it a rest?

Or is this a victory lap kind of thing for you?

this post only makes sense if you assume that the purpose of this thread is to argue about mary jane

Interesting link was interesting. Why does it have to be a counterpoint to something?

[Triple Zero]

I, for one, will not stand for posting links ITT that disagree with the viewpoints of people not posting ITT.

... Unless there's somebody not posting ITT that disagrees. Then, I take it back. FOR BALANCE!

[BabylonHoruv]

I still appreciate them as a keeping informed sort of thing.  Doesn't mean the thread needs to turn into a "weed is good, durrrr" circle jerk.

Odd, though, that the only links Tel posts are indeed of the "weed is good" type.

Well that's the viewpoint he has and seeks to reinforce.  Posting links that keep us informed about developments in the legal status and discoveries regarding benefits is still valuable though.  it's not just a bunch of posters reiterating their personal belief that people should be allowed to smoke weed.

[Doktor Howl]

This thread kills puppies.  With a mallet.

[Chairman Risus]

Considering that this entire subject will be almost completely one sided now that RWHN is gone, how about giving it a rest?

Or is this a victory lap kind of thing for you?

& Let's go post Fox News articles to counterbalance the rest of the political board.

[Triple Zero]

I still appreciate them as a keeping informed sort of thing.  Doesn't mean the thread needs to turn into a "weed is good, durrrr" circle jerk.

Odd, though, that the only links Tel posts are indeed of the "weed is good" type.

Well that's the viewpoint he has and seeks to reinforce.  Posting links that keep us informed about developments in the legal status and discoveries regarding benefits is still valuable though.  it's not just a bunch of posters reiterating their personal belief that people should be allowed to smoke weed.

Hey, listen now. You're still posting in this thread, and that means you're able to voice and defend your own opinion. Therefore, you should keep it to yourself, for the sake of fairly representing all sides.

[LMNO]

 

Forget it.  The stoners win.




Say hi to the Spider for me.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If THIS thread exists solely to serve as a debating ground for pro vs. anti legalization, should Telarus and other interested parties start a new marijuana thread in which to post links that interest them?

[LMNO]

Eh, doesn't really matter.

[Triple Zero]

Forget it.  The stoners win.




Say hi to the Spider for me.

Awe man, I was just poking fun at you.

If THIS thread exists solely to serve as a debating ground for pro vs. anti legalization, should Telarus and other interested parties start a new marijuana thread in which to post links that interest them?

Hmm, just today I was thinking whether I should start a thread called REFERER MADNESS.

Though I was intending to fill it with crazy stuff I find in the site's referer-logs (aka people linking to us).

(and yes, the "Referer" header is misspelled in the HTTP specifications. It's just one of those things)

[Eater of Clowns]

I don't know, I love how this thread was originally touted for some time as proof that we could have a "civilized" discussion about marijuana usage on PD.  For a while it was.  Then, over time, as all things it degenerated and became not only another case of poo-flinging but actually the examplar of how we can't have reasonable discussions about marijuana usage on PD, culminating in the departure of a longstanding member.  It's really almost poetic.

[Telarus]

There was a period where the thread was just links that Telarus threw up, without any debate.  I think he's just going back to that model.

That was kinda the idea, originally. Thread has picked up a good deal of shrapnel.

I will admit that it's the positives displayed by the recent research that's really interesting to me (especially considering the comment from NIDA about the 'spice' chemicals /synthetic cannabinoids/ and how diversion into a recreational market isn't enough of a reason to outright prohibit them - due to the 'therapeutic potential').

I'll keep looking for stories with some good data on the other 'side' of the position, tho. Unanswered bias, perceived and otherwise (yes, I have bias, and it parallels the NIDA position), will shut down communication on the topic. As such, I think before I post any more links I'll actually post my thoughts on the last links RWHN provided for this thread.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/19/study-marijuana-not-linked-with-long-term-cognitive-impairment/

Ok, in all fairness, this study started when participants were 20-22, and says nothing about effects of use started earlier than that. I thought that it being a Time.com article may have blunted any bias perceived in the title. It really is an interesting article.

I think that one of the most interesting points was that, having detected reduced capabilities in language and math tasks they wanted to see if they could control those factors out.

They did. The girls were the ones scoring low on math (lines up with national averages), and the lower sociology-economic-educational class males where the ones that scored low on the verbal tests (also aligning with national averages). These 'signs of cognitive impairment' disappeared after they controlled for those factors.

I respect RWHN's position on this, and I will keep an eye out for articles with the competing narrative.

If THIS thread exists solely to serve as a debating ground for pro vs. anti legalization, should Telarus and other interested parties start a new marijuana thread in which to post links that interest them?

Good question.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Forget it.  The stoners win.




Say hi to the Spider for me.

Awe man, I was just poking fun at you.

If THIS thread exists solely to serve as a debating ground for pro vs. anti legalization, should Telarus and other interested parties start a new marijuana thread in which to post links that interest them?

Hmm, just today I was thinking whether I should start a thread called REFERER MADNESS.

Though I was intending to fill it with crazy stuff I find in the site's referer-logs (aka people linking to us).

(and yes, the "Referer" header is misspelled in the HTTP specifications. It's just one of those things)

I like that idea, actually.