Scientific study shows students that smoke cannabis have lower grades and higher fail

Oranage2 wrote: »

So scientists have proved what we all knew already, smoking cannabis will affect your intelligence and education.

Not sure the "study" does show that actually. They were not just denied the drug for example, they were also barred entirely from the cafes where they were having it. In other words what they lost was not just the drug but their social outlet of choice.

So it is equally possible the falling away of their main social outlet influenced the time and energy they had to turn to studies instead. I suspect you would find a similar effect if you went to cork and banned all college students under the age of 22 from bars and night clubs for example. The sudden loss of the social outlet where they spend the majority of their time is not going to leave their grades and academic application unaffected.

This is further exacerbated by the fact the study is about the one group of students who would be MOST reliant on such social outlets. The ban was not across the board, but solely on students who were non-nationals and non-local. Where LOCALS would have other social outlets to fall back on, existing circles of friends and the like, foreigners are less likely to have that.

So I would warn against the correlation-causation effect there in the same way I would warn against it with cannabis in Amsterdam. There are more variables in play there than merely their loss of access to pot. Repeat the same experiment on LOCAL students who are Nationals and thus not subject to the ban and my prediction is you will find a MUCH smaller (though not non-existent) effect of the policy than shown here.

Oranage2 wrote: »

How will the legalise cannabis brigade defend this?

I see nothing to defend, even without the problems I identify with relying on the study above. At best, and even this is a stretch, it is an argument for slightly raising the minimum age for access to the drug.

But I do not see the fact SOME people use a given drug poorly, and to the detriment of their success in other areas of life, as an argument against legalization of the drug or for making it illegal. We should by all means INFORM them that if they use the drug they risk harming their grades or life earning potential and so forth. But if they choose to do it anyway, what business is that of ours?

So basically even if the claims you want the paper to be making were magically shown to be 100% entirely true........... then so what? What is your point here?

Oranage2 wrote: »

It's a very dangerous nercotic with strong links to mental illness.

No, not really it is not. Very often, in fact just about every time someone brings it up, it is a drug linked with EXACERBATING ALREADY EXISTING mental illness. Which is a much different statement to make than yours. Also with an underground illegal product one has to query whether any mental effects are due to the core drug, or the other crap they cut into it to elevate their profit margins.

Oranage2 wrote: »

It's dangerous and should not be easily excessible to young people.

It is ALREADY accessible easily to young people in our country. I am not in Ireland now but drop me into Cork Galway Sligo Wicklow or Dublin when I am next there and I will be able to get you enough of the drug to have a good party with 20 people within an hour.

The problem is in many places in the world that with that ease of access comes ALSO the ease of access to a criminal record and ease of access to poor quality and harmful product that is cut badly, at a dangerous concentration, or cut with other chemicals that are harmful.

So then the question becomes do you want easy of access to an illegal and potentially harmful product, or the potential of ease of access to a legal, regulated, industry standard and quality assured one that a legal regulated product could afford.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Come on man. Students will do much worse if they smoke cannabis, yes that's obvious, but now there's a study to prove it.

The same can be said about alcohol and computer gaming, so what is your point? ANY inordinate amount of time put into one social outlet, at the expense of ones studies, is going to have an effect on those studies. THAT is what is "obvious" and it is not something that is magically the purview of cannabis.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Giving an anti cannabis opinion carries a backlash of person digs

I trust you will find no such thing in my post however.

Oranage2 wrote: »

People that do smoke it, would you like your child's teacher to use this drug, or your doctor, or even your child to smoke cannabis?

I would very much not care if they do, on the sole assumption they are not doing so WHILE working. But I would say the same about alcohol and cigarettes and Television Soap Operas too to be honest.

tomwaterford wrote: »

Because those shady Guys would just stop??

Maybe. I remember a time when there was not one but multiple guys shadily selling cheap off market cigarettes on Henry Street and areas off Grafton street in dublin. Now I do not see them any more.

Where did they go? I doubt they are gone entirely but clearly their trade is not what it was. Why?

I suspect IN PART it is due to the fact that many consumers prefer a regulated and somewhat quality assured (though with cigs the industry is still allowed get away with putting things into them I think they should not) product even at a significantly higher price than shady dealings for products that could contain any old crap cut into them.

So if we had a legal over the counter product I would SUSPECT that they would stop yes. And not because they WANT to do so.

Fieldog wrote: »

Sure your brain hasn't fully developed until you turn 18, of course smoking cannabis would be detrimental to your studies...

Bit of an assumption that. What exactly is "not developed" in a brain at 18 that is at 28 for example? List the developments still to be done.

Then having generated such a list, show what effects (if any) cannabis actually has on the further development of them.

This "Their brain is not developed yet" mantra is trotted out on every thread from Drugs to After Hours threads about older men going out with younger girls. Yet I have not see one person reaching for that mantra explain exactly what it is still in development, and the relevance of those things to the thread at hand.

Esho wrote: »

Look at what Big Alcohol/ Big Tobacco did? What would Big Cannabis do?

Well in terms of Cannabis there are ways to use the drug (I think one word is nebulizer but there are ways to burn it in the middle of the room so you get a "mist/haze" substance in the room rather than smoking it directly) that make it a loss less harmful to deliver into your body that smoking cigarettes. One can also, for example, eat it. I also once met a band of the same name in Galway who used a version called "Charis" which was a black gloopey stuff they burned in what looked like a kind of "genie lamp" in the middle of the room.

So to answer your question one thing it will do is give people a drug they can deliver into their system in much cleaner and safer ways than your "big Tobacco" does.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, we will all mock the OP for a few days, start arguing with each other, get infractions and then all ragequit the thread.

Then it'll be over.

You forgot the bit where Nozzferrahhtoo arrives late to the party, partly because he is slow and partly because he insists on READING the entire study when something like this thread happens.......... and then he proceeds to retrospectively reply to pretty much everyone in the thread in one big go.

That ALWAYS happens before the bit you describe, the arrogant annoying wordy ass. Oh wait..................

eddiervp20 wrote: »

Don't smoke weed but I'm sure like most drugs it will affect your concentration.

It does but "affect" is a loaded term that many people automatically assume is negative. Quite often the opposite can be true. Large quantities of sugar can "affect your concentration". Varying your quantity of water intake every day can "affect your concentration". The phrase, in isolation, is as suggestive as it is misleading. It needs unpacking.

Though I myself am an anecdote of ONE so I should be treated thus, it is still very interesting to me...........

I was not a drug user in college really. VERY rarely. But I did occasionally smoke a joint or two when I was studying something in my course I simply could not get my head around.

Affect my concentration it did, but it made me think about things and look at things in a way skewed from my norm. With the effect that smoking it when I was hitting a mental brick wall had me have a Eureka moment where I could move forward and make the mental connections I was not making before.

The trick then was to write down my conclusions and realizations in a way that I could understand when I "sobered" up of course

But nearly every time I could do that. Though at least once that I recall I read my notes with a clear head and had absolutely NO IDEA what I had been on about.

Abuse of it will of course have negative effects on concentration. Controlled and targeted use of it can too however, but in a very positive and beneficial way.

Solomon Pleasant wrote: »

I've witnessed the effects first hand of what excessive cannabis consumption can do to an individual.

I have witnessed first hand what a single peanut CAN do to an individual too. Not sure what your point is really

but what a peanut can POTENTIALLY do to one single individual does not have me saying "peanuts are considerably more destructive and damaging than what people consider them to be." off the back of that one individual.

Solomon Pleasant wrote: »

This drug can and does destroy lives when used excessively.

I am struggling to think of that many things in this world AT ALL that do not destroy lives when used "excessively". In other words when someone says "X can destroy lives when used excessively" the locus of the problem is in the LAST word in that sentence, not in whatever the FIRST word happens to be.

Hell you could destroy (in fact end) your life right now by using WATER excessively. Which renders your point so universal as to be essentially moot. A point that pedantically applies to everything functionally applies to nothing.

Solomon Pleasant wrote: »

The majority of the people who consumed it were, for want of a better word, wasters.

Of course the interesting question to ask there, at a study level I mean not at the level of someones subjective childhood memories, is whether people are wasters because they are smoking the drug............ or are they more prone to smoking the drug because they are wasters.

It is an important question, and not one I would ever accept an anecdotal subjective personal experienced opinion on as being even remotely relevant.

tigger123

Only speaking from personal experience, but anyone I've known that habitually smoked weed doesn't hasn't lived up to their full potential. I'm sure people will quote exceptions, but from my own experience, they're just that, exceptions. Weed steals peoples motivation and passion for life.

There's a soft tolerance of it from a law enforcement point of view. Its incredibly easy to obtain, so don't really see the point in decriminalizing it.

Plus, making it legal sends the wrong message; ie, that we as a society accept this, which we shouldn't.

fxotoole

Oranage2 wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/25/these-college-students-lost-access-to-legal-pot-and-started-getting-better-grades/?utm_term=.f217bebbdbd0

So scientists have proved what we all knew already, smoking cannabis will affect your intelligence and education.

How will the legalise cannabis brigade defend this?

My 2 cents, cannabis is not some miracle cure all drug the pro-side hippies try to say it is. It's a very dangerous nercotic with strong links to mental illness. Whatever if you want to smoke your brains out at home, I don't care, but this drug should stay illegal in order to protect the young people of this nation. It's dangerous and should not be easily excessible to young people.

Who did this study, what are their scientific credentials, who funded the study, what's their agenda, has the paper been peer reviewed, and has their methodology been scrutinised by peers?

tigger123 wrote: »

Only speaking from personal experience, but anyone I've known that habitually smoked weed doesn't hasn't lived up to their full potential. I'm sure people will quote exceptions, but from my own experience, they're just that, exceptions. Weed steals peoples motivation and passion for life.

Care has to be taken there as I pointed out to Solomon Pleasant above. From the outside when we are viewing the anecdotal experience of someone else we can get the causal links skewed. We see a person using a drug and losing passion for life and we assume A causes B.

The same happens quite often when alcohol is involved in a marital breakdown. We often move quickly to blame the breakdown on the alcohol.

But in many cases A is actually a symptom of B not the cause of it. The loss of passion in life, or the marital break down, comes first and the person in question then turns to (and often forms a dependency on) alcohol or some other drug.

But as an outside observer we do not see the Prologue to that story, we come into the story somewhere around Chapter 3 or later, and our assumptions fall in line with that.

So people find a drug, get into it, and then have some kind of passion for life loss, or marital breakdown due to it? I am damn sure they do. Is it safe to assume % proportions on how many people fit that narrative or the EXACT opposite one however? Absolutely not.

tigger123 wrote: »

There's a soft tolerance of it from a law enforcement point of view. Its incredibly easy to obtain, so don't really see the point in decriminalizing it.

Well one point is that a legal regulated product is a bit less likely to have awful things cut into it to raise profit margins. We can have a legal industry standard product subject to all the inspections from quality assurance agencies that other products get.

Another point is that it costs time and resources to have laws, maintain laws, and execute laws on it EVEN IF law enforcement are relatively lenient on those laws. There are time and resources and money that could be diverted to policing actually useful laws.

Another point is that users of it IF caught could potentially get a criminal record in some places.... which is just as harmful (if not more so) to ones future as smoking a joint when one should be studying.

Another point is that we are missing out on a tax and revenue stream.

Another point is that the money from the sales of it are going to underground criminal gangs who use the profits for other worse things.

Another point is that a legal product gives us better (but of course not perfect) tools to prevent underage purchase of the product.

It also, like cigarettes, allows us to put warning labels on the products packet.

The list goes on, but suffice to say there are plenty of good reasons to make it legal even if having it illegal is not enforced or cared about.

tigger123 wrote: »

Plus, making it legal sends the wrong message; ie, that we as a society accept this, which we shouldn't.

Dunno why we should not. I certainly find people smoking it to be a LOT more socially acceptable than many people I see out on the beer.

We should stop worrying about viewing drug use as socially unacceptable and worry more about showing EXCESSIVE use of anything (including alcohol) as being acceptable.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Care has to be taken there as I pointed out to Solomon Pleasant above. From the outside when we are viewing the anecdotal experience of someone else we can get the causal links skewed. We see a person using a drug and losing passion for life and we assume A causes B.

The same happens quite often when alcohol is involved in a marital breakdown. We often move quickly to blame the breakdown on the alcohol.

But in many cases A is actually a symptom of B not the cause of it. The loss of passion in life, or the marital break down, comes first and the person in question then turns to (and often forms a dependency on) alcohol or some other drug.

But as an outside observer we do not see the Prologue to that story, we come into the story somewhere around Chapter 3 or later, and our assumptions fall in line with that.

So people find a drug, get into it, and then have some kind of passion for life loss, or marital breakdown due to it? I am damn sure they do. Is it safe to assume % proportions on how many people fit that narrative or the EXACT opposite one however? Absolutely not.

Well one point is that a legal regulated product is a bit less likely to have awful things cut into it to raise profit margins. We can have a legal industry standard product subject to all the inspections from quality assurance agencies that other products get.

Another point is that it costs time and resources to have laws, maintain laws, and execute laws on it EVEN IF law enforcement are relatively lenient on those laws. There are time and resources and money that could be diverted to policing actually useful laws.

Another point is that users of it IF caught could potentially get a criminal record in some places.... which is just as harmful (if not more so) to ones future as smoking a joint when one should be studying.

Another point is that we are missing out on a tax and revenue stream.

Another point is that the money from the sales of it are going to underground criminal gangs who use the profits for other worse things.

Another point is that a legal product gives us better (but of course not perfect) tools to prevent underage purchase of the product.

It also, like cigarettes, allows us to put warning labels on the products packet.

The list goes on, but suffice to say there are plenty of good reasons to make it legal even if having it illegal is not enforced or cared about.

Dunno why we should not. I certainly find people smoking it to be a LOT more socially acceptable than many people I see out on the beer.

We should stop worrying about viewing drug use as socially unacceptable and worry more about showing EXCESSIVE use of anything (including alcohol) as being acceptable.

You want to legalise something and then put warnings on it? Not sure how that works.

No one country can do this in the EU or we will get a stampede of pot heads on the next flights.

Sofiztikated

Yourself isit wrote: »

You want to legalise something and then put warnings on it? Not sure how that works.

Have you looked at a packet of fags lately?

Back of a bottle of vodka?

Even the single portion beef dinner in your freezer? Legal. Warnings. Information.

No one country can do this in the EU or we will get a stampede of pot heads on the next flights.

Tourist numbers are down. Why wouldn't tourist numbers going up be a good thing?

Syphonax

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i would class it as poorly misinformed and some what herd mentality. its slowly changing though.

Would you now! Well, I would say what you wrote a mere one-liner with ZERO substance! Just sayin....

Yourself isit wrote: »

You want to legalise something and then put warnings on it? Not sure how that works.

I suggest you go buy a packet of cigarettes and look at the packing then. You should be a first hand expert on "how that works" then because this is EXACTLY what we do there.

If you are still unsure how it operates I would then suggest you go get a packet of Soluble Solpedine from the chemist and reading the packing and internal leaflets there too.

If somehow at this point you are still not sure how the process works, go buy a bottle of fizzy water and read the labels about re-use of the bottle that most of them carry.

If, inexplicably, you are somehow still in that dark at this point then go and get a coffee which will not only stimulate your mind with caffeine, but you can read the eternally comical "warning contains hot liquid" that is on the cups

Syphonax

tigger123 wrote: »

Only speaking from personal experience, but anyone I've known that habitually smoked weed doesn't hasn't lived up to their full potential. I'm sure people will quote exceptions, but from my own experience, they're just that, exceptions. Weed steals peoples motivation and passion for life.

There's a soft tolerance of it from a law enforcement point of view. Its incredibly easy to obtain, so don't really see the point in decriminalizing it.

Plus, making it legal sends the wrong message; ie, that we as a society accept this, which we shouldn't.

Dont you think that the monies generated for criminals would be better off in the hands of the State and that by controlling cannabis in this way you would have less harmful types of it been grown and generally would be able to educate people better on the subject.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Have you looked at a packet of fags lately?

Back of a bottle of vodka?

Even the single portion beef dinner in your freezer? Legal. Warnings. Information.

There are doctors and others who would prefer tobacco be made illegal. The aim of the warnings is to stop people using tobacco. Making something now illegal legal and then discouraging it when legal makes no sense.

Tourist numbers are down. Why wouldn't tourist numbers going up be a good thing?

Tourist numbers are down? When? Someone tell the hotels to reduce rates.

And no we don't want to become the pot capital of europe.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I suggest you go buy a packet of cigarettes and look at the packing then. You should be a first hand expert on "how that works" then because this is EXACTLY what we do there.

If you are still unsure how it operates I would then suggest you go get a packet of Soluble Solpedine from the chemist and reading the packing and internal leaflets there too.

If somehow at this point you are still not sure how the process works, go buy a bottle of fizzy water and read the labels about re-use of the bottle that most of them carry.

If, inexplicably, you are somehow still in that dark at this point then go and get a coffee which will not only stimulate your mind with caffeine, but you can read the eternally comical "warning contains hot liquid" that is on the cups

Don't be glib. The point of the warnings on tobacco is to discourage use. Another way is to ban the dangerous substance, as we do many drugs. Making a drug legal and then warning about the severe consequences doesnt make much sense.

Yourself isit wrote: »

There are doctors and others will would prefer tobacco be made illegal.

There are doctors and others who would prefer the opposite too. Do we really need an "appeal to authority" fallacy NOW when the thread is going so well?

I do not care WHO wants it to be illegal..... be they a doctor or a homeless person selling pencils from a cup on a street corner. My interest is in their arguments for wanting it, not what their background or credentials are.

Yourself isit wrote: »

The aim of the warnings is to stop people using tobacco. Making something legal and discouraging it when legal makes no sense.

Since your original reply was to me, who said anything about discouraging it? I certainly did not. Not all (in fact very few I think) warning labels try to discourage use of the product the label is on. Usually they try to encourage sensible and informed use of the product. How to use it. When to use it. In what quantity to use it.

THAT is what I meant by warning labels. The discouragement bit is your narrative, not mine.

Yourself isit wrote: »

And no we don't want to become the pot capital of europe.

I would certainly take 100 groups of pot heads a month coming to Ireland than I would 100 groups of drunken stag nights. Given the choice. So I genuinely do not know who this "we" is you are pretending to be part of. I suspect the "we" is in fact "I" as you are speaking for yourself here, not anyone else.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Don't be glib.

I think it better if you concern yourself with the content of your posts, and leave me to do the same with mine. Doncha think? I am being entirely serious in everything I wrote, though I DO admit the "contains hot water" makes me laugh at the general stupidiy of mankind every time. I can be serious about a topic AND light hearted at the same time. If this does not fit with your tone and approach, there is an ignore feature that I am told works (though I have never myself used it).

Yourself isit wrote: »

Making a drug legal and then warning about the severe consequences doesnt make much sense.

But making something legal and warning and educating about the difference between proper and improper use of it, does.

Yakult

jaysus h christ.

If you smoke weed every day and night in college, chances are that you may fail. If you drink alcohol every day and night in college, chances are you may fail too.

Point being? Moderation.

How many fail because of computer games and maybe internet in general? A lot!

Ban those too?

ScumLord

How do they know those college students didn't just buy their weed illegally?

endacl

Fieldog wrote: »

Sure your brain hasn't fully developed until you turn 18, of course smoking cannabis would be detrimental to your studies...

That process hasn't finished until you're well into your 20s.

ScumLord wrote: »

How do they know those college students didn't just buy their weed illegally?

Wouldnt it be really comical if it turned out the illegal weed was stronger than the legal weed and the observed increase in their grades was not due to a lack of weed........ but an increase in the potency of the weed they were now taking

Not likely of course, but it would be side splittingly hilarious if it was

Imagine how quickly the OP would simply stop citing or acknowledging the existence of his original links

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There are doctors and others who would prefer the opposite too. Do we really need an "appeal to authority" fallacy NOW when the thread is going so well?

Was it going well?

I do not care WHO wants it to be illegal..... be they a doctor or a homeless person selling pencils from a cup on a street corner. My interest is in their arguments for wanting it, not what their background or credentials are.

Sometimes credentialism matters. Doctors who want to ban tobacco do so because of its harmful effects. The homeless guy would be less qualified.

Since your original reply was to me, who said anything about discouraging it? I certainly did not. Not all (in fact very few I think) warning labels try to discourage use of the product the label is on. Usually they try to encourage sensible and informed use of the product. How to use it. When to use it. In what quantity to use it.

THAT is what I meant by warning labels. The discouragement bit is your narrative, not mine.

Warning labels on cigarettes try to discourage any use . Some have graphic pictures. That's of course what I was referring to - not the glib nonsense about warnings on coffee. To legalise something that will be used recreationally and has
potentially dangerous effects on both the user (and other citizens) could well see an uptake in use and violate the precautionary principle.

I would certainly take 100 groups of pot heads a month coming to Ireland than I would 100 groups of drunken stag nights. Given the choice. So I genuinely do not know who this "we" is you are pretending to be part of. I suspect the "we" is in fact "I" as you are speaking for yourself here, not anyone else.

It was admittedly the royal we. However you are engaging in a false dilemma. Neither groups are the best tourists we could get.

I think it better if you concern yourself with the content of your posts, and leave me to do the same with mine. Doncha think? I am being entirely serious in everything I wrote, though I DO admit the "contains hot water" makes me laugh at the general stupidiy of mankind every time. I can be serious about a topic AND light hearted at the same time. If this does not fit with your tone and approach, there is an ignore feature that I am told works (though I have never myself used it).

You are concerned with the contents of my posts. You are debating them. I don't ignore anybody. You seem to be upset at the existence of a different opinion though.

But making something legal and warning and educating about the difference between proper and improper use of it, does.

Does make sense I suppose?

My point is the aim of ever increasing warnings on tobacco is to stop the use of tobacco. Thus legalising a drug (encouraging it) and adding warnings(discouraging it) doesnt make a lot of sense.

Anyway this isn't going to happen. It was once thought that when people who used drugs in college grew up and became politicians they would start to legalise drugs but they instead grew out of drug use. Bill Clinton admitted to drug use a generation ago.

The trend is the other way. Campaigns against
tobacco , restrictions on alcohol sales, alcohol taxes etc.

ScumLord

Yourself isit wrote: »

My point is the aim of ever increasing warnings on tobacco is to stop the use of tobacco. Thus legalising a drug (encouraging it) and adding warnings(discouraging it) doesnt make a lot of sense.

The thing about tobacco is it's just an addiction though. The user gets absolutely nothing from smoking it other than a shorter lifespan.

Cannabis and alcohol have social applications, they make people more sociable and creative under the right circumstances and cannabis in particular comes with few harmful side effects when smoking is avoided.

The problem at the moment is cannabis is completely unregulated but still widely used. It's time to take our heads out of the sand and deal with the fact people have used, are using and will always use cannabis no matter what the law of the land says.

Prohibition cause far more harm than cannabis ever could. It's made literally everything worse.

Sofiztikated

Yourself isit wrote: »

There are doctors and others who would prefer tobacco be made illegal. The aim of the warnings is to stop people using tobacco. Making something now illegal legal and then discouraging it when legal makes no sense.

Alcohol is illegal in Saudi Arabia. Forget about the bat****tery religious arguments, and look at it like this. If it were legalised, would putting warnings on be it a good thing? Why (not)?

Informing people what is/isn't a recommended dose/amount, and letting them make an informed decision as to why they should or shouldn't continue?

Tourist numbers are down? When? Someone tell the hotels to reduce rates.

And no we don't want to become the pot capital of europe.

http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/tourism-sector-paying-heavy-price-for-brexit-35957906.html

Apologies, tourist numbers from UK are down, but total tourist revenue from all markets is down.

What would be wrong with a industry based around the growing, cultivating, curing, preparation and consuming of a plant? Coffee shops, restaurants, tours, retreats, cookery courses, extraction demonstrations, bla bla bla. There's a whole host of business opportunities to be had. Why not innovate, provide jobs, provide income, collect taxes.

Has Colorado disappeared of the face of the planet because they reviewed their position on cannabis, and found it to be wrong?

****, they're doing ok from it.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/marijuana-tax-revenue-hit-200-million-in-colorado-as-sales-pass-1-billion-2017-02-10

Or you could oppose it because you don't like the thought of someone, sitting on their arse, smoking a joint.

Solomon Pleasant

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am struggling to think of that many things in this world AT ALL that do not destroy lives when used "excessively". In other words when someone says "X can destroy lives when used excessively" the locus of the problem is in the LAST word in that sentence, not in whatever the FIRST word happens to be.

The effects of marijuana consumption are very consistent across all people. That's very true, but weed is something that is used to excess more than a lot of substances. Not only that, but the effect of using weed to excess is greater than the effects of using many other substances to excess. In short, it has a more negative on someone than many other substances, therefore making it more dangerous. If it were to become more mainstream, which it probably will, the effects would be undesirable.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hell you could destroy (in fact end) your life right now by using WATER excessively. Which renders your point so universal as to be essentially moot. A point that pedantically applies to everything functionally applies to nothing.

Yes, that's very true. Quite an uncertain analogy because who uses water to excess on themselves? Do many people experience undesirable behaviors as a direct result of excessive water consumption? No, I didn't think so. My point is not moot in the slightest, because I didn't use it in the general sense, unlike you. It is a solid point when it comes to the weed debate.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Of course the interesting question to ask there, at a study level I mean not at the level of someones subjective childhood memories, is whether people are wasters because they are smoking the drug............ or are they more prone to smoking the drug because they are wasters.

It is an important question, and not one I would ever accept an anecdotal subjective personal experienced opinion on as being even remotely relevant.

Whatever the answer to that question, it changes little. There is a direct correlation between reduced motivation and marijuana consumption. This drug, therefore facilitates so called "wasters". This isn't to say that smoking cannabis automatically renders you a loser, but the correlation between them is undeniable.

Ultimately, if it legalised, it will just result in more taxation revenue for the government. Poorer people smoke more and it will serve to improve the lives of those at the top of the capitalist food chain - not the drug dealers.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Was it going well?

I would say so. Seems more cordial than previous after hours threads on drugs and a few other things I think make the quality of it so far higher.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Sometimes credentialism matters. Doctors who want to ban tobacco do so because of its harmful effects. The homeless guy would be less qualified.

Not to me it does not. Credentials are meaningless to me. I think it important that people pursue them and get them of course. But when it comes to someone making a claim ALL that matters to me is the content and substantiation for the claim and NEVER who the person making the claim is.

The most qualified intelligent person on the planet can be wrong. The least qualified people on the planet can hit on truth. WHAT is being said is infinitely more important to me than WHO says it. "Argument from authority" is on the list of fallacies for a reason.

But worse, as I said, the straight reply to "many doctors want X" is that "Many doctors want not X" is equally true so AT BEST the appeals to authority merely negate each other.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Warning labels on cigarettes try to discourage any use.

So you keep saying but I am unsure what your point is or why it is relevant to MY point which you originally replied to. Remember I NEVER at ANY point said the CONTENT of the labels should be the same. I said the PRACTICE of putting warning labels on the product would be the same.

I said the latter, but your responses appear to suggest you are replying as if I said the former. The vast majority of warning and information labels on products are NOT there to discourage use of the product.

Yourself isit wrote: »

It was admittedly the royal we. However you are engaging in a false dilemma. Neither groups are the best tourists we could get.

Nor did I say they were

but I still maintain that as a tourist denomination they are preferable to many others I could think of.

Yourself isit wrote: »

You are concerned with the contents of my posts. You are debating them.

Not what I meant, and you know it. There is a difference (huge) between concerning yourself with what a person is saying and moaning about HOW they say it. I am more than happy to give and receive the former. The latter will just receive the derision it deserves. Comedy is one of the attributes of our species and I think we can, nay SHOULD, take a subject seriously AND light hearted at the same time. We do not need to all sit down like dour vulcans to discuss even the most serious topic. It is After Hours, we are here for debate and fun in equal measure I believe.

Yourself isit wrote: »

You seem to be upset at the existence of a different opinion though.

You have invented that entirely out of nowhere really. This would be a truely boring and intolerable forum to be on if all opinions were the same. So I am the exact opposite of "upset" about it. I revel in it and it is why I am here.

But perhaps enough about making it personal and about me now, and back to the topic, perhaps?

Yourself isit wrote: »

My point is the aim of ever increasing warnings on tobacco is to stop the use of tobacco. Thus legalising a drug (encouraging it) and adding warnings(discouraging it) doesnt make a lot of sense.

But I repeat, no one here except your good self has suggested the labels are for discouraging the use of the product.

So you are not only preaching to the choir, but the choir does not even appear to be there.

The warning labels in my opinion would be more geared towards warning about the proper and improper use of the product, which we do very very often. There was a reason I included soluble solepedine in my list, other than your mistaken idea I was merely being glib.

However I would not like to look like I am dodging anything so even though you have taken up my point ENTIRELY wrong, I will partake of the Devils Avocado salad and suggest than maybe it does make sense anyway.

If people are using a drug ANYWAY then it does make sense to have a legal "discouraging label" version of it instead. I do not think it is the CORRECT or RIGHT choice to make, but you did not argue about it being correct or right, you argued about it making "sense". And I think it DOES make sense, given the choice between people using a product without discouragement and one with discouragement..... to choose the path that allows us to deliver that discouragement.

I think it a bad idea, and the wrong choice to make, and it was NOT what I was suggesting in the posts you replied to. But I entirely see the "sense" in it all the same. An idea can make "sense" and still be a bad idea.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Anyway this isn't going to happen.

You will get no argument from me here, I do not make or entertain any arguments based on crystal balls. I make the arguments for what I think SHOULD happen, so forgive me if I do not join you in talking about whether I expect it ever will or not. I genuinely do not know and perhaps you are entirely correct. But I do know a lot of things I was told 20 years ago would never happen (like gay marriage) has. So I have formed a life long skepticism when someone else repeats it on another topic.

Solomon Pleasant wrote: »

The effects of marijuana consumption are very consistent across all people. That's very true, but weed is something that is used to excess more than a lot of substances.

I have not seen the figures on that but you will have to cite them to me before I will take your word for it. But I would also want to know the factors influencing that too. Merely showing that it is used more does not mean that using it more is automatically a feature of the drug itself.

It could be ANYTHING else such as the ease of getting it into a country (compared to some drugs that can only be farmed successfully in countries where it is harder to get it exported).......... cost per unit compared to other drugs........ people avoiding the "lot of substances " you vaguely refer to because they are more dangerous so they use the relatively safer ones more.............. social stigmas......... delivery methods (some people wont use some drugs solely because they do not want to inject for example) and so on.... and so on.......

So merely claiming (even if it is true) that it is more heavily used than some vague "other stuff" is too simplistic and I would need to unpack it before being able to parse it as a point.

Solomon Pleasant wrote: »

Not only that, but the effect of using weed to excess is greater than the effects of using many other substances to excess.

Again very vague as to what you are comparing it to and what your actual data is. It is all a little hand wavey and free of hard substance here and I can neither rebut or accept anything this vague. I know I would certainly, if I had to make such a choice, prefer to see my children go through a period of excessive cannabis use than PCP heroin or Exstasy to be honest. And I would even say alcohol there too.

But again even if I were to wholesale accept your very vague point here, it still does not address MY point which was that when someone says that "X is damaging when used to excess" the problem is with the "excess" and not with the "X"............. regardless of relative rates of that excess compared to other things.

Solomon Pleasant wrote: »

Yes, that's very true. Quite an uncertain analogy because who uses water to excess on themselves?

Yes it is an extreme example, but it was intended to be. But deaths from some drugs actually have not been due to the drug, but due to the fact that it makes people take on too much water while on the drug and they die from THAT.

But the point was not based on how many people actually suffer from excess water. The point was that it would be EXCESS that is the problem when it happens, not water. And that is what does, despite your protest, render your point moot.

As for "undesirable behaviors" I repeat that the behaviors of groups of people on alcohol tend to be a lot more undesirable than those on cannabis.

Solomon Pleasant wrote: »

Whatever the answer to that question, it changes little.

Quite the opposite, it is a MASSIVE difference and changes much. There is a huge difference between suggesting a particular drug CAUSES a bad situation or behavior and it being something people turn to to help cope with such situations.

A "correlation between reduced motivation and marijuana consumption." is just that. A correlation. And a correlation tells us nothing useful in isolation. The causal path is what is required. A might be causing B. B might be causing A. Or some other factor C might in fact be causing BOTH A and B.

And diagnosing which it actually is changing EVERYTHING. Your faith in and use of correlation is much deeper than my own.

Solomon Pleasant wrote: »

Ultimately, if it legalised, it will just result in more taxation revenue for the government. Poorer people smoke more and it will serve to improve the lives of those at the top of the capitalist food chain - not the drug dealers.

I am not convinced that is true but even if it was 100% true I do not see it as an argument to make something (or maintain something as) illegal.

Again it is a case of "an argument that applies to everything applies to nothing" and you could say the same things about everything from alcohol to reality TV and soap operas, which are all more often consumed by the "poorer people" and line the pockets of the "richer people".

I think if my position on such drugs were ever to be changed, it will be, or CAN be, only done by an argument that is not universally applicable but only selectively applied. Such arguments scream nothing but "confirmation bias" at me.

Oranage2 wrote: »

So the whole study is all bull because they exaggerated a bit and some nonprofit liked their study?

Come on man. Students will do much worse if they smoke cannabis, yes that's obvious, but now there's a study to prove it.

I just hope these pro cannabis people admit the drug is dangerous and has some serious consequences, not this miracle drug they are trying to promote.

I know this 1 article won't be enough to change much but hopefully it will educate and make some young people aware of the dangers.

Im getting the feeling you dont actually know anything at all about the drug and spend your time googling for "research" to back you up

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm not here to debate epilepsy and treatment, to be honest, I know nothing about it, also the medical world has very little knowledge of the long term affects of medical cannabis use even though short term use may be positive. But nice of you to use sick infants to promote recreational use.

The stereotypical stoner we all imagine from excessive recreational use of the drug is becoming all too familiar.

This sums up your entire argument buddy, maybe try avoid certain things you dont understand. I dont post in the baking forum for this very reason :pac:

the_syco

tomwaterford wrote: »

Because those shady Guys would just stop??

If it's sold cheaply legally, the people selling it illegally would need to compete with the prices. End game is that this pushes out most of the small time dealers, and only those with a direct line to the growers would be able to make money from selling the weed.

Added to that, anyone can buy weed illegally, but the government can prohibit anyone under 18 or 21 from buying it.

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

There will always be exceptions. Most stoners amount to nothing.

It really depends where they get their money from to buy the weed. If they have a job, they'll usually work hard to buy the weed, but if their on welfare, they have no need to try to get a job to get the weed. But then, the drugs are blamed for their laziness, not them themselves.

I'd say the ones with crap grades were getting crap grades before they smoked pot.

the_syco

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'm not here to debate epilepsy and treatment, to be honest

Oranage2 wrote: »

The stereotypical stoner we all imagine from excessive recreational use of the drug is becoming all too familiar.

Last time I looked at it, both used different types of weed. Those who suffer from epilepsy eat CBD, and those who want to get high smoke THC.

Solomon Pleasant wrote: »

I've witnessed the effects first hand of what excessive cannabis consumption can do to an individual. I think the drug is considerably more destructive and damaging than what people consider it to be.

It destroys motivation, affects academic performance very negatively, increases paranoia, can induce psychosis, can create sexual problems for males, reduce IQ and ultimately leads to a much lower standard of living.

What really shocks me is the financial side of it. I struggle to understand how people can spend their hard earned money on a drug which is so incredibly dangerous.

I'd also argue that the drug is addictive. I've witnessed people try to give it up - and fail. Perhaps it's more habitual in nature than additive but it's definitely not easy to quit when it's ingrained in someone's lifestyle. This drug can and does destroy lives when used excessively.

A lot of this can be applied to anything playing Fifa excessively for example
I know investment bankers who smoke it, it never affected there IQ

ScumLord

the_syco wrote: »

If it's sold cheaply legally, the people selling it illegally would need to compete with the prices.

Legal weed seems to be at least half the price of illegal weed. There's no way the black market can compete with a legal one, all their profits would disappear and there would be no incentive for them to continue selling it. That's even with a hefty tax put on top of it. At the moment Irish gangs are making obscene profits on weed in Ireland compared to anywhere else in Europe.

RasTa

In 2015, Colorado collected more than $135 million in taxes and fee on medical and recreational marijuana. Sales in the state totaled over $996 million

In 2016, Colorado’s dispensaries bagged $1.3 billion in recreational and medical cannabis sales,

They also show that Colorado brought in about $199 million in tax and fees revenue for the calendar year.

Money.