145+ Scientific Studies Showing the Dangers of Marijuana

Are you still having trouble reading the studies or have you not cherry picked the New York Times article enough yet?

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: FLAMEBAIT/INSULT >>>

 

Should the FDA be abolished then?

 

I wasn't referring to the New York Times article. I was referring to the Daily Mail article. Why are you even pretending to claim that you read the studies?

 

They were all in English and I am well aware of what they say but admit I have not memorized them.

You are incorrect as usual. My ideology is that these studies exist and people should be made aware that they exist. That is about science.

 

Do you own your body, or do you have to defer to the FDA? Are you a free human, or are you a sheep that has to report to the government what you intend to ingest?

 

Very good question. Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) do you think you are that you have the authority to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. I don't care if it's bad for me, it's none of your business. You completely lack the moral authority to order me to do as you command.

 

Why? I want to know my kids school lunches are not riddled mad cow disease. i want to know the fruit i buy thats hauled in from other states doesnt have E. coli. See the difference between that and wanting to knowingly put a substiance in your body? See why your argument is fundamentally flawed?

 

Why are you lying that I did not read them? I linked to press releases since they are easier for most people to read and give a good summary of the papers.

- - - Updated - - -

Who the hell are you to tell me I cannot use my body as a suicide bomb.

- - - Updated - - -

The FDA monitors every piece of fruit for E. coli? Should the FDA ban the release of any drug?

 

How is it about science with you? You don't even understand the science involved. Stop trying to pretend that you are a public servant who has discovered the terrible danger of marijuana, and need to tell everyone on a forum. You just don't like marijuana.

You clearly did not read, or have the prerequisite knowledge to discuss "the science" within the articles. You get pissed when people pick one out, and attempt to disagree with it. I posted my reasons for disagreeing with one of your studies, but you ignored it. If you really cared about "the science" you would be able to address our questions about these studies.

You can't. Why? Because you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Why are you lying that I don't understand the science? This is very bizarre behavior. Strawman, I never claimed to be a public servant. Correction, I don't like people being misinformed on marijuana.

You can keep stating this lie, it does not make it anymore true. I have yet to get pissed. You are of course free to disagree with whatever you like. Your "reasons" are irrelevant as you are not qualified to make such criticisms nor have published on the subject. Anyone can whine and cherry pick like you do. It gets kind of old and transparent when the handful of links to news articles discussing a study get repeatedly cherry picked.

This has been helpful as I will need to change those links.

 

FDA creates the regulations which prevent it.... look, you're arguments have been thoroughly crushed. nothing you can offer will redeem any of them so why dont you do the honorable thing and abandon the thread and let it die.

wanting to smoke weed doesnt equate to then you want your kids to get e coli from school lunch.

 

They absolutely do not. The study I looked at never even claimed what the Daily Mail wrote. If you really believed that was a good summary, then one of two things has to be true. You don't understand what you are talking about, or you never read the study. Besides, what are you doing looking at the Daily Mail? Shouldn't you just post the links to the studies, and explain what they mean?

You aren't even arguing about science in this thread. You are arguing about the FDA. This is ridiculous.

 

What am I lying about? You clearly do not possess the prerequisite education in neuroscience. How could you possibly understand "the science" behind that article? You might as well post an editorial about the danger of marijuana, because that is exactly how you are using these studies. They are just handy props for your soapbox.

Are you serious? I was not commenting on the data, or the field of neuroscience. I am not pretending to understand something I do not. My criticism was the poor methodology of the study, and her open-ended conclusion. None of that is about science. You are claiming that your opinion is based on the science. You do not understand it, so your opinion is based on something you don't understand. You would agree with anything said in these studies, just as long as the title agreed with your preconceived notions.

You are posting these studies as irrefutable evidence, yet when you are challenged on some of them, you dismiss the argument as cherry picking. Why did you even post the study in the first place?

 

I do think that all drugs should be decriminalised when it comes to personal consumption. Junkies do not belong in prison.

 

If you use your body as a suicide bomb, you are not only harming yourself. That is a horse of a different color.

 

From that report- which was a rat study

Hurd, however, feels that softening the law against marijuana at this point would be "ridiculous", given the number of unknowns about its effects. She adds that two other drugs that also stimulate opioid cells, and could therefore also feasibly cause a gateway effect, are nicotine and alcohol. "If we turned back the clock with the knowledge we have now, these two drugs would never have been legalized," Hurd says.

According to your own study- if pot is a 'gateway drug' then nicotine and alcohol are also. Of course this study was far from conclusive- and it was a rat study.

- - - Updated - - -

Should businesses be allowed to discriminate employment based on marijuana use?- treat pot like alcohol and cigarettes
Should marijuana users be allowed to drive? treat pot like alcohol and cigarettes
Should marijuana users be allowed to smoke in public? treat pot like alcohol and cigarettes

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly- everything in your post is on point.

 

So where are the other studies? This is about science right?

Have you cherry picked studies to present only studies that support your predetermined position that pot is harmful?

If this thread was about science then I would expect to see some of the studies which present other findings- and you and I know that they exist.

So why didn't you present any of those?

 

I believe we should strive to handle our drugs better than our drugs handle us.

 

It must be nice to declare victory without having to answer tough questions.

Should the FDA ban the release of any drug?

 

I believe they do, you are of course free to disagree. Yet you continue to cherry pick the Daily Mail link even after I have replaced it with one from Nature? It is fascinating that you continue to get hung up on something I am no longer arguing.

Ridiculous? Not at all, my question is directly relevant,

Should the FDA ban the release of any drug?

 

By your ridiculous requirements you understand none of this. An education in neuroscience is not required to understand the studies. Strawman, this list is a resource not an editorial nor is any such thing implied. It is always enlightening to see how proponents such as yourself desperately lash out to defend their ideological positions.

You do not possess the prerequisite education in neuroscience so your criticism is meaningless. I understand the science very well unlike yourself. Constantly trying to project your limitations on myself is not an argument.

Strawman, I never posted them as irrefutable evidence, only scientific evidence. I dismiss your cherry picking the news report links which presented some of the studies as representative of the entire list. You seem confused, I am not agreeing with any of your arguments. My selection of now using Nature as a source is simply to prevent future incessant cherry picking not because I disagree with the Daily mail's summary of the study. I posted each of the studies because they exist.

Your commentary so far has been one long exercise in cherry picking and strawman arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

They belong 6 feet under.

 

I have repeatedly given my opinion on that study.

Absolutely. A ban on Vioxx would have saved 50,000 lives.

 

You have got to be joking. Did Wikipedia send you a degree for finishing 10% of the article?

Why don't you enlighten us on the field of neuroscience? Where did you get your PHD? I am not projecting my limitations on anyone. I am fully aware of my limitations, and admit them freely. I would welcome a scientific explanation behind the biochemical factors of marijuana use and heroin addiction. I am also interested in the possible difference of the mechanism of action in marijuana, between rats and humans?

You never responded to my comments on that study. I summarized it about five pages ago. I have mentioned that to you on a number of occasions. I want to talk about that one.

Your commentary has consisted of little else besides the words "cherry picking" and "straw man."

 

Look at this nonsense:

http://www.politicalforum.com/search.php?searchid=1353445

Are you familiar with any other fallacy? Good lord, you've used it at least 95 times in 378 posts.