Colorado businessman blames 'stoned' workers for move to SC

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
This is ridiculous.

Yes, the way you try to support your opinion is always ridiculous.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP


That is just the opener on that list of peer reviewed subject matter on the ills of pot smoking.

So after countless science-based and evolution threads where you've completely dismissed all of the peer-reviewed studies, suddenly now when it supposedly supports your agenda, you cling to peer-reviewed research as though it's the gold standard of information?

You can find a handful of studies that claim to show negative effects of MJ and countless others that show that it is beneficial.

I'll post some examples even though you won't read them:
60 Peer Reviewed Studies of Medical Marijuana

Cancer.gov discussing the benefits for cancer patients.

And after your countless times of whining for some, as if there is a lack of it, you finally see some and there you go demeaning it's materialization in a thread. Thanks, it wasn't needed anyway but now we all can see you never really wanted any produced in the first place for discussion.

The current agenda to legalize pot is trying to suppress years of research and study, or outright dismiss it. How convenient.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

We are not talking evolution, but even then yes I would want to see recent studies.

The testing was much different back then and less was known, so yes it was different.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TinfoilTP

We are not talking evolution, but even then yes I would want to see recent studies.

The testing was much different back then and less was known, so yes it was different.

You add to a body of evidence through research, you don't throw everything out and start from a new biased position to suit your agenda. Are pot legalizers revolutionizing science research now too? Does Tar content and carcinogens magically go away if you don't look for them?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I am not saying to throw them out only you are.

Just saying why would you need to go back so far.
That shows trying to find a bias and pushing an agenda.

Since the numbers should be the same, think you can find a more recent study to show it?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

How much Tar and carcinogens can be found in edibles and oils? Does smoking it through water filtration reduce those things?

Have you ever considered the problem may be with the chosen delivery system and not the plant?



BTW I am still waiting for you to answer if you are for prohibition of alcohol as well since it has been been proven to be far more destructive than a plant.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP


And after your countless times of whining for some, as if there is a lack of it, you finally see some and there you go demeaning it's materialization in a thread. Thanks, it wasn't needed anyway but now we all can see you never really wanted any produced in the first place for discussion.

The current agenda to legalize pot is trying to suppress years of research and study, or outright dismiss it. How convenient.

I'm not sure which thread you've been reading but I haven't once asked for someone to post anti-MJ "research." Yet again, you're lying in an attempt to discredit me because you can't support your opinion.

If you don't immediately retract the first 2 sentences of the reply I've quoted, you are a liar.

You really are completely incapable of honest debate, aren't you? It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP


And after your countless times of whining for some, as if there is a lack of it, you finally see some and there you go demeaning it's materialization in a thread. Thanks, it wasn't needed anyway but now we all can see you never really wanted any produced in the first place for discussion.

The current agenda to legalize pot is trying to suppress years of research and study, or outright dismiss it. How convenient.

I'm not sure which thread you've been reading but I haven't once asked for someone to post anti-MJ "research." Yet again, you're lying in an attempt to discredit me because you can't support your opinion.

If you don't immediately retract the first 2 sentences of the reply I've quoted, you are a liar.

You really are completely incapable of honest debate, aren't you? It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Ok, my apologies, I was thinking of another series of threads we clashed in and not the recent MJ ones where producing "peer reviewed" material was discussed. Apparently atheism and abiogenesis theories you feel on firmer ground retorting peer reviewed material but not for MJ, from your quote.....

I'm not sure which thread you've been reading but I haven't once asked for someone to post anti-MJ "research

Again sorry, I will remember where you like to go hardcore with peer reviewed stuff and where it is never touched upon unless it is in your favor by you.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP


And after your countless times of whining for some, as if there is a lack of it, you finally see some and there you go demeaning it's materialization in a thread. Thanks, it wasn't needed anyway but now we all can see you never really wanted any produced in the first place for discussion.

The current agenda to legalize pot is trying to suppress years of research and study, or outright dismiss it. How convenient.

I'm not sure which thread you've been reading but I haven't once asked for someone to post anti-MJ "research." Yet again, you're lying in an attempt to discredit me because you can't support your opinion.

If you don't immediately retract the first 2 sentences of the reply I've quoted, you are a liar.

You really are completely incapable of honest debate, aren't you? It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Ok, my apologies, I was thinking of another series of threads we clashed in and not the recent MJ ones where producing "peer reviewed" material was discussed. Apparently atheism and abiogenesis theories you feel on firmer ground retorting peer reviewed material but not for MJ, from your quote.....

I'm not sure which thread you've been reading but I haven't once asked for someone to post anti-MJ "research

Again sorry, I will remember where you like to go hardcore with peer reviewed stuff and where it is never touched upon unless it is in your favor by you.

I appreciate that you attempted an apology but we've never clashed over peer-reviewed research materials. Apologize altogether or not at all, don't half-ass it and attempt to be cute.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier and rephrase slightly: you can find a handful of studies that claim harmful effects of long term daily use of MJ by adolescents and countless studies that espouse the medical benefits and lack of side-effects on responsible users. That's really the only information that a rational person needs to make up their mind.

Just because you can find one or two studies showing negative effects due to extreme examples of abuse does not mean that MJ is a life-altering addictive demon drug like you seem to believe.

Take a second to consider your argument. You're dismissing the benefits altogether because some people show minor side-effects after abusing the substance. That's like banning tylenol because some people take too much and end up with kidney or liver damage.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

What about a person who cleans up in a cow barn? Could a # scraper be high and still be able to produce results?

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP


And after your countless times of whining for some, as if there is a lack of it, you finally see some and there you go demeaning it's materialization in a thread. Thanks, it wasn't needed anyway but now we all can see you never really wanted any produced in the first place for discussion.

The current agenda to legalize pot is trying to suppress years of research and study, or outright dismiss it. How convenient.

I'm not sure which thread you've been reading but I haven't once asked for someone to post anti-MJ "research." Yet again, you're lying in an attempt to discredit me because you can't support your opinion.

If you don't immediately retract the first 2 sentences of the reply I've quoted, you are a liar.

You really are completely incapable of honest debate, aren't you? It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Ok, my apologies, I was thinking of another series of threads we clashed in and not the recent MJ ones where producing "peer reviewed" material was discussed. Apparently atheism and abiogenesis theories you feel on firmer ground retorting peer reviewed material but not for MJ, from your quote.....

I'm not sure which thread you've been reading but I haven't once asked for someone to post anti-MJ "research

Again sorry, I will remember where you like to go hardcore with peer reviewed stuff and where it is never touched upon unless it is in your favor by you.

I appreciate that you attempted an apology but we've never clashed over peer-reviewed research materials. Apologize altogether or not at all, don't half-ass it and attempt to be cute.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier and rephrase slightly: you can find a handful of studies that claim harmful effects of long term daily use of MJ by adolescents and countless studies that espouse the medical benefits and lack of side-effects on responsible users. That's really the only information that a rational person needs to make up their mind.

Just because you can find one or two studies showing negative effects due to extreme examples of abuse does not mean that MJ is a life-altering addictive demon drug like you seem to believe.

Take a second to consider your argument. You're dismissing the benefits altogether because some people show minor side-effects after abusing the substance. That's like banning tylenol because some people take too much and end up with kidney or liver damage.

How many marijuana smokers do you know that are just occasional smokers? I mean they have a joint every couple of years?

Now how many people do you know who would smoke it long term and daily if they could afford it?

From Drug Facts

Marijuana also affects brain development. When marijuana users begin using as teenagers, the drug may reduce thinking, memory, and learning functions and affect how the brain builds connections between the areas necessary for these functions.

The brain of a teenager does not stop growing until they are 24 years-old. In that time of brain development there is significant brain damage.

For example, a study showed that people who started smoking marijuana heavily in their teens and had an ongoing cannabis use disorder lost an average of eight IQ points between ages 13 and 38. The lost mental abilities did not fully return in those who quit marijuana as adults. Those who started smoking marijuana as adults did not show notable IQ declines (Meier, 2012).

I think, given these scientific results, teenagers should not smoke marijuana, unless you guys approve of lower IQ points?

It is addictive

Contrary to common belief, marijuana can be addictive. Research suggests that about 1 in 11 users becomes addicted to marijuana (Anthony, 1994; Lopez-Quintero 2011).This number increases among those who start as teens (to about 17 percent, or 1 in 6) and among people who use marijuana daily (to 25-50 percent) (Hall, 2009a; Hall, 2009b).

THC overactivates certain brain cell receptors, resulting in effects such as: altered senses, changes in mood, impaired body movement, difficulty with thinking and problem-solving , impaired memory and learning

Compared to alcohol, how much does one have to smoke to achieve the same level of intoxication? Let's say one mixed drink vs. one joint. Yes, being high is intoxication. But comparing the two, alcohol abuse damages the liver and kidneys, but THC damages the brain, and in some teenagers it is permanent.

So what is the solution? I think that with marijuana there should be the same warnings as tobacco, it causes problems that are irreversible. And should those irreversible problems be overlooked because a person wants a little fun?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Fox News. Nuff said.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Who is saying it is good for teenagers to smoke everyday in here?

What does that have to do with adults?

originally posted by: WarminIndy


How many marijuana smokers do you know that are just occasional smokers? I mean they have a joint every couple of years?

Your idea of "occasional" and everyone else's are vastly different.

Now how many people do you know who would smoke it long term and daily if they could afford it?

Everyone I know that partakes can afford to smoke long term and daily if they wanted to. They don't because they don't want to be high 24/7 just like people who drink socially don't want to be drunk 24/7. These folks smoke a bit to relax and watch a movie or have a deep conversation or they'll smoke before a concert. I also know a person who smokes every night before bed because it's the only cure for her insomnia that doesn't cause horrible side effects.

There are true "pot heads" who try as hard as they can to stay high every waking minute but they're not my type of folk. Just like I don't hang out with folks who can't have fun without being drunk. Again, there's a hell of a lot of grey area between "occasional user" and "hardcore pot head." That alone illustrates the non-addictive nature of the substance.

From Drug Facts

Marijuana also affects brain development. When marijuana users begin using as teenagers, the drug may reduce thinking, memory, and learning functions and affect how the brain builds connections between the areas necessary for these functions.

The brain of a teenager does not stop growing until they are 24 years-old. In that time of brain development there is significant brain damage.

I'm sure alcohol, cigarettes, prescription medication, caffeine, aspartame, too much TV, cellphones, and countless other things affect brain development in adolescents. That argument is only used by fear-mongers on the anti-legalization side but I'd hardly consider it a legitimate concern since the vast majority of proponents for legalization support age limits for recreational use.

I think, given these scientific results, teenagers should not smoke marijuana, unless you guys approve of lower IQ points?

Teenagers shouldn't abuse any substance. I've also seen VERY few proponents who don't support an age limit. Marijuana is a lot like sex in that as long as kids can't openly talk about it because of its taboo nature, they'll continue to do it wrong/irresponsibly and suffer the consequences.

Again, even in teenagers, there's a huge difference between "occasional user" and "hardcore pot head."

It is addictive

There are many many studies showing that marijuana is the closest to "non-addictive" as any substance can possibly be. Sugar is far more addictive.

THC overactivates certain brain cell receptors, resulting in effects such as: altered senses, changes in mood, impaired body movement, difficulty with thinking and problem-solving , impaired memory and learning

Yep... look at these side effects:

Palpitations / tachycardia
Tremor / shaking
Agitation / restlessness
Gastrointestinal upset
Chest pain / ischaemia
Dizziness / syncope
Paraesthesia (tingling or numbing of the skin)
Insomnia
Respiratory distress
Headache

Those are the common side-effects of standard energy drinks.

How about the side-effects of Advil?

chest pain, weakness, shortness of breath, slurred speech, problems with vision or balance
black, bloody, or tarry stools
coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds
swelling or rapid weight gain
urinating less than usual or not at all
nausea, upper stomach pain, itching, loss of appetite, dark urine, clay-colored stools, jaundice (yellowing of the skin or eyes)
fever, sore throat, and headache with a severe blistering, peeling, and red skin rash
bruising, severe tingling, numbness, pain, muscle weakness
severe headache, neck stiffness, chills, increased sensitivity to light, and/or seizure (convulsions).

Compared to alcohol, how much does one have to smoke to achieve the same level of intoxication? Let's say one mixed drink vs. one joint. Yes, being high is intoxication. But comparing the two, alcohol abuse damages the liver and kidneys, but THC damages the brain, and in some teenagers it is permanent.

So what is the solution? I think that with marijuana there should be the same warnings as tobacco, it causes problems that are irreversible. And should those irreversible problems be overlooked because a person wants a little fun?

The amounts required for impairment are entirely due to the person's tolerance and the type/potency of the substance used. Some types don't cause noticeable physical impairment. There are too many variations of cannabis to paint it with such a broad brush.

Cannabis used in moderation does not cause irreversible side effects. In states where it's legal, it comes with warnings. When it's legalized, people can actually get a proper education about responsible use. Keeping cannabis illegal and pretending that people won't use it just leads to more problems.

I do not believe this argument should have anything to do with the legal status nor effects positive, negative, or harmful. Just like alcohol, pot in Colorado is now a legal, yet still controlled substance.

In the same category, do you go to work drunk?

This business owner's argument is not about the legality of the drug or its effects on health, but the fact that he may believe there is a direct correlation between his sculptors smoking pot and productivity. I do not see this as a way to reverse the legalization in Colorado, but a way to put some form of rules into effect about smoking before work.

I for one believe it is a safe recreational drug, the key word is recreational. Use it when the things you have to do in life for the day are done, and can relax. Just like a nice glass of scotch for me at night. Maybe this story is BS and put out of proportion by MSM, but the key argument here is that while it is now legal it does not, just like alcohol, belong in the workplace. (Not necessarily laws).

a reply to: Answer

So why are teenagers buy it off "responsible" adults?

Sure, you can make the argument all you want comparing side effects of other things, the truth is marijuana has side effects.

It causes brain damage in teenagers, it is addictive and it causes cancer, which has been proven time and time again.

If there was nothing harmful about marijuana, then why do people have to be advised?

Does marijuana have side effects or not?

Don't argue the comparison to other products, you are arguing the merits of marijuana. So it would only be fair to address the harmful side effect.

So does it or not have side effects that are negative, yes or no?

I find it funny how this makes national headlines. But things like the Colorado health board saying PTSD it treatable with cannabis will never make national news. Source .

So what! One bigoted business owner moves his company because somehow being high and an artist is now frowned on. While hundreds of others are moving here because of the booming economy. He will learn how quickly non smoking artists lack a creative nature. If they are not endangering anyone I say leave them alone!

To associate cannabis with alcohol is nonsense. The OP always does this and needs to educate himself on people like David Nutt who proved without a doubt that alcohol is the most dangerous drug known to man. More so than coc aine and meth. Cannabis was under caffeine on the list...
Link



More people die a year from caffeine than smoking this flower! Note the mortality rates in dark blue on the graph. Cannabis ZERO!!!

I am far more concerned about people driving on pharmaceuticals than someone driving with a naturally occurring compound in his/her system. This is relevant here too. The coroner found the young man that shot himself was below the legal limit to drive. Link

a reply to: JAY1980

I'm sorry, but you just said something false...non-smokers of marijuana lack creative nature.

Please provide empirical evidence for that claim.

a reply to: WarminIndy

The article that I linked said they found traces of marijuana in the pipes they tested. You're denial and desire for the "weed" to be opium is quite humorous, in my opinion.

Being in Denver, I can't say I've noticed that workers being high is a common thing. Many companies still perform drug testing after all, and will let you go if you fail. Perhaps it was the type of business he was in that had something to do with it, not really sure. But I certainly don't run into high workers when I shop, nor do I see people getting high where I work. I imagine it does happen more than before.. but honestly, if people get high prior or while at work, they probably did prior to it being legalized as well.