Jeff Sessions: "Drugs Will Destroy Your Life," Recinds Cole Memo On Pot Legalization

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Well kids shouldnt have it anyways. But they ALREADY do. So criminalization doesnt do squat.

Meanwhile the stroke paper I read said nothing about DEATHS.

Nothing about deaths?

Oh cool, I guess ischemic strokes stopped causing fatalities.

Medical science has come a long way, wow!

originally posted by: Archivalist

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Archivalist

You mean this.

Episodic marijuana use may represent a risk factor for stroke in childhood, particularly in the posterior circulation. Early recognition of the cerebellar stroke syndrome may allow prompt neurosurgical intervention, reducing morbidity.

First off why are there so few cases if they got it right?
The peer review process doesn't work the way you think.
.

There is also this problem.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

You're doing a really good job of refuting something.

Unfortunately, the something you are successfully refuting, is the scientific method and peer review process.

Go ahead and win*? that argument.

Your citation addresses: neither my claims or my provided evidence.

Go ahead and keep eating your cognitive dissonance.

If you live in the United States, I will gladly pay for your expenses and travel to go meet the families of these stroke victims, and you can tell them directly, while looking them in the eye, that marijuana didn't kill their dead loved one.

You literally sound like an episode from refer madness.

Did you happen apon the word may?

Why aren't there more cases?

But I will take you up on your offer go ahead and shoot me you're number.

If you think the kind of over drama you are using is effective you are as dense as the people saying everybody should smoke pot all the time, it can't be harmful.

a reply to: Archivalist

stroke.ahajournals.org...

—No associations between cannabis use in young adulthood and strokes experienced ≤45 years of age or beyond were found in multivariable models: cannabis use >50 times, hazard ratios=0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34–2.57) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.59–1.53). Although an almost doubled risk of ischemic stroke was observed in those with cannabis use >50 times, this risk was attenuated when adjusted for tobacco usage: hazards ratio=1.47 (95% CI, 0.83–2.56). Smoking ≥20 cigarettes per day was clearly associated both with strokes before 45 years of age, hazards ratio=5.04 (95% CI, 2.80–9.06), and with strokes throughout the follow-up, hazards ratio=2.15 (95% CI, 1.61–2.88).

Now tell me.Mr science how many people need to be involved in a valid epidemiology study

a reply to: luthier

Alright, let's put on our science hats.

I know you don't wear yours too often, so I'll let you have a moment to get the dust off of it.

Speaking of dust, wouldn't you know it? There's SOME on your research citation!

"Data came from a national survey of Swedish men conscripted into military service in 1969/70, between 18 and 20 years of age."

A survey. Not in hospital visitations following acute usage. Long-term over life period usage. (My first stated demographic 12 TO 18 isn't even addressed by this. You got 2(18-20) years on your dinner plate, I had 6(12-18) years of appetizers already, I'm full. I don't have room left to have your 2 years of BS in my main course.)

Let alone the fact, that the data came from 1969 and 1970

As the great and late Billy Mays says:

"But wait! There's more! Those men were ALL military conscripts. Which puts them into a niche subcategory that is definitely NOT representative of the entire population."

Your article relies on the following assumptions:

Long term usage, reflects short term data (Guess what? If a guy dies when he's 20, he can't fill out a follow-up survey when he's 50, unless time machines are suddenly a thing! I'm very interested in time travel! Please let me know how they do it. AKA if something else kills the guy, it takes away from the study. This is NOT a controlled double blind situation, and is made of follow-up surveys, based on decades old military records.)

Conscripted soldiers are at the same physical baseline as the general populace. Didn't realize we had Bruce Springsteen style "everyman" militaries.

That the on-paper survey data accurately reflects practical occurrences in the real world.

That the marijuana of yesteryear has the same interactions with the body, and is chemically the same as our modern marijuana plants.

1 Citation for you
3 For me.

3/1

I'm up by 2

I'll give you a 2 pointer to beat the tie, if you find a properly controlled study that used data collected from AFTER the invention of the first TAPE CASETTE SONY WALKMAN.

"On July 1, 1979, Sony introduced the Walkman TPS-L2"

a reply to: Archivalist

People die from "strokes", but people having "strokes" doenst inherently mean DEATH.

Nor does "stroke" have a definite output condition when it isnt death.

I think it was you who said the "right" would be all over actual deaths, yet this hasnt happened. Hmm.....

a reply to: Archivalist

Oh boy.

Nice deflection. In this study which you obviously didn't read they also list two other studies....

And no the data was not from 69 and 70.

Nice try though. Maybe you need some reading glasses.

Did you find the rebuttal to this peer reviewed paper yet?

Wonder why the American Heart association has its name on it...

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Hasn't needed to happen, yet.

They don't want to stem the flow of it's infrastructure getting built.

Big lobbyists, want to use the hard labor of grassroots farms and dispensaries, to their own advantage.

They are waiting for the right amount of infrastructure to exist, then they will buy it, and remove all doubt from "cloudy studies"

The crying moms on the stands about stroke victims, is probably an extra magazine of ammunition they are keeping in their back pockets, in case they need to use it.

Ever see the new Spider-man movie? SPOILER ALERT something similar happens at the end of the movie.

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Hasn't needed to happen, yet.

They don't want to stem the flow of it's infrastructure getting built.

Big lobbyists, want to use the hard labor of grassroots farms and dispensaries, to their own advantage.

They are waiting for the right amount of infrastructure to exist, then they will buy it, and remove all doubt from "cloudy studies"

The crying moms on the stands about stroke victims, is probably an extra magazine of ammunition they are keeping in their back pockets, in case they need to use it.

Ever see the new Spider-man movie? SPOILER ALERT something similar happens at the end of the movie.

Welcome to crazy town, folks.

Now the right want pot legalized, and the dead bodies that never happened but they did but they didnt prove it.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Hasn't needed to happen, yet.

They don't want to stem the flow of it's infrastructure getting built.

Big lobbyists, want to use the hard labor of grassroots farms and dispensaries, to their own advantage.

They are waiting for the right amount of infrastructure to exist, then they will buy it, and remove all doubt from "cloudy studies"

The crying moms on the stands about stroke victims, is probably an extra magazine of ammunition they are keeping in their back pockets, in case they need to use it.

Ever see the new Spider-man movie? SPOILER ALERT something similar happens at the end of the movie.

Welcome to crazy town, folks.

Now the right want pot legalized, and the dead bodies that never happened but they did but they didnt prove it.

A good example of why pot isn't for everyone.

Choo choo

a reply to: luthier

Nah he's probably just on Red Bull.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

One of my favorite parts was trying to set up a controlled study.

OK kids here is some pot now I will wait for you to stroke out in this CTE maxhine and record the data
.

a reply to: luthier

And yes the data was from 69 and 70.

Seems you didn't read your own research article too closely.

Nor did you read the citations on your article.

(PS: Most articles referencing yours... are using yours as the baseline in the past to document how these rates are increasing and are more noticeable. AKA The doctors (btw we're up to enough doctors to fill every seat on an entire city bus with evidence supporting my claims) are literally saying - rates are higher now AND we see causality.)

Here's a little summary of your citation's references:

Recreational marijuana use and acute ischemic stroke: A population-based analysis of hospitalized patients in the United States.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(CONCLUSION:
Among younger adults, recreational marijuana use is independently associated with 17% increased likelihood of AIS hospitalization.)
Rumalla K1, Reddy AY2, Mittal MK3.

PS AIS = Acute Ischemic Stroke
Also, that's a publishing with RECENT data from 2013 (Your data is from military survey information dated all the way back to 1969-1970 go re-read your own citation.)

Association of Recreational Marijuana Use with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that recreational marijuana use is independently associated with an 18% increased likelihood of aSAH. Further case-control studies may analyze inpatient outcomes and other understudied mechanisms behind cannabis-associated stroke.)
Rumalla K1, Reddy AY2, Mittal MK3.

Cannabis and Stroke
Systematic Appraisal of Case Reports
Daniel G. Hackam
stroke.ahajournals.org...
^ ^ ^ That one is REALLY GOOD, because this study took apart YOUR study and proved that all evidence when weighed together DOES show a cannabis use/stroke risk increase! Hey-o I'm not the only person saying you're wrong, this PhD holding neuroscientist professor, points out the same flaws I have!
www.healthandsocietyscholars.org...
^ That guy.
Said this. V
(Conclusions—Many case reports support a causal link between cannabis and cerebrovascular events. This accords well with epidemiological and mechanistic research on the cerebrovascular effects of cannabis.)

Heavy cannabis users at elevated risk of stroke: evidence from a general population survey
Authors Dilini Hemachandra, Rebecca McKetin, Nicolas Cherbuin, Kaarin J. Anstey First published: 11 November 2015
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
(Conclusions: Heavy cannabis users in the general community have a higher rate of non-fatal stroke or transient ischemic attack than non-cannabis users.)

Eur Neurol. 2000;44(1):42-4.
Transient ischemic attack in heavy cannabis smokers--how 'safe' is it?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(The urine analysis was positive for cannabis metabolites. There were no other abnormal findings in the rest of the meticulous and thorough study of all 3 patients, which leads to the conclusion that cannabis was the only risk factor responsible for the observed TIA, contradictory to other studies, which support that cannabis is a 'safe' drug.)
Mouzak A1, Agathos P, Kerezoudi E, Mantas A, Vourdeli-Yiannakoura E.



Honestly, I'm glad you added your citation, I just read through about 200 pages worth of medical documentation about all sorts of additional medical issues that need to be further studied in reference to cannabis consumption.

My primary argument here is this: Marijuana is NOT 100% safe, nothing is. However, we have case reports documenting acute reactions that range from death via ischemic strokes, temporary disablement of function, potential lifetime risk factor increase (tough to say on that one, more data needed) , cannabis arteritis (some people just get toes and fingers cut off from smoking cannabis, not as bad as stroke deaths, I suppose)

Another rocky road to venture on, from a BLIND PRO-LEGALIZATION stance, is that if you try to argue these patients had their medical emergencies due to OTHER medications or recreational drugs in their system, the argument can be construed to add support for "cannabis is a gateway drug" which is something most pro-legalization supporters HATE and vehemently swear off like it's Satan coming for their souls.

I say, let science do proper research before we carry blindly, the pitchforks of others.

(Marijuana is probably safer than other currently legal products, but for proper regulation to exist that makes a safe and informed public... It is irresponsible, ignorant, and ill-informed to turn a blind eye to the possibilities that it may not be as safe as talking about smoking hyperbolic amounts because THC LD-50 requires you to smoke an elephant worth of marijuana. That's not my argument. My argument is that if you argue for pro-legalization, and you come into that fight in ignorance, you will leave beaten, whether marijuana is safe or not.)

(Also, I learned much of my ability to analyze vast amounts of research and construct evidence backed assertions, from an Oxford University level professor.)

Sorry, you brought internet troll to an academic analysis fight.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Look, if you REALLY want me to, I will contact these hospitals and research universities.

I will request that they ask the participants, that directly had a loved one perish, whether they are willing to come forward and make statements.

If that's all it takes. That is a small price to pay, to save lives. I will literally buy tickets to perform interviews with proof and records, should any families agree.

If the scrutiny I am providing saves even ONE person, it is worth it, to me, to spend all of my own time and money to do so.

a reply to: Archivalist

Shouldnt you be axing them if they really died?

That was the claim since like page 2 or 3.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

"In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state," Trump told The Washington Post. "… Marijuana is such a big thing. I think medical should happen - right? Don't we agree? I think so. And then I really believe we should leave it up to the states."

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: shawmanfromny

"In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state," Trump told The Washington Post. "… Marijuana is such a big thing. I think medical should happen - right? Don't we agree? I think so. And then I really believe we should leave it up to the states."

I hope Donald Trump fires Jeff Sessions.

It needs to happen. Wanna see poll numbers go up across the board? Fire that d-bag yesterday.

a reply to: Archivalist

All that and still..so what, more people die from peanuts, shellfish, lightning strikes, my mother in laws cooking, farts, jogging, sleeping, listening to some of the drivel here,..I can do this allll day.
I don't believe your info anyway.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Funny cause this morn..I think it was, he said the federal laws should be enforced, so which is it?

a reply to: projectvxn

Yeah its bad. But I'm seriously questioning this trolling Congress into a law concept that came up in this thread. It fits. Going about it just right... the only way he could manage to push it without actually speaking to it... which he cant do that openly otherwise until after re-election since he's in GOP land and all that status quo BS. Maybe I shouldnt be typing this...

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'm tired of hearing about the evil genius strategy every 5 minutes from people.

Maybe Trump just hired an idiot who looks good on paper?

Again, I really hope he fires this guy.