Scientific American: Pot Smokers Might Not Turn into Dopes after All
This won’t be a surprise to anyone here, but it is an important rebuttal to all the prohibitionists who have been citing the New Zealand longitudinal “Dunedin” study as proof of the harmfulness of cannabis.
Cannabis rots your brain — or does it? Last year, a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) suggested that people who used cannabis heavily as teenagers saw their IQs fall by middle age. But a study published today — also in PNAS — says that factors unrelated to cannabis use are to blame for the effect.
Prohibitionists are constantly searching for some kind of smoking gun that they can use against cannabis legalization, and so they use science not to discover the truth, but to find any kind of evidence of what they want to be true. And naturally, they find it.
This is a clear form of confirmation bias. If they took more time (and willingness) to actually study the science, in most cases they would find other possible explanations for the same results, and would also question why this didn’t show up elsewhere.
Mitch Earleywine, a psychologist at the University at Albany, State University of New York, says that Røgeberg’s analysis definitely supports the idea that links between adolescent cannabis use and drops in IQ are essentially spurious, arising from socioeconomic differences rather than any sort of pharmacological action. John Macleod of the University of Bristol, UK, who works on the ALSPAC data, points out that Meier and her colleagues acknowledged in their original paper that the results might be caused by confounding factors. He adds that the modelling in Røgeberg’s paper shows that within a set of reasonable assumptions, this is indeed possible.
OMG correlation does not imply causation.
How about that shit?
The abbreviation ‘IQ’ should be a red flag in any research methodology, given the tenuous ideas surrounding IQ testing.
It’s easy to find potential flaws in the New Zealand study. Bias is given a big opportunity when narrowly based intelligence testing is used to pinpoint the introverted types versus the more gregarious types, those who encounter marijuana as part of a process that increases their social IQ, but not necessarily their math or linguistic IQs. Did the anti-drug researchers test for social IQ? Did they test pot smoking nerds for increased creativity? Probably not.
IQ testing on drug consumers is completely misplaced. If you’re going to IQ-test someone, it should be the prohibitionists who get their brains checked. When that’s done, the justice system might want to consider indicting the prohibs for harassing and slandering productive, sociable and creative people who consume drugs while making the world a better place.
You are right about that Servetus.
“Alan S. Kaufman, clinical professor of psychology at the Yale University School of Medicine: There’s no such thing as “an” IQ. You have an IQ at a given point in time. That IQ has built-in error. It’s not like stepping on a scale to determine how much you weigh.
The reasonable error around any reliable IQ is going to be plus or minus 5 or 6 points, to give you a 95 percent confidence interval. So, for example, if a person scores 126, then you can say with 95 percent confidence that the person’s true IQ is somewhere between 120 and 132; within our science we don’t get any more accurate than that.” http://tinyurl.com/l5mbfuc
“the evidence is quite compelling, that life experiences and school-related experiences change both the brain and IQ. This is true of adults and children.”
So, the “link” to pot causing lower IQ is no link at all. That leads to this other small problem:
“High school drug testing proven ineffective by new research”
http://tinyurl.com/n7x4p2n
The drug war is a manufactured war that has more to do with politics than it does changing human behavior. While the government has convinced us to demonize marijuana “to save the children” the truth is much simpler. “The drug wars are fraud — a total fraud.” http://tinyurl.com/pqj6tvc
That is the bottom line.
I remember growing up in southern Ontario in the 60’s and 70’s and the cannabis revolution rolled into town and myself and many friends started toking up instead of drinking to excess. This in itself was a pleasant relief from the people who drank too much but there were friends who really got into the weed thing and toked up a lot…too much in my opinion.
It was common knowledge that if you smoked too much weed you would get “fried” or the weed would cause eccentric personality changes possibly permanent. No evidence for this at all just street wisdom.
Fast forward to 2014 and I know to this day some of these stoners with fried brains and they’re still around and doing fine. My one friend Tony owns a large engineering firm and is known internationally for some of his designs and yes Tony still tokes in moderation and is still an eccentric (fried) individual and always will be.I helped him work on one of his antique cars a while back and yes he’s crazy but still a nice guy and a lot of fun.
On a personal level my wife and I have enjoyed cannabis for 45 years and although we’re not zillionaires like Tony most people would envy our lifestyle and level of health we enjoy in our late 60’s.
I know this is all anecdotal evidence and really proves nothing except that Tony and I are true survivors in this crazy complex world and we don’t need or want government intervention to save us from that soul destroying merrywanna.
Nunavut Tripper, your description of your friend Tony reminds me of my friend Richard. Richard designs complex structures requiring substantial knowledge with respect to varying elevation changes. If his designs are ‘off’ in any way they could possibly degrade or even collapse over time — resulting in property damage, possible injury or even death in certain situations. But his designs are so rigorously thought out, checked and double checked, that he routinely wins engineering awards from the industry he works in. He has been ‘accused’ of sometimes over designing to cover all the angles (something his company is actually proud of). He has smoked cannabis every day for 40 years, something his employer is not aware of.
Or my friend Betty, a high net worth investor who works for a major investment firm. She has ascended throughout her career to the point where she only works with clients with a minimum of five million dollars in net worth. Her company sends the ’employee of the year’ based on investment performance on an all expenses paid trip to a different part of the world every year. She won the trip so many times she asked to be excluded from future consideration so others could enjoy the perk. She, like Richard, smokes cannabis every day and has done so for years. When my wife and I were last around her and her husband years ago, they had the finest quality cannabis money could buy on a regular basis. Her employer and her clients are not aware that she is a cannabis consumer.
There are many ‘walking laboratories’ out there like your fiend Tony and my friends Richard and Betty (I have many more examples) that directly debunk this cannabis lowering IQ myth. We don’t hear nearly enough about them.
.
.
Well how could we know? Your friend Tony might have invented a perpetual motion device if only he would have never gotten high! Do you have any clue about how that would have insured that China wouldn’t end up winning the Super Bowl of productivity?
If Betty had never gotten high she might have figured out how to keep politicians from borrowing money to squander! Just look at our national debt! But because Betty was so damn selfish our great-great-great-great grandchildren will be working for a 40¢ per hour minimum wage making chop sticks for their Chinese masters to pay them back for the money that they lent us to squander!
Just imagine how much better Jimi Hendricks would have been at playing the guitar if only he would have never gotten high on pot! Heck, he might even have written some good songs! You know, good music like you hear on elevators and at the department store!
Don’t you see how selfish smoking pot is? It’s time to quit being selfish and start thinking about what we want instead!
———-
Just FYI I’ve heard Jimi on the Muzak. Even more ludicrous in December a couple of years ago the program segued into Purple Haze following Bing Crosby singing “White Christmas”. I think someone at the music canning factory thought that was funny. Man that made me feel old.
I’d like to see a study that takes a large group of individuals and gives them an IQ test, and then give them an IQ test every 3 or 5 years or something and see the results of IQ changes and have participants accurately portray their level of cannabis use and compare non-users, light users and heavy users.
That way they can track changes in IQ. But I’d like to see the differences in cannabis users. Everyone knows some tokers who basically drop out of school and smoke weed all the time and everyone knows some tokers who always have the top grades in the class.
From a biased position, I tend to see tokers who are exceptionally bright or are exceptionally dim and I think if psychologists studied the difference in pre-toking to post-toking they would get truer results. And they have to include all the possible variables. I think dropping out of school effects your IQ, those who smoke and still try hard in school should show similar IQ levels unless the “toker IQ drop” hypothesis is proven true.
Props to Mitch Earlywine!
It’s kinda funny all this IQ hoopla. MY kids are both smart, really smart. They’re both musicians, they both read voluminously, employed and they both “dropped out.” Kinda.
My belief is that because they both are smart they figured out early on that public HS sucks. By middle school because they grew up as kids with far more books than television their reading levels have always been grades ahead of their bio age.
So much revolves around home – nurture, nature, or neglect? A round peg battered to fit in a square hole looks like shit and while it may fit the hole, it’s obviously in the wrong hole.
That the prohibs lie and continue to batter round pegs (science) to fit on their square holes (take that as you wish) is a far greater issue than possible shifts in evolving intelligence from cannabis use.
Been done, multiple times.
OT of this post but important for Washingtonians:
http://www.businessinsider.com/legalization-could-hurt-medical-marijuana-in-washington-2014-1
I hope that one day someone will conduct a rigorous study to determine the effects of incarceration (of cannabis users) on IQ.
Parents in particular. One instance where Think Of The Children is wholly appropriate.
Now this is one is from the “just plain funny” category:
Don’t worry, I expect that I’m the last person in the world to hear that one. I’m still ROFL and expect to use that one in the future.
We solved this IQ thing a long time ago,,by getting teenagers on marijuana instead of alcohol we save 8 IQ points,,,,harm reduction.
.
.
So what I never see mentioned in relation to the New Zealand study is any mention of the accuracy of IQ tests in 1973. By any chance did the people running this study use the same IQ tests throughout the life of the study? I think it’s probably safe to presume that they did not but likely engaged in extensive mental gymnastics to adjust for the advancements in accuracy in the “science” of measuring IQs. Of course this presumes that there was ever any accuracy or advancements in that accuracy.
But we can sniggle and micro-analyze these studies until we’re ready to murder anyone in a lab coat. It won’t matter. For the general population the only person that matters in forming their opinion are the [expletive deleted] headline editors and how closely that headline confirms their predisposition/bias.
Is hogwash one word or two?
I’m pretty new to all of this pot politics but if I keep stopping in here I wonder if I might raise my IQ? I already know that despite my pot smoking I don’t need some man that hates weed telling me it’s bad for me.
This is only your second visit recently and already I perceive an uplifting that very well could translate into heightened IQ.
Follow the custard!
Malcolm… I’ve already told Miss Appleseed that when she gets ready to travel to Europe I think I know someone in the Netherlands that could help her with finding her way around. If only I could remember his name!
And yes, follow Malc’s advice and follow the custard! (A topic Ms Linda never grasped, she thought we were high when in reality [wherever that is] we wuz talking physics)(maybe whilst high…) Oh, and Miss Appleseed is MUCH easier on the eyes than Actitwist1
Ferre Van Beveren
She sounds like a nice person. Do I know her dad?
no… if she actually had a good father she prolly wouldn’t have ended up on my doorstep. Not blood related. But I treat her like my own.
(Yummy sounds) Mmmmmm! Custard! I’ll have some coconut, please!
.
.
I’m still trying to figure out where the word hogwash originated. Why in the world would someone wash a hog?
Hey wait a second, does Ms. Taylor bathe?
hogwash, n. [hawg-wosh, hÅg-wÅsh]
-Hogwash is a simple compound noun formed around the mid-15th century from the two English nouns hog ‘a type of swine, a pig’ and wash ‘waste liquid or food refuse from a kitchen.’ The wash was often put to use as food for domesticated animals, particularly as swill for pigs. By 1712, hogwash could also be used to describe cheap, poorly made liquor; by 1773, poorly written manuscripts fell under the label of hogwash. In modern English, almost anything that is badly done or ridiculous can be equated with this term for barnyard slop.
Drug warriors are quite good at generating such matter…
hog·wash (hôg wôsh , -w sh, h g -). n. 1. Worthless, false, or ridiculous speech or writing; nonsense. 2. Garbage fed to hogs; swill.
Aren’t we casting pearls before swine truthing prohibitionists? Educating the general public from a century of censorship and falsehoods seems righteous enough. But I remember the early days and it continues. Having denialists just say no like the DEA did to Judge Young. Seeing they have no argument to present except hogwash. While the media is leaning more toward somewhat reality. It still gives time to the Hogwashists to blabber senseless sputum’s and bile. Profits over Sanity. The same predictions that didn’t pan out the first decade they were launched, are simply repeated it is insanity. If the lies do harm or kill Americans I can see no logical reason the prohibitionists aren’t enemies of the state, traitors to the country and just mean, nasty, ugly beings who like to hurt old and sick people using little kids as shields.
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” (Matthew 7:6).
“Do not persist in offering what is sacred or of value to those who have no appreciation for it, because your gift will not only become contaminated and be despised, your generous efforts could also be rebuffed and perhaps even openly attacked.”
The “dogs” and “swine” here stand for the unappreciative and worldly; unappreciative and uncaring men and women who belittle the value of what is offered to them. “That which is holy” would be the meat offered in sacrifice to God.
A dog could care less whether it came from the altar or the garbage. The swine have no appreciation for either the beauty nor the value of the pearls under their feet.
“It still gives time to the Hogwashists to blabber senseless sputum’s and bile.”
As does one Chuck Wade over on Katie Couric’s comment section on today’s show. He’s a former narc/DEA agent and he’s spewing hogwash all over that page.
I.Q is an incredibly complex set of abilities to try to measure. It is a concept loaded with pitfalls and is widely misunderstood, and “measuring IQ” isn’t what really happens when you take an IQ test. Under assumed abilities you must include mastery of the language the test is given in, the ability to translate text to ideas, mastery of the current speech lexicon, adequate cultural knowledge, familiarity with the concepts, items and their uses….the list is endless. What is really being measured is the ability to perform on the test. I can give you an IQ boost that is statistically significant just by letting you practice with the test and giving you simple strategies for approaching the types of questions they ask. That’s the entire concept behind commercial test prep classes…they give you opportunities to practice performing on the test. When I hear someone, even a scientist, referring to IQ as if it were an actual thing, I just have to shake my head. This from someone who spent the last six years of my professional life dealing exclusively with tests and testing.
I always thought that link to a low IQ thing was a bit funny. I’ve been an avid marijuana user since my early teen years. Today, I own multiple businesses, websites are doing great, my dad, neighbors and many friends work for my company. Because I use marijuana my IQ is low right…nope! Thanks for the great post!
By Mark Kleiman
sorry, can’t/won’t/don’wanna pay to read Mark Kleiman (remember, the ‘k’ is silent)
Sorry, I forgot about that damn pay-wall. I was hoping you’d all get to post rebuttals to kLeiman’s nonsense without Sparky being able to delete them. The strange thing is, I’ve had unlimited access to the FT for at least a year, and without paying a single penny. The comments haven’t been kind; he’s had a bucket of real reality thrown at him this time.
Malc: can you cut and paste a few samples so that we can all enjoy the schadenfreude of Lieman’s ironic confrontation with reality?
Comment section seems to be having problems
It’s behind a paywall…
http://andrewgelman.com/2013/06/22/struggles-over-the-criticism-of-the-cannabis-users-and-iq-change-paper/
The link above shows the aftermath of this “study”. Apparently the blogger points out that the original researchers weren’t happy with Ole Rogeberg’s comments. I read them a while back, and although I didn’t find any condescending language, they were clearly upset, almost defensive.
OMG, again OT, but Katie on her NBC show has a stupid female prohibitch on who is telling complete untruths about cannabis, she says it is a “misnomer” to claim it is not addictive, says using it for things like ADHD (and other issues) helps at first but they need more and more to get that effect and in the end use makes their problem worse, and she is also using the gateway lie.
Let’s flood Katie’s comment section with truth!
http://katiecouric.com/2014/01/13/are-we-becoming-a-marijuana-nation/
sounds like katie’s crew needs to contact Elvy!
oooh… katie C has a poll – at the bottom of page – on legalization. Currently at 89.5% yes, 10.5% no. *snicker*
gosh… I wonder – considering the poll numbers – if Ms Kouric will even mention that legalization kicked Prohibition II’s ass on her website?
The numbers currently:
legalize – 90.08%
prohibit – 9.92%
Bwa hahaha!
And it just seems to me, a 62 y.o pothead living on SS, that a “journalist“ of Katie’s prominence could very well question the WH on why the overwhelming silence on the issue?
A question maybe something like this:
In light of the fact that the President who once called the drug war a failure and is himself a former cannabis consumer that somehow managed to overcome all the horrors that we know befall pot smokers and still managed to rise to the nation’s *giggle* highest office… is there any reason why he, his justice department and his drug policy “advisors“ continue to ignore both the science of cannabis and the public will?
Prohibitches and Prohibastards on my own damn TV!
Ka Ka Ka Katie how would you compare cannabis use to Fuckushima? More testing on cannabis. The DEA Outlawing Hemp because it ‘Eats’ Chernobyl Waste? Bad for cancer treatment profits? Little plump Katie darlin of the yuppie puppies, like RachelRay HarpopraH Ellen TV Fox rockettes and maddow the View the Chew that;s just the chicks and I’m forgeting half. It proves Educated ignorance rules the airwaves. O’Really to Rush to GE owned NBC each and everyone reading scripts for big bucks to cover their imbecilec behavior and therapy.
Bias crap but don’t look behind the curtain. Ka Ka Ka Katie why don’t you get a real Nazi to tell you about the Hallocaust. Or a cop to write medicinal policy. Have the Military maintain Peace. Or Have the Peaceniks maintain War. Cops ain’t Docs and life forms without life pro Hibition Freaks proselytizing their God Abstinence onto the entire shit and caboodle. Freaks worried about a joint. 45 years waiting patiently for someone’s head to explode after a toke. The rate pot gets more potent it won’t be long till we take over the planet. One hit wipes out the Eastern Seaboard. Blowing shotguns into ventilators, oh the humanity. Assessory to the crime of Treason.
The Hibitionist Addicts had ample time to seek treatment or education but made conscious decisions to continue lying to the people, causing irreparable damage. To individuals and the very fiber of the country. Never has such despicable acts on the people been seen. Torture, prison for life, slavery, bannishment, loss of birth rites and death. But the crime goes far beyond the abuses of those criminalized. Or the trauma these liars put the families through. The immoral unforgivable cross the line crime these lies produced was doing harm to the most vulnerable, the sick and elderly people already suffering. Kids to grandparents left to cringe when they can’t get what they know works. Because of the rules or the risk to the property management. Or probation or parole testing.
Preventing any semblance of a healing environment. Terrorizing senior citizens, forfeiting their homes and destroying young families of alleged advocates or patients. Far beyond murder. They treat us as if we are a commodity, just cattle to be sold for slaughter. We have no right to speak or dare attempt to change the laws the greatest legislative body in human history made with legalizing tactics. Just trickery, those seizures were obvious camera tricks and the dangers are obvious, written down. No living victims but lots of words saying what it does. No actual people having these things actually happen but lots and lots of words saying it does. Lots of tax paid people saying the words that it does. Many on the TV. No actual victims on the TV but lots of words making it sound real scary. Ka Ka Ka Katie talks them words so pretty who needs a victim Brain Rinse Salon Miss Katie at your service. Absolutely Despicable.
OMG, what do we tell the kids when it’s legal?
Um. Pretty simple. When you are an adult and not living in my house, you can do what you want. Until then, you will obey my rules or face my consequences. You will obey their law or potentially face their consequences. The up-and-coming laws will say 21+ for the near future, (not that I agree with that) so just like alcohol, it is STILL ILLEGAL FOR MINORS. What about that is so hard to understand?
.
.
That rotten red herring is just a bad joke. The only concern for “the children” among the prohibitionist parasites is maintaining their value as political pawns. Just like the anti-abortion crowd loses interest once a baby has a birth certificate.
OT
A damning assessment of the drug war, as waged by the UK government:
http://tinyurl.com/mqpndzl
OT / Khat ban in UK
Came across this on twitter, apparently UK is banning Khat, a drug used mostly by people from Somalia and Yemen. (mild herbal stimulant)
Linky-> http://tinyurl.com/ofzqanx
The government has decided to push ahead with a ban on Khat despite their own advisers finding no evidence that the herbal stimulant causes social or physical harms.
The report added that there was “no evidence of a direct causal link” between the drug and either medical or social harms. The Home Office intend to push ahead with a ban anyway, claiming that there is a widespread “perception” that the drug is harmful.
I can think of two reasons for it. Pressure from other EU countries who sees UK as a “distributor”, and a justification for the authorities to perform searches, arrests, additions to databases, deportations etc. in those communities.
the uk ban on khat could prove to be a perfect model of prohibition turning the supply of a harmless substances into a dangerous black market. drug reformers will be watching closely.
Well, well, well…
I suppose that Perception IS Reality at the “Home Office”, funny how things seem to work the same in (nearly) all governments.
And, once again the result of that “working-out” is (of course) = “Poorly” and without regard to those that are of low social standing and political power & in this instance its that’s the “Yemeni and Somali communities” residing in the UK.
I’m guessing that this is someone’s “low-profile” attempt to rid themselves of an ‘unwanted minority.
It’s the ‘Same Old Story’ = The Prohibition of a Substance used by a minority group (or groups) seen as undesirable by the bigots and/or racists in positions of privilege and/or power.
I can’t imagine why this is a surprise? Oh, wait… It isn’t a surprise! Some ‘advisory group’ has foreseen negative consequences tied to the “banning of said substance” and is pointing out the unethical nature of the move – and (as per usual) they’re being ignored or overruled.
There’s absolutely NOTHING new to see here – so, move along, move along.
Weed and drug use made me study the courses less taken. They helped me become that one student who did the most talking in class, spend the most time in my professors’ offices talking about literature and society and spend so many hours reading at the library. Without weed, I wouldn’t link the War on Drugs to being the same exact thing (to a T) as the War on Terror and because of it, I know more than the average non-stoner student about our laws, history, literature, art and Narco-Terrorism. And I bet my life my writings and plots are far more developed and interesting and original than those who ‘just said no’. We Question authority. We have more experiences to draw from. I’d doubt my life would be as fulfilling and I doubt I’d travel so much or be an active part of history and my community without my willing to experiment. We Don’t trust authority and are cynical of laws and society’s mores and policies. Without folk like us, change would look stagnant. We make History and the rest watch and their children will study us in classes.
P.S. Thanks for the Fish. Does anyone else think that Douglas Adams was influenced by Heller? Because that’s what I’m seeing as I read ‘Catch 22’.
.
.
Do you think that the prohibitionist parasites will throw us a ticker tape parade if we like them and say nice things about them? I really don’t think I can make that happen. But if that’s the price of freedom I’ll pay somebody else to do that for me. Pay them very well indeed.
——————————
Just in case someone has forgotten or never knew that was the price that Captain Yossarian had to pay to get sent home.
I cannot read your “Catch 22†passages. I haven’t yet finished it. I’m only on page 140.
No, we’ll throw them a parade and make them hold banners stating all the reasons why they failed: “Were Hypocrites†. . . “We Falsified Information†. . . “We Stole Your Jobs in Hemp†. . . “We Empowered Murderers and Rapists†. . . Your Urine (results) was our Passionâ€.
And then we’ll have the fair with all your favorite games, like a contest where the prohibitionists eat as many bricks of dry Mexican weed as they can in 20 minutes. Or throw the baseball at the target so they can be dunked into drug positive urine. And we’ll let the little kids who’ve lost their parents to the drug war shoot them with paintballs and then let our old enemies taste test Pepper Spray cocktails and martinis (alcohol free since we cannot let them backslide in their beliefs of sobriety).
A bit OT but a couple must read/see’s.
A wonderful reply by Dr. Lester Grinspoon if you haven’t yet seen it yet: http://tinyurl.com/las55xf
Did you know that people don’t really get arrested for pot according to O’Reilly? http://tinyurl.com/m3sx22r
your tinyurl wouldn’t load, so here’s the article:
Dr. Lester Grinspoon on David Brooks’ “Weed: Been There, Done Thatâ€
ouch
Dr. Grinspoon amply demonstrates why Harvard’s academic reputation far exceeds that of, say, UCLA:
I had a strange experience. I was a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School in the 1960s, and I saw all these people using this “dangerous drug.†People would be smoking and I, as a physician, who knew everything about drugs—I was so arrogant I could have been the country’s drug czar—I would give them my little lecture on the dangers of marijuana and urge them to give it up.
Well, this went on for a while, even though I could see no problem that these people were having and they seemed to enjoy it a lot. And then I started to question what I knew about the scientific and medical basis of marijuana prohibition, and I went to the Conway Library to examine why we in this country were arresting about 300,000 people a year, 89% for possession, and most of them very young. [There are currently over 800,000 citizens in US jails for marijuana arrests. 24 million have been arrested for marijuana related offenses since the publication of Marihuana Reconsidered.]
And I had a very uncomfortable discovery—I had been brainwashed like just about every other citizen in this country. Marijuana was not a toxic drug. In fact it was remarkably nontoxic. The problem was not any inherent psychopharmalogical property with the drug itself, but rather the way we were treating it by arresting so many people, imprisoning some of them, and compromising their possibility for successful careers.
Take note, “professors”. It’s called “scientific discovery”, and it starts with questioning what you think you know about things. Arrogant know-it-all’s are not scientists, they’re propagandists, whether they realize it or not (often not, because they have failed to question their assumptions).
.
.
I wonder, how many people realize that there are prohibitionists who would have Dr. Grinspoon arrested for child abuse if they knew that he gave his pre-adolescent son cannabis to smoke as a palliative for his leukemia chemotherapy?
How many people here remembered that event was the catalyst which caused him to embrace medicinal cannabis way back in the late 1960s? His son died at age 13. Tar & feathers is way less than the prohibitionists deserve. Four minute Youtube video:
Dr. Lester Grinspoon shares the story of his son’s chemotherapy treatments for leukemia
Jamaican Studies 1968-74, 1975
Jack Herer’s “The Emperor Wears No Clothesâ€
☮Definite Benefits For Marijuana Smokers
☮Positive Social Attitudes
☮No Link to Criminal Behavior
☮No Physiological Deterioration
☮No “Stepping Stoneâ€/Gateway Effect
The Official Story Debunking “Gutter Scienceâ€
* Wasting Time & Lives * Alcohol
☮ Doublespeak * Studies the Feds Don’t Talk About
☮ Brain Damage Reports * Coptic Study
☮ Nahas’ Studies * Jamaican Studies
☮ Lingering Effects * Costa Rican Study
☮ Lung Damage Reports * Amsterdam Model
☮ Radioactivity in Tobacco * Bush Strikes Again
☮ & So On * Corruption/Carlton Turner
Possibly the most-studied substance on the planet
Using Pot To Save Brains!
Drugwar Lies Linked to Schizophrenia
I can’t speak to causation, but there is an obvious observable correlation between low IQ and most of those who speak out against cannabis. Would smoking cannabis raise their IQ’s? Perhaps not, but at least they’d know a little something about which they speak.
I am a 30-year daily toker and I believe I am sane and healthy.
Why am I still alive?
Why am I still sane?
Why haven’t the “harms” of cannabis killed me?
Because the drug war is all a lie designed to give money and power to drug warriors. Nothing more. No children are saved. No benefits accrue to We The People from this war.
And we get to pay for it all. What a scam.
Protect & Serve (themselves!).
I am a 40 year daily toker. I am sane, lifelong self employed, healthy and indignant that some pencil-necked politician wants to tell me how to live my life. I too resent the costs both financial and social of this dangerous experiment. It is far past time this charade ended.
This site has been around for a while but I don’t know if it’s updated much anymore. There’s a photo in one of the galleries of NORML’s Allen St. Pierre with much less grey hair than he has now.
http://cannabisconsumers.org/index.php
More and more people are describing themselves just as you have — sane, employed, healthy and increasingly indignant about cannabis prohibition.
Cannabis Consumers (IIRC isn’t that a Nikki Norris’ project?) has been around for a long time. I’ve been on the site for a long time. If you’re out, sign up.
Mikki Norris!
I blame it on getting old. Sorry!
“Malc: can you cut and paste a few samples so that we can all enjoy the schadenfreude of kLieman’s ironic confrontation with reality?”
Here’s a small sample, I won’t include my own (two) posts:
Good European said:
I was hoping a UCLA professor of public policy and co-author of ‘Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know’ might be able to offer up a few fresh ideas instead of ignoring these problems entirely. But no. He doesn’t.”
nm said:
“So the idea is that each person has a limit, but you can legally buy it? Ok, so I want to have more than my limit, I can ask my mate to buy it for me. As possession is now legal, this can’t be policed…..job done. Really, is that the best you can come up with?
Also, are we really seeing in the FT the idea that production of a product should be restricted to certain types of business such as consumer co-operatives or, god forbid, a state monopoly being put forward as a sensible policy idea?”
FlatSceptic said:
“How good was the slowwalking professor’s sense of the legal future in 2010? About as closed-in, safe and limited as you’d expect from a government-side operative:
“There’s one problem with legalizing, taxing and regulating cannabis at the state level: It can’t be done. The federal Controlled Substances Act makes it a felony to grow or sell cannabis. California can repeal its own marijuana laws, leaving enforcement to the feds. But it can’t legalize a federal felony. Therefore, any grower or seller paying California taxes on marijuana sales or filing pot-related California regulatory paperwork would be confessing, in writing, to multiple federal crimes. And that won’t happen.†–Mark Kleiman in the LA Times
.
.
I find myself with a significant debate in my mind of what to think when someone with “Prof” Kleiman’s (potential) intellect and education asserts that something which is happening is impossible. In California, Betty Yee one of the directors of the California Board of Equalization is running for Controller in the 2014 election. While I have no clue what the “Controller” does in California one of her boasts in her campaign platform is “Enforcing the state’s tax laws on medical marijuana dispensaries.”
Whatever you think of Ms. Yee boasting about that, the fact remains that California has pocketed in excess of $500 million of sales tax collected by California’s authorized medicinal cannabis vendors. That’s at least $6 billion in reported sales.
So my inner, unsettled debate? I can’t figure out if “Prof” Kleiman is a bald faced liar or just grossly incompetent. I suppose both at the same time is possible.
It’s happening you idiot. It’s also not the concern of the State of California. If your ivory tower has windows please just do the world a favor and go defenestrate yourself.
In some places cities versus states maybe(?) that job would be the “Comptroller” position and it’s basically the Chief Financial Officer for the State/City – wherever.
“Responsibilities include investigative authority for every dollar spent by the state,”
I’ll dig for more in a second and see if she’s a ProhibIdiot or not. (My dog needs to go out – ASAP it appears)
She could be either way, on this = The position is also related to making sure all taxes are collected, so she may be pro-medical marijuana after all?
Gimme a few & I’ll check.
Uhm, it’s hard to say for sure…
Probably something she’s “anxious to avoid questions on”, like most politicians she’ll probably “evolve” to whatever position suits her aspirations the best.
From her “about-betty” page
That last bit seems like see’s probably fine with it = If it’s sell-able as “helping pay the bills”, and a way to not raise any other ‘Excise Taxes’.
“Betty T. Yee Clears Smoke Around Proposition 19 Revenue Impact”
She seemed to be okay with Tom Ammiano’s Assembly Bill 390 in 2009, But wasn’t satisfied with Prop 19 in 2010.
““Proposition 19’s proposal to give local governments the option to authorize marijuana sales, with local regulation and taxes, leaves too many unknown variables to develop a credible statewide revenue estimate,†said Yee.”
It’s appears to have been a been a couple years somce she’s addressed it (according to Google).
Her major concern seems to be the fiscal “bottom line” & the issue of marriage equality & related LGBT issues.
I suspect she’s fairly liberal and open to further decriminalization or legalization marijuana in some form. = AKA, whatever the pollsters tell her her constituents are in favor of, she’ll probably support.
“I hope that one day someone will conduct a rigorous study to determine the effects of incarceration (of cannabis users) on IQ.”
Dead easy, son – drops like a fat guy off of a cliff.
OMG, You have to catch “Person of Interest” tonight or a torrent or whatever it’s nearly over (in my timezone at least)…
But, it’s more or less about the Silk Road – and the war on drugs is already over, etc. Can’t believe CBS is airing this!
I already liked this show, but this is a great episode – various parties warring over the price of MDMA – a topically relevant script related to (fairly) recent current events – can’t beat that with a stick… Or rather your don’t get many smart scripted-dramas in modern Reality-TV centric world of stupid = there’s some IQ for your ass! (Again ‘so to speak’/and of course no offense.)
Thank goodness my DVR-cable box will let me run it backwards to the start of the show (up to an hour) and record it.