• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lying to kids about drugs is the wrong strategy

I felt like South Park was the only honest source on the subject when I was growing up.

"Son, the problem with weed is that it can make you happy with just being bored."
 
Mr Person said:
And the bolded, naturally, is why the booze industry has thrown a lot of money into opposing marijuana legalization efforts.
Click to expand...

Yes--since the days of 'reefer madness' in the 1930s when booze came back on line legally ...
 
Lets see what science says:

Short term effect:

altered senses (for example, seeing brighter colors)
altered sense of time
changes in mood
impaired body movement
difficulty with thinking and problem-solving
impaired memory
hallucinations (when taken in high doses)
delusions (when taken in high doses)
psychosis (when taken in high doses)

Long term effects:

When people begin using marijuana as teenagers, the drug may impair thinking, memory, and learning functions and affect how the brain builds connections between the areas necessary for these functions.
temporary hallucinations
temporary paranoia
worsening symptoms in patients with schizophrenia—a severe mental disorder with symptoms such as hallucinations, paranoia, and disorganized thinking

Physical effects:

Breathing problems.
Increased heart rate.
Problems with child development during and after pregnancy.

This does not include the list of now edible's and the growing concentration of THC that is being used in it now.
So medical science disagree's with the it's safe crowd.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
I felt like South Park was the only honest source on the subject when I was growing up.

"Son, the problem with weed is that it can make you happy with just being bored."
Click to expand...

That is the problem right there.

You shouldn't be happy being bored.

Being bored should push you to go out and actually do something with your life.
 
ludin said:
Lets see what science says:

Short term effect:

altered senses (for example, seeing brighter colors)
altered sense of time
changes in mood
impaired body movement
difficulty with thinking and problem-solving
impaired memory
hallucinations (when taken in high doses)
delusions (when taken in high doses)
psychosis (when taken in high doses)

Long term effects:

When people begin using marijuana as teenagers, the drug may impair thinking, memory, and learning functions and affect how the brain builds connections between the areas necessary for these functions.
temporary hallucinations
temporary paranoia
worsening symptoms in patients with schizophrenia—a severe mental disorder with symptoms such as hallucinations, paranoia, and disorganized thinking

Physical effects:

Breathing problems.
Increased heart rate.
Problems with child development during and after pregnancy.

This does not include the list of now edible's and the growing concentration of THC that is being used in it now.
So medical science disagree's with the it's safe crowd.
Click to expand...

Right off the top of my head I know that most of this is BS or is based on a long-shot side effect with incredibly low incidence rate. A few examples.

"breathing problems"? LOL. There was one study that indicated a very slight increase in chance of developing emphyzema, yes, but that had to do with chronic (very) heavy users. The vast majority aren't.

"Increased heart rate": slightly, temporary, only in some users, and not in any way life-threatening unless you happen to be a 400 pounder with severe hypertension.....

Hallucinations and paranoia as a long-term effect? lol, nope.

Shizophrenia: dishonest tunnel vision there. Just about any recreational substance can trigger latent schizophrenia, but that schizophrenia would manifest anyway. That's absolutely not a reason to oppose marijuana in any sense.

Delusions, hallucinations, psychosis in "high doses"? I can only imagine that - assuming you didn't make it up - this is some incredibly low incidence in self-reported populations by people who never used it before, then ate an entire tray of brownies or something.





But really, you're just trying to scare-monger with a list of potential effects that simply do not manifest in moderate users.....just like cirrohsis does not manifest in moderate alcohol users.... just like liver failure does not manifest in responsible consumers of Tylenol....just like responsible consumers of naproxen sodium or ibuprofen do not end up burning a hole in their stomach. I'm guessing that's why there aren't any links to the studies themselves, assuming your statements are even coming from studies.

If you think your unsourced list is a reason to oppose something, try looking up the FDA's full lists of potential side effects of over the counter drugs. You can find all sorts of potentially severe reactions listed. But, of course, they virtually never happen and/or only happen with misuse of the product.

:shrug:
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
Lets see what science says:

Short term effect:

altered senses (for example, seeing brighter colors)
altered sense of time
changes in mood
impaired body movement
difficulty with thinking and problem-solving
impaired memory
hallucinations (when taken in high doses)
delusions (when taken in high doses)
psychosis (when taken in high doses)

Long term effects:

When people begin using marijuana as teenagers, the drug may impair thinking, memory, and learning functions and affect how the brain builds connections between the areas necessary for these functions.
temporary hallucinations
temporary paranoia
worsening symptoms in patients with schizophrenia—a severe mental disorder with symptoms such as hallucinations, paranoia, and disorganized thinking

Physical effects:

Breathing problems.
Increased heart rate.
Problems with child development during and after pregnancy.

This does not include the list of now edible's and the growing concentration of THC that is being used in it now.
So medical science disagree's with the it's safe crowd.
Click to expand...

Here is some information regarding a hearing by a DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young. After days of hearings on the harms of marijuana, Judge Young found that the substance was "the safest therapeutic substance known to man".

http://ccguide.org/young88.php

So much of the "science" you offer is "bought science", in which those writing the reports have ulterior, possibly financial motives. Sharyl Attkisson covered the FDA's practice of that related to Big Pharma.
 
Mr Person said:
Right off the top of my head I know that most of this is BS or is based on a long-shot side effect with incredibly low incidence rate. A few examples.

"breathing problems"? LOL. There was one study that indicated a very slight increase in chance of developing emphyzema, yes, but that had to do with chronic (very) heavy users. The vast majority aren't.

"Increased heart rate": slightly, temporary, only in some users, and not in any way life-threatening unless you happen to be a 400 pounder with severe hypertension.....

Hallucinations and paranoia as a long-term effect? lol, nope.

Shizophrenia: dishonest tunnel vision there. Just about any recreational substance can trigger latent schizophrenia, but that schizophrenia would manifest anyway. That's absolutely not a reason to oppose marijuana in any sense.

Delusions, hallucinations, psychosis in "high doses"? I can only imagine that - assuming you didn't make it up - this is some incredibly low incidence in self-reported populations by people who never used it before, then ate an entire tray of brownies or something.





But really, you're just trying to scare-monger with a list of potential effects that simply do not manifest in moderate users.....just like cirrohsis does not manifest in moderate alcohol users.... just like liver failure does not manifest in responsible consumers of Tylenol....just like responsible consumers of naproxen sodium or ibuprofen do not end up burning a hole in their stomach. I'm guessing that's why there aren't any links to the studies themselves, assuming your statements are even coming from studies.

If you think your unsourced list is a reason to oppose something, try looking up the FDA's full lists of potential side effects of over the counter drugs. You can find all sorts of potentially severe reactions listed. But, of course, they virtually never happen and/or only happen with misuse of the product.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

So why do you ignore documented science?
again i will believe documented scientific evidence it says you are wrong.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Here is some information regarding a hearing by a DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young. After days of hearings on the harms of marijuana, Judge Young found that the substance was "the safest therapeutic substance known to man".

Judge Francis Young rules marijuana is safe, 1988, DEA, USA

So much of the "science" you offer is "bought science", in which those writing the reports have ulterior, possibly financial motives. Sharyl Attkisson covered the FDA's practice of that related to Big Pharma.
Click to expand...

no it isn't bought at all, but yours on the other than is well not worth looking into at all.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

scientific research says you are wrong.
 
ludin said:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

So why do you ignore documented science?
again i will believe documented scientific evidence it says you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Why do you hit "reply with quote" when you don't bother to read what you are replying to?



Nothing in that link undermines what I said: most of what you posted was either BS or refers to a long-shot side effect with low incidence rates (and generally occurring in chronic heavy-use populations); relatedly, that it would not be intelligent or honest to campaign against a given substance - whether medicinal or recreational - based on a naked list of possible effects without knowing any context.


(Though, I do admit I cracked a smile when I read their paragraph on "breathing" problems and noticed that none of it was sourced. Except they did have a study at hand to support this one sentence "Researchers so far haven't found a higher risk for lung cancer in people who smoke marijuana.")





Ah well, at least you didn't send a link to the DEA's website.
 
Mr Person said:
Why do you hit "reply with quote" when you don't bother to read what you are replying to?



Nothing in that link undermines what I said: most of what you posted was either PS or refers to a long-shot side effect with low incidence rates (and generally occurring in chronic heavy-use populations); relatedly, that it would not be intelligent or honest to campaign against a given substance - whether medicinal or recreational - based on a naked list of possible effects without knowing any context.


(Though, I do admit I cracked a smile when I read their paragraph on "breathing" problems and noticed that none of it was sourced. Except they did have a study at hand to support this one sentence "Researchers so far haven't found a higher risk for lung cancer in people who smoke marijuana.")





Ah well, at least you didn't send a link to the DEA's website.
Click to expand...

The fact is that science says you are wrong that is all the facts there are.
so much for the "it's safe" crowd.

not really. nothing i said was BS because it is scientifically backed up.
 
Winston said:
Soon as kids discover that they've been lied to about weed since grade school, it makes them question the whole integrity of the DARE and anti drug movement.

There are legitimate dangers to drug abuse. But, propagandizing marijuana, the way the US does, leads to a backlash when the kids find out the truth.
Click to expand...

Yup. Frankly, I think the truth of the matter is far more of a deterrent: it's just not that interesting.
 
ludin said:
The fact is that science says you are wrong that is all the facts there are.
so much for the "it's safe" crowd.

not really. nothing i said was BS because it is scientifically backed up.
Click to expand...

Still not responding, still repeating yourself.


Thank you for reminding me why I usually skip right past words you've typed. No need to respond with another "yuh huh" remark.
 
MaggieD said:
I never see propagandizing on MJ ...?
Click to expand...

IMO, putting Weed as a Schedule 1 drug next to Heroin and Crack, is a form of dishonesty.
 
MaggieD said:
I didn't know they did that. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

My post is slightly inaccurate.

Heroin and MJ are Schedule 1

Crack is schedule 2! Because cocaine has some functionality as an anesthetic, I think.
 
Caffeine is a drug that can cause:

Temporary increase in heart rate
Temporary increase in blood pressure
Insomnia
Calcium and Magnesium loss in urine
Risk of miscarriage
Anxiety
Jitters

Even DEATH: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...s-dangers-of-caffeine-powder/article19683210/



Caffeine withdrawal can cause:


headache
fatigue
anxiety
irritability
depressed mood
difficulty concentrating
reduced contentednes
stomach pain
joint pain
heart palpitations




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Physical_2
Caffeine Facts: Addiction, Insomnia, Pregnancy Effects, and More





I'm certain an honest poster can look at those, understand which may result from overuse and which may not, then understand why how intellectually dishonest ludin's posts were.

If a "true fact" is quoted without context, it can be made to sound scary with great ease.
 
Winston said:
My post is slightly inaccurate.

Heroin and MJ are Schedule 1

Crack is schedule 2! Because cocaine has some functionality as an anesthetic, I think.
Click to expand...

It does.

Long story avoided, I once got a bunch of glass shards embedded in my scalp. They said stitches would be ~30m and staples would be 30 sec. I said staples. They rubbed a pad of coke on (probably for the money - that ran 187.50 per the insurance, but I'm damn sure novacaine would've done the same, especially given the limited nerve endings on the scalp - and then stapled the wounds closed).

But yeah, it is a topical analegesic. Hence, apparently, coke dealers cut in lidocaine (another topical analgesic) to make people think the product is stronger.
 
Mr Person said:
Still not responding, still repeating yourself.


Thank you for reminding me why I usually skip right past words you've typed. No need to respond with another "yuh huh" remark.
Click to expand...

so far you have yet to say anything other than it is BS.
you have yet to prove it is BS. it is not my issue that an actual medical/scientific organization shows
the side effects.

you can't argue against it so the only thing you can say is BS. yet it isn't.
 
ludin said:
no it isn't bought at all, but yours on the other than is well not worth looking into at all.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

scientific research says you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Well thank you so much for the link to "dot gov", the official propaganda site for our pernicious but profitable to the bureaucracy drug prohibition. If the government says it, it certainly must be true, eh?

I'm sorry I can't provide a link to the report I saw on TV by Sharyl Attkisson and her program "Full Measure". On it, a lady who had been involved with FDA and one of the larger schools back east, gave details about just how the "scientific community" involved in drug reviews for new drugs have become quite compromised regarding their statements in favor of drugs they write about. The point was that too many (not all) of those writing do not write and research in a responsible manner. They are essentially hired guns, writers hired by the companies promoting the drug. Accuracy and truth is not what they are interested in, in too many cases.
 
ludin said:
so far you have yet to say anything other than it is BS.
you have yet to prove it is BS. it is not my issue that an actual medical/scientific organization shows
the side effects.

you can't argue against it so the only thing you can say is BS. yet it isn't.
Click to expand...

His post #42 KO's your previous post.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
I felt like South Park was the only honest source on the subject when I was growing up.

"Son, the problem with weed is that it can make you happy with just being bored."
Click to expand...

They also taught me never to trust my future self
 
Mr Person said:
It does.

Long story avoided, I once got a bunch of glass shards embedded in my scalp. They said stitches would be ~30m and staples would be 30 sec. I said staples. They rubbed a pad of coke on (probably for the money - that ran 187.50 per the insurance, but I'm damn sure novacaine would've done the same, especially given the limited nerve endings on the scalp - and then stapled the wounds closed).

But yeah, it is a topical analegesic. Hence, apparently, coke dealers cut in lidocaine (another topical analgesic) to make people think the product is stronger.
Click to expand...

The advantage cocaine has with bleeding is that the drug is a vasoconstrictor, so when applied it makes capillaries and small blood vessels constrict and stop bleeding. Ear, nose and throat guys use it commonly for surgery.

That is the reason that frequent users of the drug end up with a perforated septum. Prolonged use can cause those capillaries to atrophy and the tissue dies eventually.
 
Lying to kids about ANYTHING is wrong but every parent that I am aware of has lied to their kids about something

funny how that works ...............


cannabis is the safest 'drug' known in the entire history of humanity; not a single documented case of a human ever overdosing on weed :cool: ...........
 
Last edited:
Thoreau72 said:
Well thank you so much for the link to "dot gov", the official propaganda site for our pernicious but profitable to the bureaucracy drug prohibition. If the government says it, it certainly must be true, eh?

I'm sorry I can't provide a link to the report I saw on TV by Sharyl Attkisson and her program "Full Measure". On it, a lady who had been involved with FDA and one of the larger schools back east, gave details about just how the "scientific community" involved in drug reviews for new drugs have become quite compromised regarding their statements in favor of drugs they write about. The point was that too many (not all) of those writing do not write and research in a responsible manner. They are essentially hired guns, writers hired by the companies promoting the drug. Accuracy and truth is not what they are interested in, in too many cases.
Click to expand...

so you don't have anything that actually refutes what they say got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom