DEA to reschedule marijuana?

[OutHouse]

Dear DEA and other Morons;

which of these will not kill you.

Tylenol
Water
Morphine based Prescribed drugs
Marijuana
Alcohol
Tobacco

 

[OutHouse]

LOL, Colorado did it, and we aren't anything special.

I'll bet Obama won't do it, because he loves being in control. He's a Socialist.

-John

yes we did and the world didnt end.

 

[interchange]

In that, you support maintenance of a criminal supply chain & policing for profit.

Sure.

If you were really a physician, you'd recognize the difference between correlation & causation.

Uhm. Please tell me where the confounder is. I'm happy to admit that the research is not conclusive. I don't care. Almost no research in medicine is conclusive. It's the evidence we have, and the evidence is scary on my critical review of it. Some physicians take a different stance.

It's not necessary to see any benefits, but rather to see that the harms of prohibition outweigh the benefits many times over.

I pick the number 108883. It's not necessary to know what number you pick, just to see that that my number is really big and thus outweighs yours many times over. That's pretty dumb. There was a time where the housing market was in a boom. And we made laws that allowed people who did not usually qualify for loans become homeowners. And we even got interest rates so low that they were below prime. And it was easy to use mortgages in the finance game, because after all houses always went up in value over time. What could go wrong?

Just because one thing is readily apparent to you, does not mean that nothing else could be important, and even not become apparent until it is a major problem.

You sure as Hell haven't addressed the rational arguments. Nor do you even care that they exist.

Sure I have, but I'll do so more formally if you wish.

1. I agree that the economic impact of legalization of marijuana would be good. Cost of imprisonment for marijuana related offenses is high, and it is ineffective at stopping the use of marijuana.
2. I agree that marijuana use should not be an offense which involves prison time. Nothing gained for that.
3. I agree that there are some limited legitimate medical uses of marijuana.
4. I agree that the DEA scheduling of marijuana limits cannabis & derivatives research, and it would be good to do more.
5. I agree that legalization of marijuana would lead to less imprisonment on the supply side of things, and probably therefore less ancillary (and sometimes violent) crimes in this country and others. I don't support it, but I agree it would happen.
6. I agree that the government has their hands in our business too often. They have a precedent for doing so, but it is often not very effective at acting in the best interest of the public, and certainly costs $ to do so
7. I disagree that criminalization of marijuana is racist. I do agree that arrests are unequally distributed among the races, and that racism absolutely plays a role in this. I do agree that legalization of marijuana would change the numbers a little bit, I merely disagree that these laws have anything to do with the underlying problem. And relieving this symptom won't address that problem.

There ya go. I think I addressed formally my stance on all of the arguments in favor of legalization posited here.

It's my belief that there is compelling cons of marijuana to the public that outweigh 1-7 above, and thus I am in favor of the minimum criminality necessary to deter expansion of rates of marijuana use to what I believe are a vulnerable population.

 

[OutHouse]

lol, is that old lie still floating around?

grand fail.

 

[OutHouse]

I am in favor of the minimum criminality necessary to deter expansion of rates of marijuana use to what I believe are a vulnerable population.

Then we should ban alcohol (again) and tobacco. the vulnerable population does need these addictive and harmful things.

 

[interchange]

Then we should ban alcohol (again) and tobacco. the vulnerable population does need these addictive and harmful things.

If they were currently illegal, I would agree with being against legalizing them. Criminalizing them as they currently legal, is another matter. Although, criminalizing tobacco probably wouldn't be that big of a deal. This is an argument based on expected results of actions, not based on principle of protection from harm.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure.

Sure what? Sure that you support the criminal underworld's control of the distribution of cannabis? Sure that you support swat teams in the middle of the night enforcing that? Sure that you support civil forfeiture by people transporting small quantities or growing their own in the privacy of their homes?

Uhm. Please tell me where the confounder is. I'm happy to admit that the research is not conclusive. I don't care. Almost no research in medicine is conclusive. It's the evidence we have, and the evidence is scary on my critical review of it. Some physicians take a different stance.

Claiming correlation as causation makes it scary? Of course it does. That doesn't justify criminalizing cannabis at all. Legalization provides incentives for legal providers to keep cannabis out of the hands of teens the same as alcohol & tobacco. The current system provides no such incentives to criminals.

I pick the number 108883. It's not necessary to know what number you pick, just to see that that my number is really big and thus outweighs yours many times over. That's pretty dumb. There was a time where the housing market was in a boom. And we made laws that allowed people who did not usually qualify for loans become homeowners. And we even got interest rates so low that they were below prime. And it was easy to use mortgages in the finance game, because after all houses always went up in value over time. What could go wrong?

Just because one thing is readily apparent to you, does not mean that nothing else could be important, and even not become apparent until it is a major problem.

Diversional bullshit.

Sure I have, but I'll do so more formally if you wish.

1. I agree that the economic impact of legalization of marijuana would be good. Cost of imprisonment for marijuana related offenses is high, and it is ineffective at stopping the use of marijuana.
2. I agree that marijuana use should not be an offense which involves prison time. Nothing gained for that.
3. I agree that there are some limited legitimate medical uses of marijuana.
4. I agree that the DEA scheduling of marijuana limits cannabis & derivatives research, and it would be good to do more.
5. I agree that legalization of marijuana would lead to less imprisonment on the supply side of things, and probably therefore less ancillary (and sometimes violent) crimes in this country and others. I don't support it, but I agree it would happen.
6. I agree that the government has their hands in our business too often. They have a precedent for doing so, but it is often not very effective at acting in the best interest of the public, and certainly costs $ to do so
7. I disagree that criminalization of marijuana is racist. I do agree that arrests are unequally distributed among the races, and that racism absolutely plays a role in this. I do agree that legalization of marijuana would change the numbers a little bit, I merely disagree that these laws have anything to do with the underlying problem. And relieving this symptom won't address that problem.

There ya go. I think I addressed formally my stance on all of the arguments in favor of legalization posited here.

It's my belief that there is compelling cons of marijuana to the public that outweigh 1-7 above, and thus I am in favor of the minimum criminality necessary to deter expansion of rates of marijuana use to what I believe are a vulnerable population.

You have merely provided that cannabis use among teens may (may!) precede development of schizophrenia. You fail to account for the idea that people with a variety of mental problems will attempt to self medicate with cannabis use merely being one way to do that. Other than that, you offer no "cons" at all.

The minimum criminality necessary to deter use among the supposedly vulnerable population, teens, is to make it illegal to provide it to them, something that the legalization movement supports.

 

[interchange]

Sure what? Sure that you support the criminal underworld's control of the distribution of cannabis? Sure that you support swat teams in the middle of the night enforcing that? Sure that you support civil forfeiture by people transporting small quantities or growing their own in the privacy of their homes?

We could, if you like, go into a discourse on my opinions of what the ideal laws should be, but it's not really all that productive to the argument you are making. No one who wants to smoke marijuana needs to be involved in producing or distributing it. I agree that there is a whole lot of room for improvement, and I would even support laws that make growth in quantities indicative of personal use only as a misdemeanor with minimal (and would even compromise to no) jail time.

Diversional bullshit.

Your argument was diversional bullshit.

You have merely provided that cannabis use among teens may (may!) precede development of schizophrenia. You fail to account for the idea that people with a variety of mental problems will attempt to self medicate with cannabis use merely being one way to do that. Other than that, you offer no "cons" at all.

Please read the literature on cannabis and psychosis before you condemn it as seeing causality instead of association. Have you ever conducted medical research? There is no way to eliminate bias, and due to legality status, ethics of possibly conferring schizophrenia to someone by intentionally giving them cannabis, and length of time needed collecting data, there will never be a randomized control trial on this. Thus, we have cross-sectional analyses, case-control studies, and cohort studies. Nonetheless, all of these include rigorous design and statistical methods to identify and control confounders.

There are 9 review articles and 2 meta analyses of sufficient quality. ALL of the published data supports a link between schizophrenia and cannabis. 2 of these hedged their conclusions based on potential for unmeasured bias, stating that there is a link, but not enough to prove causation. The other 7 went ahead and concluded evidence was sufficient.

The data is not perfect. These study designs are not perfect. Yet, there is little hope of getting better evidence due to the nature of the risk factor and the prevalence of the condition.

This is very far from use "may (may!) precede development of schizophrenia". The scientific literature is read as use is definitely associated with later development of schizophrenia, and is very unlikely to be non-causal in its association.

Sorry. I can't do better and say it definitely is 100% causal.

The minimum criminality necessary to deter use among the supposedly vulnerable population, teens, is to make it illegal to provide it to them, something that the legalization movement supports.

I disagree. I do not believe laws against providing marijuana to teens in the face of legal cannabis would be effective at all as a deterrent.

Regarding other negative consequences of cannabis use, you're a dolt. You don't need me to tell you them. If you choose not to believe everything that's published (addiction, cognitive impairment, low testosterone, impairment in motor function/driving) then I doubt there's much more I can say here. More controversial are pulmonary, cardiac, and cancer risks which are best described as unknown but not likely large.

 

[disappoint]

1. I agree that the economic impact of legalization of marijuana would be good. Cost of imprisonment for marijuana related offenses is high, and it is ineffective at stopping the use of marijuana.
2. I agree that marijuana use should not be an offense which involves prison time. Nothing gained for that.
3. I agree that there are some limited legitimate medical uses of marijuana.
4. I agree that the DEA scheduling of marijuana limits cannabis & derivatives research, and it would be good to do more.
5. I agree that legalization of marijuana would lead to less imprisonment on the supply side of things, and probably therefore less ancillary (and sometimes violent) crimes in this country and others. I don't support it, but I agree it would happen.
6. I agree that the government has their hands in our business too often. They have a precedent for doing so, but it is often not very effective at acting in the best interest of the public, and certainly costs $ to do so
7. I disagree that criminalization of marijuana is racist. I do agree that arrests are unequally distributed among the races, and that racism absolutely plays a role in this. I do agree that legalization of marijuana would change the numbers a little bit, I merely disagree that these laws have anything to do with the underlying problem. And relieving this symptom won't address that problem.

There ya go. I think I addressed formally my stance on all of the arguments in favor of legalization posited here.

It's my belief that there is compelling cons of marijuana to the public that outweigh 1-7 above, and thus I am in favor of the minimum criminality necessary to deter expansion of rates of marijuana use to what I believe are a vulnerable population.

In reference to the bolded above, so you agree that the current system isn't working. Criminalization, at least in this nation, really is not an effective deterrent. People are still going to use this stuff and it seems to me that one of the reasons is because they don't seem to know much about it. They seem to be getting their information on the street, that is to say from "friends" than from more reliable sources. And those "friends" might not have their best interest at heart. (drug dealers and/or other users)

How about if instead of spending all of that money in criminalizing something, they spend it on educating people about it instead? Make it a mandatory course in public school for example.

People are going to make their own choices anyway. It is my contention that education on a subject is more effective than criminalization.

Again I am for legalizing it just like alcohol and tobacco, which are at least just as bad if not worse than cannabis. Let people make their own choices after educating them on it. They will anyway.

 

[woolfe9998]

Regarding other negative consequences of cannabis use, you're a dolt. You don't need me to tell you them. If you choose not to believe everything that's published (addiction, cognitive impairment, low testosterone, impairment in motor function/driving) then I doubt there's much more I can say here. More controversial are pulmonary, cardiac, and cancer risks which are best described as unknown but not likely large.

Impaired driving is not an argument for criminalization. If it was, alcohol should have remained illegal.

So far as addiction, what I've read suggests it occurs in a low percentage of heavy users, and involves generally mild withdrawal symptoms. Many prescription drugs, including commonly prescribed sedatives, are much worse.

Cognitive impairment seems to be limited to very heavy use early in life. Later in life, even heavy use does not cause it.

Low testosterone I haven't look into.

Bottom line is that just about anything has some harmful effects when used to excess. The question is whether any one of them, or all of them together, are sufficient to justify criminal prohibition. I personally think pot is nowhere near that threshold, but YMMV of course.

 

[Bitek]

Poor Louisiana. I am in no way in favor of prison time for possession of Marijuana, and I think a rational approach is in ticketing for possession (also a much better financial alternative).

The only reason I want cannabis to remain illegal is for it to be a sufficient deterrent for people who might consider using it regularly from trying or increasing usage. I don't feel that legislation has any effect on people who have already made the decision to regularly consume cannabis.

The basis of my feeling so strongly is because I want to prevent schizophrenia, and the people who are harmed by cannabis in this fashion are typically doing so without knowledge of risks, and at a time in their lives when legally and developmentally they don't have full capacity to act on said knowledge. And that there is no opportunity for secondary prevention after the risk has been incurred.

You don't have to agree. In all other matters, I am not a fan of cannabis because I see no benefit in its common use, and potential for harm. Usually not big harm, but harm nonetheless. Where we balance that with individual liberty and financial implications in policing and / or taxing its use is more arbitrary to me, and deals more with the role of government in our lives than it has to do with cannabis itself.

I am only pursuing statements made in this thread in support of cannabis legalization when the rationale behind them is flawed, and the arguments made do not consider the totality of evidence for or against cannabis. I don't care if you feel pros outweigh cons.

I do think, though, that our society ought to be more able to look at evidence for controversial topics a bit more objectively before clearly stating that one action is right and another is wrong.

You are trying to protect certain people from themselves, which is noble as a profession. I have a friend in the same profession, but he doesn't share your view of criminalization.

However, the crux of your position is that you are an altruistic authoritarian. You would ban things for everyone in order to protect a few from their own poor choices.

In doing that, you are inevitably harming many others, and your statements are dismissive of this.

There are a great many others that do not suffer any notable negative effects beyond the existing risks of modern living, do understand the potential, and have made a choice to do this.

I'm a Coloradan, and being from the West, we tend to be more libertarian, which means adults get to make choices for themselves as well as be responsible for the consequences.

I have seen a great many people who have toked. Some do it responsibly, and others take it too far. Some rarely, some more than that, and others too much. I have not seen any of these people destroy their lives over it and find themselves unable to stop.

I have seen plenty of over indulgers do decide they've had enough, want to move on, and easily do so.

The rare number I have seen who are truly out of control and not turning around are not failing solely due to the weed. They have been people that engage in many risky behaviors, and this is just one more manifestation of that, and let's be honest, if it wasn't the weed, it would be likely something else.


So for the small number of those, we have criminalization and the destruction of countless more lives and livelihoods of reasonable, responsible adults who are doing nothing more than enjoying a pleasure in life.

Nope. Don't agree. Thank goodness my home has the values to let people live free.

 

[OutHouse]

^^

Well said.

 

[crashtech]

^^

Well said.

X2

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If we legalize it, all the blacks will impregnate our women with their jazz music and hippy hop dancing!

 

[interchange]

You are trying to protect certain people from themselves, which is noble as a profession. I have a friend in the same profession, but he doesn't share your view of criminalization.

Thanks. Not sure of the split among psychiatrists. Pretty liberal profession. In an academic center, I'd say there are more people up to date on the literature treating more severely psychotic patients who feel as I do. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if there isn't much difference from the general public overall.

However, the crux of your position is that you are an altruistic authoritarian. You would ban things for everyone in order to protect a few from their own poor choices.

In doing that, you are inevitably harming many others, and your statements are dismissive of this.

As I have clearly stated multiple times, my wish is to prevent minors whose frontal lobes are developing from being exposed to something which increases their risk of schizophrenia, even if they stop completely by the time they are adults.

I do not care if an adult chooses to use marijuana unless they are putting others in danger in so doing.

There are a great many others that do not suffer any notable negative effects beyond the existing risks of modern living, do understand the potential, and have made a choice to do this.

No worries. If you're > age 25 and do not have schizophrenia, then that particular risk has likely sailed. If, though, you started consuming as a minor, you got lucky with the dice roll. If you were among the 1% with schizophrenia and you understood the association, then you would feel exceedingly differently.

I'm a Coloradan, and being from the West, we tend to be more libertarian, which means adults get to make choices for themselves as well as be responsible for the consequences.

I identify as a libertarian too.

I have seen a great many people who have toked. Some do it responsibly, and others take it too far. Some rarely, some more than that, and others too much. I have not seen any of these people destroy their lives over it and find themselves unable to stop.

Yep. Marijuana can be addicting, and usually isn't. Most who are addicted don't have severe consequences other than loss of productivity.

I have seen plenty of over indulgers do decide they've had enough, want to move on, and easily do so.

I haven't. Addictions are hard to quit. Would have to pull statistics on this for cannabis specifically, but there's no way it's typical to "easily do so." Not questioning your personal experience, just stating that it isn't the norm.

The rare number I have seen who are truly out of control and not turning around are not failing solely due to the weed. They have been people that engage in many risky behaviors, and this is just one more manifestation of that, and let's be honest, if it wasn't the weed, it would be likely something else.

People with poor defenses, poor coping mechanisms, depression and other mental illnesses, and other risk taking behaviors have high rates of addiction to all substances, including marijuana. Doesn't meant hey aren't addicted. Doesn't mean that marijuana doesn't have negative consequences. I agree that substances are merely 1 part of things. They'd still be better off without.

So for the small number of those, we have criminalization and the destruction of countless more lives and livelihoods of reasonable, responsible adults who are doing nothing more than enjoying a pleasure in life.

I didn't make marijuana illegal. People who knowingly choose to use, produce, and distribute marijuana when it is illegal are not being restrained from their livelihoods. Marijuana is not a basic freedom. It is a potentially harmful substance, though altogether not often all that harmful. It is something that some people enjoy. No one needs marijuana.

If I steal a car and get sentenced to prison, I have destroyed my life, not the law against stealing cars.

There are lots of examples of things that are potentially harmful yet unlikely to be so that our government protects ourselves from because they are unnecessary. For example, unpasteurized milk. Only, I don't see a 4 page thread on here about unpasteurized milk or people risking imprisonment to produce and distribute unpasteurized milk products. Why? Because unpasteurized milk is not addictive.

 

[shira]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dea-marijuana-reschedule_us_5704567de4b0537661881644


Place your bets. I would like to believe that the Obama admin will finally make this right.

There also needs to be a change in IRS rule that says that companies whose business is selling marijuana and related paraphernalia cannot deduct the cost of doing business when computing their profit (all that can be deducted is the cost of the MJ and paraphernalia). This has the effect of driving up retail MJ prices in "legal" states, decreasing the effectiveness of legalization in eliminating the black market.

 

[interchange]

There also needs to be a change in IRS rule that says that companies whose business is selling marijuana and related paraphernalia cannot deduct the cost of doing business when computing their profit (all that can be deducted is the cost of the MJ and paraphernalia). This has the effect of driving up retail MJ prices in "legal" states, decreasing the effectiveness of legalization in eliminating the black market.

If you are purchasing marijuana in a place where it is legal to do so, is it hard to know whether it's done legally or illegally?

 

[Jhhnn]

I do not care if an adult chooses to use marijuana unless they are putting others in danger in so doing.

But we should keep that illegal & prevent legal supply chains because of a poorly understood "link" between cannabis & schizophrenia among teen users. As if the war on marijuana has been even slightly effective in reducing teen use. OTOH, controls at the retail level are relatively effective at preventing teen acquisition of alcohol & tobacco.

You seem to think that there was some honest reason cannabis was made illegal in the first place. There never was. As the original rationalization fell out of favor authoritarians like yourself filled in with ever shifting fear mongering as required.

Why was it made illegal in 1937? In the words of the original Anti Marijuana crusader, Harry Anslinger-

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

White America was unabashedly racist back then & cannabis law enforcement serves as an instrument of racial oppression to this day, unsurprisingly.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

@ interchange, I get the impression you focus on symptoms and believe addiction is a matter of degrees. Perhaps I'm misreading what you're saying but in my observation of patients in chronic pain the use of pot has far greater benefits than downsides. Again, in my observation addicts have a fundamental difference in perspective and behavior which is not learned through exposure to and use of pot but exacerbated existing mental defects. I've come to this conclusion through close observation of elderly patients and prison populations. It is a poor coping strategy to deny the public access to a drug with many advantages in order to protect the young by replacing good parenting with legislation or, a doomed to failure attempt to reduce addiction.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you are purchasing marijuana in a place where it is legal to do so, is it hard to know whether it's done legally or illegally?

Hard for whom? It's easy for the consumer & impossible for law enforcement. Nor does it matter in terms of the law when possession is legal, anyway. When we get the price of legal cannabis down to the right level black market cannabis basically won't exist in this country.

 

[interchange]

But we should keep that illegal & prevent legal supply chains because of a poorly understood "link" between cannabis & schizophrenia among teen users. As if the war on marijuana has been even slightly effective in reducing teen use. OTOH, controls at the retail level are relatively effective at preventing teen acquisition of alcohol & tobacco.

You seem to think that there was some honest reason cannabis was made illegal in the first place. There never was. As the original rationalization fell out of favor authoritarians like yourself filled in with ever shifting fear mongering as required.

Why was it made illegal in 1937? In the words of the original Anti Marijuana crusader, Harry Anslinger-



White America was unabashedly racist back then & cannabis law enforcement serves as an instrument of racial oppression to this day, unsurprisingly.

You are regurgitating nonsense.
1. The link between schizophrenia and cannabis is not poorly understood. It is quite well understood compared to virtually every other epidemiologic risk factor in medicine. It is not completely understood, and I would like more research to make it better understood. Nonetheless, because it is not fully understood does not make it unimportant. I don't care if you feel that the amount of risk and amount of certainty of that risk makes it outweighed by other factors. It is, however, idiotic to say that it is irrelevant.

2. I disagree that legal restrictions on marijuana use, production, and distribution are wholly ineffective at deterring teen use of marijuana. I agree completely that the current laws are horribly bad at reaching this goal, and horribly expensive to enforce. It's a compelling argument to change them. It doesn't necessitate a stance that no laws regulating marijuana as criminal can be effective. My stance is that they can be, and that it ought to be the approach we take. I might be wrong. No way to know for certain without trying one or the other and living with the results.

3. I find your argument about origins of cannabis laws flawed, but admittedly I am not well researched on this, and I don't particularly care. Cannabis has been illegal for a long time. I only care about whether a. the pros of legalizing cannabis outweigh the cons and b. the reasonableness that the intent of laws surrounding cannabis (criminal or regulatory) matches the effect

 

[crashtech]

Don't forget William Randolph Hearst's role, he had enormous influence over public opinion and an axe to grind against cannabis production that had less to do with morals than it did with profits. Using "yellow journalism" to demonize it in order to further his own interests, he was instrumental in the drive to criminalize cannabis.

 

[interchange]

@ interchange, I get the impression you focus on symptoms and believe addiction is a matter of degrees. Perhaps I'm misreading what you're saying but in my observation of patients in chronic pain the use of pot has far greater benefits than downsides. Again, in my observation addicts have a fundamental difference in perspective and behavior which is not learned through exposure to and use of pot but exacerbated existing mental defects. I've come to this conclusion through close observation of elderly patients and prison populations. It is a poor coping strategy to deny the public access to a drug with many advantages in order to protect the young by replacing good parenting with legislation or, a doomed to failure attempt to reduce addiction.

I've probably been too hard on cannabis and chronic pain, though haven't said much about it. The evidence is inconclusive but suggestive of benefit and no studies come close in quality to anything that the FDA would use to approve a medication. Certainly worthy of further research.

I am concerned that it will follow the path of opioids for chronic pain, which the CDC has come out recently as saying are not indicated for chronic pain. This is due to the existence of tolerance to the substance and the action on the reward system. Nonetheless, these drugs are nowhere near the same, so I'll keep an open mind.

There are a couple of uses for cannabis and derivatives that I think should be approved medically (terminal illness pain, intractable nausea/vomiting, intractable seizures).

I am for medical marijuana overall, although wish there was consideration that led people toward standardized drugs with higher quality evidence supporting use in the future.

The association between maladaptive behavior and addiction is bi-directional. Addiction is mediated through the reward pathway in the brain. As others have pointed out, it's not an aberrant circuit in our brains. We can become maladaptively rewarded (addicted) by food & sex, for instance, because it is mediated through the reward pathway. Bonding with our parents & children is also mediated through the reward pathway. The problem with substances of abuse, though, is that they hijack neurobiology and act directly there without association to productive behaviors (such as sustenance, reproduction, bonding). People with more resilience due to support networks, genetics, better coping mechanisms, more diverse activities in life are less likely to become maladaptive in their relationship to a rewarding substance.

 

[marincounty]

I'm guessing the links between schizophrenia and cannabis will eventually be broken by new, unbiased research from another source. The doctor is getting his info from the right wing controlled NIDA funded research.
I can't remember all of the BS things cannabis use is supposed to cause, brain damage , sterility, etc.. all of which were later debunked as untrue. Govt provided info on cannabis has been notoriously incorrect.
Oh, and fatal traffic accidents are down in Colorado, so much for stoned driving being a problem.
Cannabis is probably the safest drug known to man, I don't know why anyone would support the hysterical, reactionary laws criminalizing normal human behavior.

 

[Miramonti]

I believe smoking weed leads to schizophrenic behavior.

I do not believe smoking week leads to schizophrenic behavior.

*puffs*

Quit bickering and fix your damn typo.