MORE Act. Legal Weed?

[Distracted1]

He's made it clear that it's his opinion based on his own experience. What more do you want? Do you want him to give you his margin of error?



Looks pretty standard to me.

Here's the real question: is he wrong, or right?

I think he has a point.
I know many members of the group he describes as well. I could never understand why they wanted to smoke so much weed, when they could be enjoying cocaine instead. To each their own I guess, but us cokeheads generally died, or grew out of it for fear of giving ourselves heart attacks.
Many of the potheads are still going strong, and as much as I love them I can only take limited exposure to the insipidness that seems to go along with that drug.

 

[ArchSas]

No, I am not. I've cited at least ten articles. The anecdotes are first hand experiences that I find highly valuable. What I find absurd is the argument that no one else hasn't encountered such individuals. That somehow, I have lived in a bubble of outliers.

As far I've seen (although maybe I missed something), you've just linked to articles detailing side-effects of THC. Those are all fairly well-understood by most of the population and don't do much to support your claims about marijuana users or some of your more out-there claims about its effects on them. Or, for that matter, that THC has side effects much worse than many commonly-encountered and social acceptable substances (possibly even including junk food), IMO. Nearly all of your commentary in this thread is hyperbolic rhetoric based heavily on anecdotes. I have no problem with you making that kind of argument (or holding your opinions, which I hope should go without saying), but I - and from the looks of it, plenty others in the thread - do have an issue with you pretending it's anything more than that.

 

[acbytesla]

He makes absolute claims based on extremely limited, uncontrolled observation.

He's indulging in godawful thinking. If we were on a board about knitting or horses or football I'd let it go, but we're not. He's literally countenancing a method of discovery that is the absolute antitheses of what we're supposed to be about here. It's ******* insulting, quite frankly, to bring that weakest of sauce around here and expect to get away with it.

If he wants to indulge in thinking that wooly and not get called on it, he's in the wrong place.

You say they're absurd. But aren't all of our opinions forned by our experiences which include our study? Or should we ignore what we have personally experienced and take the word of some random guy on the internet?

I get it. You think my experiences shouldn't count because I haven't come to the conclusion you have which is that cannabis use has only positive effects. That it doesn't effect memory and cognition.

 

[3point14]

You say they're absurd. But aren't all of our opinions forned by our experiences which include our study?

Not if you want them to be accurate, no. That you ask this here is sickening. (That is, yes, our opinions are formed by our experiences, but the sensible thinker always acknowledges the extremely limited scope of any personal observation and bows to proper methodology. What they don't do is double down on "My experiences represent the whole population" when it's pointed out to them that they have a knackered sample and lousy methodology)

Or should we ignore what we have personally experienced and take the word of some random guy on the internet?

No. to assess how the world is you need controlled, unbiased sampling and well composed methodology. Everything else is subject tomassive confoundment.

I get it.

You really don't.

You think my experiences shouldn't count because I haven't come to the conclusion you have

No, this is not an accurate representation of the situation.

which is that cannabis use has only positive effects. That it doesn't effect memory and cognition.

**** me but you really, really need a stats course.

 

[Distracted1]

As far I've seen (although maybe I missed something), you've just linked to articles detailing side-effects of THC. Those are all fairly well-understood by most of the population and don't do much to support your claims about marijuana users or some of your more out-there claims about its effects on them. Or, for that matter, that THC has side effects much worse than many commonly-encountered and social acceptable substances (possibly even including junk food), IMO. Nearly all of your commentary in this thread is hyperbolic rhetoric based heavily on anecdotes. I have no problem with you making that kind of argument (or holding your opinions, which I hope should go without saying), but I - and from the looks of it, plenty others in the thread - do have an issue with you pretending it's anything more than that.

And each of those other commonly encountered and socially acceptable substances are pretty well known to come with negative side effects from chronic abuse as well.

You would hold that weed is above that based upon a statistic that I can easily see fails to be completely representative by simply examining the lifestyles of some weed users that I am intimately acquainted with?

 

[acbytesla]

He makes absolute claims based on extremely limited, uncontrolled observation.

He's indulging in godawful thinking. If we were on a board about knitting or horses or football I'd let it go, but we're not. He's literally countenancing a method of discovery that is the absolute antitheses of what we're supposed to be about here. It's ******* insulting, quite frankly, to bring that weakest of sauce around here and expect to get away with it.

If he wants to indulge in thinking that wooly and not get called on it, he's in the wrong place.

Absolute claims? Surely ye jest. I've been very clear that my opinions are based on my own experiences and that those experiences may not be representative. If you want to take drugs, have at it. I don't believe I have a right how to tell you how to live your life. But let's not pretend there isn't possible negative effects from taking drugs.

 

[3point14]

Absolute claims? Surely ye jest. I've been very clear that my opinions are based on my own experiences and that those experiences may not be representative. If you want to take drugs, have at it. I don't believe I have a right how to tell you how to live your life. But let's not pretend there isn't possible negative effects from taking drugs.

Nobody's said there are no negative effects, as I understand it.

You being quite strident in insisting there's no upside at all, is the only absolute I've seen in this thread.


There are negative side effects to pretty much everything up to and including walking and breathing. Negative side effects alone do not make a thing 'bad'

 

[Belz...]

He's pretty much entirely wrong about distribution. Which is what knackered sample sizes will do, yes. He's entirely wrong in his outlook. And that's because he's employed godawful thinking to get there.

I was expecting a more substantive demonstration.

 

[acbytesla]

Not if you want them to be accurate, no. That you ask this here is sickening. (That is, yes, our opinions are formed by our experiences, but the sensible thinker always acknowledges the extremely limited scope of any personal observation and bows to proper methodology. What they don't do is double down on "My experiences represent the whole population" when it's pointed out to them that they have a knackered sample and lousy methodology)

EXCEPT THERE ARE STUDIES THAT SAY CANNABIS AFFECTS, COGNITION AND MEMORY. THERE ARE STUDIES THAT SAY THAT USE MAY LEAD TO LOWER IQs.

So let's not pretend that my experiences are totally out in left field.

 

[acbytesla]

Nobody's said there are no negative effects, as I understand it.

You being quite strident in insisting there's no upside at all, is the only absolute I've seen in this thread.


There are negative side effects to pretty much everything up to and including walking and breathing. Negative side effects alone do not make a thing 'bad'

You're going to compare drug use to walking?

 

[3point14]

I was expecting a more substantive demonstration.

I'm not rehashing all of the information that's already been supplied in the thread, sorry.

 

[Belz...]

You being quite strident in insisting there's no upside at all, is the only absolute I've seen in this thread.

Then you haven't been paying attention, or you're not being honest.

I'm not rehashing all of the information that's already been supplied in the thread, sorry.

A link, perhaps?

 

[3point14]

EXCEPT THERE ARE STUDIES THAT SAY CANNABIS AFFECTS, COGNITION AND MEMORY. THERE ARE STUDIES THAT SAY THAT USE MAY LEAD TO LOWER IQs.

Your point?

So let's not pretend that my experiences are totally out in left field.

Let's not pretend they in any way represent any reality other than your own. let us understand that the method by which you gathered your information makes your experiences and your conclusion only valid in that, tiny arena.

 

[3point14]

You're going to compare drug use to walking?

That's not what I said. That's not even a little bit like what I said.

I'm out.

Have a nice day.

 

[ArchSas]

And each of those other commonly encountered and socially acceptable substances are pretty well known to come with negative side effects from chronic abuse as well.

You would hold that weed is above that based upon a statistic that I can easily see fails to be completely representative by simply examining the lifestyles of some weed users that I am intimately acquainted with?

What are you talking about? I haven't said anything in this thread about weed's safety, or the social value of legalizing it. I've strictly been commenting on acbytesla's abysmally poor reasoning and arguments.

You're trying to drag me into an argument I have no interest in, and, frankly, see as ridiculous. Weed is one of many, many substances/activities out there with potential negative side effects, especially when abused. I see no value in restricting people's autonomy, or treating any substance/activity as either inherently good or bad when it involves a personal cost-benefit analysis. That's all I'll say about that, because, again, it's not a discussion I'm interested in having, and I don't think my opinion should really mean anything to others.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I thought wacky tobaccy was supposed to make you druggies mellow? Sheesh, take a chill pill. Provided said pill is FDA approved and prescribed by a licensed physician according to applicable law and medical practice guidelines.

 

[acbytesla]

Your point?

Those are pretty damn good reasons to abstain.

Let's not pretend they in any way represent any reality other than your own. let us understand that the method by which you gathered your information makes your experiences and your conclusion only valid in that, tiny arena.

And let's not pretend they don't. Let's not pretend that people aren't rationalizing the use of chemicals that they know affects their ability to remember. Which seems to me is a pretty important brain function.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

I was gonna make a good point here but I forgot what it was.

 

[TragicMonkey]

For me, pot falls into the same area as gay marriage and abortion: I think all three should be legal to do, but I personally disapprove on philosophical grounds while having no interest in converting others into agreement with me.

I would outlaw tobacco, though. The demonstrable harm pushes it out of personal philosophy and into public policy.

 

[plague311]

Why, though? He has a tentative conclusion based on limited observation. He hasn't made a statistical claim, to the best of my knowledge.

He has represented an entire culture of people based on the persona of the stereotypical stoner in movies or that he's met. That's statistical in that he's including everyone that smokes weed.

I get it. You think my experiences shouldn't count because I haven't come to the conclusion you have which is that cannabis use has only positive effects. That it doesn't effect memory and cognition.

Literally ******* no one has said that. It's a strawman. Drop it. It's complete and total ********.

Let me make this clear. I haven't, nor has anyone else, ever argued that there are no side effects to marijuana. If you believe that's the case, link to the ******* post. Unless you do that, drop this terrible nonsense. The only argument that I, and others, have presented is to dispute that 1) it's a waste of one's faculties (it's not) 2) your methods are whack as Vanilla Ice.

EXCEPT THERE ARE STUDIES THAT SAY CANNABIS AFFECTS, COGNITION AND MEMORY. THERE ARE STUDIES THAT SAY THAT USE MAY LEAD TO LOWER IQs.

Link to them because I specifically linked to one that said this claim is complete and total ********. I'll wait.

I thought wacky tobaccy was supposed to make you druggies mellow? Sheesh, take a chill pill. Provided said pill is FDA approved and prescribed by a licensed physician according to applicable law and medical practice guidelines.

Yeah, like opioids!

As we all know, legal pills have never been abused or been known to have side effects that (while negative) are outweighed by the positives.