-
-
I'm too high to read....... -
Haha!Comment
-
-
Well...would you look at that....someone hacked my account and put that there.....I alway just say no.....Originally posted by Damnittsteve View PostComment
-
-
Wait a tic.......
I smell some contradiction and it stinks.
Soooooo, which is it? Were they smoking before the age of 18 or not?
While I've always said that pot isn't a good idea for those under the age of 21, I do require that the studies be factual. Not embellished bullshit drawn from the stockades of Reefer Madness.Comment
-
I would recommend you read the actual study and not a media paraphrase if you're that curious. Having seen many studies that I've read remodeled by a reporter, I'd take a guess and say that the oldest person at the end of those 20 years was 38 and that's how the reporter pulled that number.Originally posted by Snatch Napkin View PostWait a tic.......
I smell some contradiction and it stinks.
Soooooo, which is it? Were they smoking before the age of 18 or not?
While I've always said that pot isn't a good idea for those under the age of 21, I do require that the studies be factual. Not embellished bullshit drawn from the stockades of Reefer Madness.Comment
-
Super High MeOriginally posted by talismanOriginally posted by AdamLXOriginally posted by BroncojohnnyOriginally posted by 80coupeOriginally posted by Rick ModenaOriginally posted by JesterComment
-
If it was ever legalized I would imagine that there would be an age limit like they have on tabacco/alcohol/porn/etc. Which would fix any concerns raised by the study anyways. Not that under 18 year olds couldn't get it one way or another, but that's not any different than it is now..223 > 911Comment
-
Well, seeing as I've done my own studies and paid very close attention to how it affected me, I would say that I already knew that it was not good for anyone under the age of 21.Originally posted by exlude View Post
I will also say that it is not a neurotoxic event, as described in these studies. It is simply one "checking out" during those times of crucial learning. A person can still learn later in life, if they feel so inclined.
In conclusion, I completely agree that it's a bad idea to smoke at a young age. A person needs to learn far too many life lessons during this time. Once he/she has obtained the tools needed and they understand completely how pot affects them, then they can make the choice as to whether or not to smoke it.Comment
-
Feel better about this part?Originally posted by Snatch Napkin View PostWait a tic.......
I smell some contradiction and it stinks.
Soooooo, which is it? Were they smoking before the age of 18 or not?
While I've always said that pot isn't a good idea for those under the age of 21, I do require that the studies be factual. Not embellished bullshit drawn from the stockades of Reefer Madness.
"It is such a special study that I'm fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains."US Politics in three words - Divide and ConquerComment
-
Blasphemers!!!!!!1!1!!!1DedComment
-
I suppose all of those hallucinogenics reversed the effects of the cannabis!!Originally posted by VaderTT View Post
Never mind the thought that they didn't even differentiate between Indicas and Sativas.
Fucking propaganda at it's finest!!
They even try to sound all buddy buddy with admitting that the effects don't happen after the age of 18, as if the brain quits developing new memories.Comment
-
I think the real debatable point is whether or not these (or any) results can be 'directly attributed to the drug being examined' and not the free will and abilities of a human over time, or some other factor skewing the results.
Most things can be enjoyed in moderation. Straying from moderation has a higher chance of a bad outcome.Comment
Tweet
Comment