What is wrong with her? It's incredibly irresponsible for her to introduce ANY mind-altering substances at such a young age. She is not fit to be raising her child.
Also, it's odd cases like this which are promoting negative stereotypes against cannabis users. It's a shame, given that the large majority is quite responsible.
It is proven that smoking pot is indeed bad for children, as it disrupts their growing brain. This is why it is forbidden for all people younger than 18 in Holland... otherwise we'd have it legal for babies too.
I don't know who proved it, I do know that many researchers have researched after the effects of pot, and came up with the fact that it's very addictive [not for all but for most] (duh) and I know that smoking pot slows down the process of dividing brain cells, leaving you with less brain cells when you are 20-something.. 23 I think. The brain grows fastest before 18, so they banned it before 18. After 18 the effect is much smaller, almost undetectable (too little to notice during tests and MRIs).
Very addictive? Look, dude, if you want to support your point then do so by linking to actual studies instead of just claiming crap. I mean by your logic I can say bread is addictive then instead of citing sources I'll just say "many/some researchers".
I'm not going to do your work of looking for sources.. I've read about and no, I don't remember which ones. I'm just sharing what I read/know, sorry if I'm not a sort of WikiPerson who always links to sources. Geez, I just wanted to give my opinion based on a few facts..
I'm not going to do your work of looking for sources.. I've read about and no, I don't remember which ones. I'm just sharing what I read/know, sorry if I'm not a sort of WikiPerson who always links to sources. Geez, I just wanted to give my opinion based on a few facts..
I'm not going to do your work of looking for sources.. I've read about and no, I don't remember which ones. I'm just sharing what I read/know, sorry if I'm not a sort of WikiPerson who always links to sources. Geez, I just wanted to give my opinion based on a few facts..
It's my job to give my opinion - if you want to dismiss it as bullshit, go ahead! I couldn't care much less. Just putting it out there: pot is addictive and it's been proven. If you don't want to believe it, you can probably find someone who'll tell you it isn't. If you'd like to believe it is, same thing. All I know is, I've seen friends get addicted and I know it is addictive, also read articles and reports about this. I've formed my opinion - now go do the same thing. Research first though (by asking people for their opinions;here's mine; or by reading reports and articles) so you know the facts.
I'm not going to do your work of looking for sources.. I've read about and no, I don't remember which ones. I'm just sharing what I read/know, sorry if I'm not a sort of WikiPerson who always links to sources. Geez, I just wanted to give my opinion based on a few facts..
It's my job to give my opinion - if you want to dismiss it as bullshit, go ahead! I couldn't care much less. Just putting it out there: pot is addictive and it's been proven. If you don't want to believe it, you can probably find someone who'll tell you it isn't. If you'd like to believe it is, same thing. All I know is, I've seen friends get addicted and I know it is addictive, also read articles and reports about this. I've formed my opinion - now go do the same thing. Research first though (by asking people for their opinions;here's mine; or by reading reports and articles) so you know the facts.
You formed your opinion by reading articles and reports. Now, giving that you claim pot is addictive it is your job to prove that it is addictive. Be it with the use of studies already done or those articles you keep talking about, you have to prove it or otherwise your opinion cannot be regarded as fact.
The burden of proof rests on the claimant. If I say that there is a flying cow then it's my job to prove that a flying cow exists. It's not the job of those who dismiss me to find the evidence because there was no evidence presented in the first place.
Now, you can either link to those articles and studies you keep talking about or we can conclude that this discussion is over.
It's my job to give my opinion - if you want to dismiss it as bullshit, go ahead! I couldn't care much less. Just putting it out there: pot is addictive and it's been proven. If you don't want to believe it, you can probably find someone who'll tell you it isn't. If you'd like to believe it is, same thing. All I know is, I've seen friends get addicted and I know it is addictive, also read articles and reports about this. I've formed my opinion - now go do the same thing. Research first though (by asking people for their opinions;here's mine; or by reading reports and articles) so you know the facts.
You formed your opinion by reading articles and reports. Now, giving that you claim pot is addictive it is your job to prove that it is addictive. Be it with the use of studies already done or those articles you keep talking about, you have to prove it or otherwise your opinion cannot be regarded as fact.
The burden of proof rests on the claimant. If I say that there is a flying cow then it's my job to prove that a flying cow exists. It's not the job of those who dismiss me to find the evidence because there was no evidence presented in the first place.
Now, you can either link to those articles and studies you keep talking about or we can conclude that this discussion is over.
I'm picturing someone feeling very smug about himself right now...
Anyway, OT:
I hope you don't mind these being in Dutch - I'm sure we can all use google translate. (yes I am aware that they aren't the best of sources - but the NOS news is a pretty reliable source at least - it's our national news network)
http://mens-en-gezondheid.infonu.nl/verslaving/11716-hennep-wiet-en-hasj.html
http://www.scholieren.com/werkstukken/8678
http://harryvanbommel.sp.nl/weblog/2009/09/22/wiet-is-verslavend/
Let's not forget my personal experiences with pot too, and friends who have gotten addicted.
Your national news network? So, in those articles, they do mention sources right? Like, some sort of name or the name of the study they based that article on, right?
At first this one makes the claim that THC can take up to one month for the body to filter. I don't even need to list a source for this. It's basic 7th grade anatomy. It all depends on the dosage and unless you're a regular smoker there's absolutely no way the substance can stay in your system for a month. That would imply that your liver is not working properly. What can happen if you're a regular smoker is that by smoking everyday you're replacing the substance day after day. The liver still filters the substance, it's just that you end up replacing it every time.
The second part talks about addiction again which is physically impossible. What you can have is a nicotine addiction if you smoke it in the form of a joint but that's about it. Then it said something about it being spiritually addictive and that was about it.
This one also seemed to have a raging hard on about copyright. It's like, unless you select the correct thing it basically locks you out and you have to refresh to be able to copy/paste again. Uncool
Right, so I went through your second article. The first part talks about cannabis addiction which is physically impossible. Phsycologically, yes you can get addicted but the term addiction is to strong to describe it. It's more of a scapegoat for something that happened. You never really get addicted to the substance and it's moronic of anyone to treat someone for cannabis addiction when the problem is obviously pshycological in origin and should be treated as such."Cannabis addiction" as it's called is just a symptom of an underlying cause. Be it depression, peer pressure or bullying you have to tackle the problem at its core in order to solve it. I mean seriously, one of those so called "testimonies" even talks about internet addiction. Fucking internet addiction? Seriously? Do these people even think or do they just write whatever get's the public most excited and enthralled?
I couldn't continue past that because Google Translate isn't what I'd call the best means to attempt to refute something. If you believe there's some "testimonies" of interest then by all means translate them and post them and I'll attempt to refute them. Otherwise, from what I've seen up until now it's not worth the bother.
On to the third article. So basically, this is another one talking about addiction and then lists a few of the short term and long term effects that marijuana supposedly has on you. As Google Translate aptly puts it:
"Hashish and marijuana are sometimes wrong."
So basically, it talks about how it affects your short term memory. This is true but misleading. Any impairment of short-term memory disappears when one is no longer under the influence of marijuana. Often, the short-term memory effect is paired with a reference to Dr. Heath's poor rhesus monkeys to imply that the condition is permanent. It then continues to talk about how it can trigger psychosis. There is nothing IN marijuana that can trigger a psychosis. The active substance, THC, is not associated with this.
So now it's mention the lungs. Yes, SMOKING marijuana can irritate the lungs and long term can cause damage due to joints being mixed with tobacco. There are other ways to use cannabis. For e.g. a bong. The rest is just more habblewash about addiction.
Now I have no idea what Google Translate decided to do here but I found this funny:
"This report is intended as a reference, not for them to commit plagiarism. Use at your own risk. The reports have been submitted by Scholieren.com high school students (unless otherwise stated) and are not checked for errors. Did you report a bug or do you supplement? Let us know."
Sources: http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html
A Brief, Critical Look at Cannabis Psychosis by Amit Basu in The International Journal on Drug Policy Vol. 3 pp. 126-127. 1992.
Still, this was fucking pointless. There were no sources cited.
Oh and fuck personal experiences. Unless they can be verified they cannot be taken seriously. I smoked pot, my friends still do smoke pot and I've yet to see any of them be addicted. Just like computer games are sometimes used as a scapegoat when something overwhelms a person so can weed be used the same way.
*Sigh* I wish people had to take a test or something before they became a parent. The world is filled with some very stupid, stupid, just STUPID people.
Your national news network? So, in those articles, they do mention sources right? Like, some sort of name or the name of the study they based that article on, right?
At first this one makes the claim that THC can take up to one month for the body to filter. I don't even need to list a source for this. It's basic 7th grade anatomy. It all depends on the dosage and unless you're a regular smoker there's absolutely no way the substance can stay in your system for a month. That would imply that your liver is not working properly. What can happen if you're a regular smoker is that by smoking everyday you're replacing the substance day after day. The liver still filters the substance, it's just that you end up replacing it every time.
The second part talks about addiction again which is physically impossible. What you can have is a nicotine addiction if you smoke it in the form of a joint but that's about it. Then it said something about it being spiritually addictive and that was about it.
This one also seemed to have a raging hard on about copyright. It's like, unless you select the correct thing it basically locks you out and you have to refresh to be able to copy/paste again. Uncool
Right, so I went through your second article. The first part talks about cannabis addiction which is physically impossible. Phsycologically, yes you can get addicted but the term addiction is to strong to describe it. It's more of a scapegoat for something that happened. You never really get addicted to the substance and it's moronic of anyone to treat someone for cannabis addiction when the problem is obviously pshycological in origin and should be treated as such."Cannabis addiction" as it's called is just a symptom of an underlying cause. Be it depression, peer pressure or bullying you have to tackle the problem at its core in order to solve it. I mean seriously, one of those so called "testimonies" even talks about internet addiction. Fucking internet addiction? Seriously? Do these people even think or do they just write whatever get's the public most excited and enthralled?
I couldn't continue past that because Google Translate isn't what I'd call the best means to attempt to refute something. If you believe there's some "testimonies" of interest then by all means translate them and post them and I'll attempt to refute them. Otherwise, from what I've seen up until now it's not worth the bother.
On to the third article. So basically, this is another one talking about addiction and then lists a few of the short term and long term effects that marijuana supposedly has on you. As Google Translate aptly puts it:
"Hashish and marijuana are sometimes wrong."
So basically, it talks about how it affects your short term memory. This is true but misleading. Any impairment of short-term memory disappears when one is no longer under the influence of marijuana. Often, the short-term memory effect is paired with a reference to Dr. Heath's poor rhesus monkeys to imply that the condition is permanent. It then continues to talk about how it can trigger psychosis. There is nothing IN marijuana that can trigger a psychosis. The active substance, THC, is not associated with this.
So now it's mention the lungs. Yes, SMOKING marijuana can irritate the lungs and long term can cause damage due to joints being mixed with tobacco. There are other ways to use cannabis. For e.g. a bong. The rest is just more habblewash about addiction.
Now I have no idea what Google Translate decided to do here but I found this funny:
"This report is intended as a reference, not for them to commit plagiarism. Use at your own risk. The reports have been submitted by Scholieren.com high school students (unless otherwise stated) and are not checked for errors. Did you report a bug or do you supplement? Let us know."
Sources: http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html
A Brief, Critical Look at Cannabis Psychosis by Amit Basu in The International Journal on Drug Policy Vol. 3 pp. 126-127. 1992.
Still, this was fucking pointless. There were no sources cited.
Oh and fuck personal experiences. Unless they can be verified they cannot be taken seriously. I smoked pot, my friends still do smoke pot and I've yet to see any of them be addicted. Just like computer games are sometimes used as a scapegoat when something overwhelms a person so can weed be used the same way.
Obviously google translate failed because in the article there were actually sources named... but fuck this, I'm never going to convince you otherwise since you obviously know so well yourself..
I tire of this silly little thread, but I MUST applaud a member of this community RrrrRIGHT NOW:
Demented Teddy said:
Listen princess.
The world is diverse, not everyone is going to agree with you.
I have disagreed with everything (more or less) that you said in this thread but I didn't block you because I am not an immature little child that can't handle the fact that someone disagrees with her.
I know you won't see this for a while, but you acted like WHINY LEETLE BRAT, and you should feel ASHAMED of yourself. you, little one, are a silly person. when you come back, please, be less... like you were here.
OT: That is what many people call "Fucked up". revolting.
Hurrah, more anti-weed propaganda!
It would be equally ridiculous if the woman had been giving her 2 year old coffee or diet pills but because it's weed the anti-legalizing crew now have another feather to their cap when argueing how 'pot is bad for 2 year olds'.
This just in, almost everything is.
Obviously google translate failed because in the article there were actually sources named... but fuck this, I'm never going to convince you otherwise since you obviously know so well yourself..
Well actually I don't think it did fail. I translated every part of your articles and yet, apart from the 2nd one I believe which stated that it was a project made by some high school students they were sourceless.
But hey, believe whatever you want. I won't stop you.
Well, how about we take a look at THIS post...specifically the last line of it:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.232424.8172446
By the way, I get the feeling she kept making those "you're blocked" posts just to pad her post count.
All in all, I hope Cassita, for her own sake, has learned from this suspension of hers.
If not, well, I guess we won't have to worry about her disruptive behavior here much longer.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
