Re: Pot doesnt cause long damage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hj st wrote:

Tha Billdozer wrote:

hj st wrote:


it's obvious from reading your reply that you either don't understand
what science seeks to accomplish, or you seek to obfuscate the issue
knowingly by playing dumb.


Uhm, helllooo... I'm a nurse... well, actually my license expired last
year... but was one for nearly 15 years... I know exactly what studies
like this one seek to accomplish.


not "studies like this", but *this* study, what did it seek to find? 

More reasons for people to justify ruining their lives.

examples like not understanding what a "control group" is, 

I know exactly what a controlled group study are... BUT, like in my
point about testing the impairment on those that drink and drive they
actually have the people drink, and then drive... on a closed track
under controlled and monitored conditions.


they weren't testing to see if alcohol impared drivers.

It's called an analogy... you do know what an analogy is, right ?? if not here is the definition from Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

A) Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
B) A comparison based on such similarity.

They said they test the participants while they were not stoned... that effects the overall results... why not test them while they are stoned ?? you would think that they would want to get the best data for this test.

Doing a study on the effects of marijuana on people that are not under the influence is similar (an analogy) to doing a study on the effects of alcohol on people that are not drunk.

Get it now ??

Obviously it is you that does not understand the definition of a
controlled study... if this were actually a controlled study they would
have had to conduct it over at least a 10 years period in which the
subjects would have had to have been under the influence of the
substance being tested.


again, wasn't what they sought to test.

The report does not state how long the study took... it does however said that most of the data they used came from 15 other like studies.

They also said that the participants were not "high" when the testing was administered.

The report does not state what the study considered a heavy user vs. someone that is outright addicted, and they never even mentions the psychoactive addictive of marijuana.

IMO this study is incomplete and inconclusive.

BTW, one of my best friends and cycling partners in San Antonio is the
co-director of the San Antonio Urology Clinic... they constantly have
several studies going at once... so, before you start thinking that I do
not know about standardized, blind and controlled studies put your bong
down and wake up.




sure, when you pick up something other than a biased attitude seeking
to justify itself.

I'm not the one seeking to jsutify something here... this is just more potheads seeking to justify there reason for smoking pot.

but please, do tell, what makes one perfect? 

WELL, living without the need for such things as constantly using drugs
and pulling bull*** stories out of their ass to justify doing such.



can't fecking believe you tried to answer this! really,.. 

I try to answer every question put to me.

telling *me* to put the "whatever" down.

bong, water pipe, hooka... whatever you wanna call it... try putting it down some time and actually learning something.

i think you need to let go of a few things as well, for a better life.

I have found out that without caffeine I am an assshole... good thing I work for a coffeeshop.

perhaps "need" is the root cause of this disharmony, and not what is
needed.

Everybody needs something in their lives... need is a good thing... choosing things that are good is good... choosing things that are bad is bad... see how simple it is ?? over thinking is what complicates things.

hmmm, then what of the need to let go of need? 

My roommate just told me I needed to stop arguing with potheads.

i'll get back to you from the flipside,

10-4 I've been 10-20 for a bit... had to take some 10-13 to get the Jeep running again.

past the light, for the answer to that big question.

OOOHHH, the big question... what would that be ?? how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop ??

Scientifically they determined is was 372 licks.

..... for now though, get to know your neurotransmitters!

They are firing on all but one cylinder... had a slight bout of insomnia last night.

btw, mr. science, look up rhetorical. 

1. Of or relating to rhetoric.
2. Characterized by overelaborate or bombastic rhetoric.
3. Used for persuasive effect: a speech punctuated by rhetorical pauses.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rhetorical
(bonus points if you know when "bombastic" was coined and who it
referes to! no cheating!)

Was is not a Jamaican rapper ?? Mr. Lubba, Lubba if I'm not mistken... supposedly he is fantasic and bombastic.



--


The marvel of all history is the patience with which
men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid
upon them by their governments.

William H. Borah

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the
existing model obsolete.


R. Buckminster Fuller

.

Loading