It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71
I'm pretty sure that the 8 year olds were picked as a control group so that the scientists could monitor their IQ change when they were 15 and heavily using.
I can speak to how it's helped with my condition, making the pain levels more tolerable and helping me with eating, but hey, instead of harmless marijuana, why not just pump my body with drugs like Humira or Remicade instead…sigh…
its the idea of it pacifying you. Which it does
originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: jhn7537
what do you mean you cant get addicted physically? for me addiction is 99% mental. I don't know what the other 1% is :p.
originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: jhn7537
what do you mean you cant get addicted physically? for me addiction is 99% mental. I don't know what the other 1% is :p.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: KnightLight
I've always felt that the 21 year old requirement is a good check for under age buying. Many of age people will buy for people a few years younger than them, but someone many years younger is a bit more doubtful. So a 21 year old would be more likely to buy for an 18-20 year old, but not so much a 16 or 17 year old. Meanwhile if the legal age were 18, an 18 year old would be much more likely to buy for a 16 or 17 year old than a 21 year old.
In this way, I've always felt like the minimum drinking age should be more of a guideline or civil infraction then an arrestable offense.
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: liteonit6969
I think it's important to note that there are two types of addiction. Physical, and chemical. Physical (mental) is the lighter version and easier to break away from, but still is addiction and will be difficult. Chemical is much much harder. Cigarettes being the biggest example I can attest to. Quitting them was hell. And the ramifications to quitting was just as bad. (getting fat)
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: liteonit6969
I want to know how marijuana is somehow better at pacifying you then the rampant opiate addiction the world has from doctors writing scripts for pain medication like it's going out of style. Last I checked, opiates are FAR worse for you than marijuana. If anything is pacifying the public, it's those pills.
Marijuana doesn't exist in a vacuum, and even if it did, people can be responsible with it. Just because YOU don't know anyone who can be a responsible smoker, doesn't mean they don't exist (and far outnumber the ones that aren't responsible smokers). FYI, addicts like to hang out with addicts. So it is no surprise that you would see addiction symptoms in your friends. You've already described addiction symptoms in yourself.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TzarChasm
I wasn't trying to suggest it was a sure thing. I was purposely using vague wording by using words like "many", or "much more likely"; you know to suggest that I'm not trying to suggest that that is the case all the time. I just felt that was a general trend that people follow. Obviously, some people are more unscrupulous than others. That's a given. But that doesn't mean that a trend can't exist. When you were 21, would you have been more likely to buy for an 18 year old or a 16 year old?
"It's hard to know what causes what. Do kids do badly at school because they are smoking weed, or do they smoke weed because they're doing badly? This study suggests it is not as simple as saying cannabis is the problem," says lead researcher Claire Mokrysz, from University College London.
"People often believe that using cannabis can be very damaging to intellectual ability in the long-term, but it is extremely difficult to separate the direct effects of cannabis from other potential explanations."