<p>I’m sorry for your loss Intparent, and yet…
[Marijuana</a> Compound Treats Schizophrenia with Few Side Effects: Clinical Trial | TIME.com](<a href=“http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/30/marijuana-compound-treats-schizophrenia-with-few-side-effects-clinical-trial/]Marijuana”>Marijuana Compound Treats Schizophrenia with Few Side Effects: Clinical Trial | TIME.com)</p>
<p>Wait… so the conclusion that pot causes schizophrenia is based on the fact that many schizophrenic people smoke it? That doesn’t make any sense. </p>
<p>As marijuana rates have fluctuated (even increased), schizophrenia rates have stayed the same. </p>
<p>They might be related, but I don’t see ANY evidence that pot somehow caused the schizophrenia. In fact, the article you linked seems to deny that link as well. It seems far more likely that schizophrenia causes people to use marijuana than the other way around.</p>
<p>intparent, read the statement that you quoted again. It does not say that all the studies conclude that it is harmless! There are all kinds of studies and I would think everyone of them is biased in certain way. All I know is the detrimental effect and cost of prohibition is clear and there for you to see every day right now. You can either accept status quo or some might be persuaded to think that it is a lot less harmful to the society as a whole the other way around. There are different winners and losers based on which way the society elect to go.</p>
<p>And of course, I am very sorry for your loss.</p>
<p>I too am very sorry for your loss int. My uncle took his own life after a long strong with mental illness and alcohol/drug addiction. We firmly believe though that he used those to self-medicate rather than them being the triggers for his mental illness. Most doctors that we know agree with us (though, of course, they didn’t get to evaluate him).</p>
<p>I thought it was another poster who had a friend with children who died in an automobile accident.</p>
<p>No matter. The point is - outlawing grass because a person was high while driving makes as much sense as outlawing newspapers because people drive while reading.</p>
<p>I see it every morning … people reading the newspaper, putting on makeup, etc. while driving.</p>
<p>Just as dangerous, probably more so.</p>
<p>There are already laws on the books for reckless driving, no matter what the “cause.”</p>
<p>The new laws, if nothing else, will have substantial positive effects on low-income students. Currently, any student with a drug conviction is ineligible for federal student aid (Pell grants, etc.) With fewer drug convictions - both younger and older - many more students will be able to afford college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Prevalence</a> of alcohol and other drugs in fatally i… [Addiction. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI](<a href=“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22725100]Prevalence”>Prevalence of alcohol and other drugs in fatally injured drivers - PubMed)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSCestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingcellphonesandtexting.aspx[/url]”>http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSCestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingcellphonesandtexting.aspx</a></p>
<p>That is a good point mini, I had forgotten about that.</p>
<p>“Don’t Break Out The Cheetos’ Yet” - Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper
Remember that the federal government could still choose to strike down the law if they chose to, so it technically isn’t official yet
In my opinion, however, it isn’t really a big deal unless you want it to be</p>
<p>Another thing that people will want to smoke! I know a number of people who get no pleasure out of smoking tobacco, but love the effects of pot but keep usage way down, if at all, because it is illegal. They can’t afford to get into trouble with the law and don’t want to have to involve them selves with dealers which can be a dicey thing, so they just don’t do it. But with pot legalized, that can be a whole other thing. </p>
<p>I am not pleased with the direction this is going either. A combination of the problems that alcohol and cigarettes pose is what pot brings to the table.</p>
<p>I wonder how the Air Force Academy is going to handle this. Any trace of TCH (is that right?) in the urine when you are in the armed forces can mean out the door and even into the clink. As for pilots and other heavy machinery operators…um… Unlike alcohol pot use can be the system for a long time.</p>
<p>If the USAFA’s rules, or the military’s rules in general, are already stricter, why would it make any difference there?</p>
<p>Because now pot is legal in Colorado. the AFA is going to have to make it clear that the rules for their cadets are not going to change. Those cadets going off campus, and yes, they do, are going to have to be very careful as they are certainly going to see more open use of marijuana among their non military peers since it is now legal. That pot is illegal does inhibit general use of it and make those using it, more cautious due to the legal consequences. Now that those are gone in the state, there will likely be a lot more pot in social situations. Someone who might take a toke or two, here and there, may well be imbibing more. And this is totally taboo for milltary personele. It’s not like tobacco, or alcohol where they can imbibe. It’s court martial stuff. When it is illegal, you do have a lot more going for you in requesting it not being used around you. The risks are shared somewhat with everyone–kids on fin aid, for instance, those who have already had issues with the law. But now its completely legal. Just not for the service kid.</p>
<p>Sounds pretty clear.
But really, keeping something like that illegal because many employers will be checking for it, just as some check for tobacco or alcohol or if you went to the right temple on Saturday, doesn’t feel like a compelling reason to keep it illegal for those without those restrictions.</p>
<p>So because the military or some employers MIGHT have to change policies or adapt, we should keep it illegal for everyone? Oh good grief. They can deal with it. </p>
<p>Sorry but I’m not for restricting personal freedoms because it might give some groups some headache over a policy revision. Not a compelling argument.</p>
<p>It is still illegal to the feds. It will be interesting to see how they handle that. </p>
<p>Personally, I think it should just be legal in all states and from the federal perspective too, under similar rules as alcohol. Age limits, illegal to drive while high, etc.</p>
<p>Yeah, that way we can sell it legally to the adults, and leave the kids to the drug dealers.</p>
<p>(Frankly, I think it would be safer to give it out to kids in the classroom.)</p>
<p>Yeah, mini, same way all the kids are getting alcohol and cigarettes illegally. So we should obviously just ban everything with an age requirement because some minors might illegally get their hands on it.</p>
<p>On the contrary, I’m not sure of the sense of the age requirement here. I have studies that show that kids who smoke pot, as opposed to alcohol, have fewer driving accidents, fewer deaths from driving, etc., etc. =-- and the reason is, they do it at home.</p>
<p>I understand the age limits on alcohol very well (and very much agree with them, because they’ve been proven to work.) But I’m not sure of the analogy with marijuana. They are often used for different purposes - you could think of it as different kinds of recreation.</p>
<p>Why the age limits on tobacco products then? Or driving? Or voting? Or consensual sex? </p>
<p>I see alcohol and marijuana more similar in use than alcohol and any of those other things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In practice, age limits would be circumvented by the underage using fake IDs or getting their older friends or relatives to buy for them, like with alcohol and tobacco. (Not that that is a good thing, but it is not the same as underground drug dealers.)</p>