What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

Bill Kirby wrote:http://time.com/61940/recreational-pot-use-harmful-to-young-peoples-brains/ usatoday.com/story/news/nat… usnews.com/news/blogs/at-th… Here's three I found that all say marijuana affects young people's brain negatively. Ok so that's settled. I still enjoyed talking about positives and negatives. I learned a couple things.I would even say I don't see a problem with adults smoking weed. That's a personal choice. You wanna smoke, let your kids smoke. It's up to you.

Sorry, Bill, but all of your links are journalists perspective after having apparently read supposedly existing studies which turn out to be so unbelievably ground breaking that the studies are specifically unmentioned in the articles which talk about them. The closest you got was one of the links mentioned that professors associated with Harvard did the research, and that it will at some point supposedly be published in the Journal of Neuroscience. This is my point. Your correct that the issue is settled, but it is settled that the "marijuana causes brain malfunction" people still have a LOT of ground to cover before they even begin to make their argument in any kind of scientific sense.

JNE wrote: Sorry, Bill, but all of your links are journalists perspective after having apparently read supposedly existing studies which turn out to be so unbelievably ground breaking that the studies are specifically unmentioned in the articles which talk about them.

read away- scholar.google.com/scholar?…;btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&as_vis=1

Todd has a good point with science behind it.

You misunderstand, TRoper. YOU have a point to make, which can be backed up by a SPECIFIC study...find it yourself, and link it up. Which from your list meets your personal standards? Keep in mind you are talking to a person with a B.S in both math and statistics, and a minor in philosophy, so someone who can well understand the engineering behind the arguments presented.

Studies which could actually pass academic rigor (i.e. effectively make their argument) are necessarily lacking, because the data is necessarily lacking. None of them are a basic sampling design meant to compare the ratios in two separate populations which have both been effectively argued to be representative samples. This is because marijuanas legal status most places, and because any place where it is legal that is either a recent change or they are uninterested in that kind of time wasting B.S., so having surveys which call people up and take basic data, let alone in depth personal profiles, just do not exist. Thus, studies which analyze that data, do not exist. Yes, this is settled.

I'm just a high school drop out so no mental masturbation here. There's studies out there that show marijuana is harmful for the developing brain. Isreal has been doing marijuana studies for a while now. Harvard has been too. There's obliviously something there. If you don't believe that marijuana is harmful to kids I can respect that. How you raise your kids is your business.

Bill Kirby wrote:I'm just a high school drop out so no mental masturbation here. There's studies out there that show marijuana is harmful for the developing brain. Isreal has been doing marijuana studies for a while now. Harvard has been too. There's obliviously something there. If you don't believe that marijuana is harmful to kids I can respect that. How you raise your kids is your business.

Yes, there may be some studies which show marijuana is harmful for developing brains, but again, they are going to fall short when it comes to academic rigor due to a total (more so than for adults) lack of data. This issue too, is now settled.

That being the case, I would not want my kids doing anything in excess. This includes climbing. Too much climbing could lead them down a negative developemental path, at least that is shown for gymnastics. Or, wait, is what was really shown was that the body can adapt within a generation to a greatly different environment? Likely...

JNE wrote:You misunderstand, TRoper. YOU have a point to make, which can be backed up by a SPECIFIC study...find it yourself, and link it up. Which from your list meets your personal standards? Keep in mind you are talking to a person with a B.S in both math and statistics, and a minor in philosophy, so someone who can well understand the engineering behind the arguments presented. Studies which could actually pass academic rigor (i.e. effectively make their argument) are necessarily lacking, because the data is necessarily lacking. None of them are a basic sampling design meant to compare the ratios in two separate populations which have both been effectively argued to be representative samples. This is because marijuanas legal status most places, and because any place where it is legal that is either a recent change or they are uninterested in that kind of time wasting B.S., so having surveys which call people up and take basic data, let alone in depth personal profiles, just do not exist. Thus, studies which analyze that data, do not exist. Yes, this is settled.

So basically because you have a 4 year diploma you are debunking neuroscience now, I got it!

TRoper, just as I thought: you will pass on volunteering to show us how gullible you are. At this point we can all only validly conclude you are "gullible". Thanks for playing.

JNE wrote:TRoper, just as I thought: you will pass on volunteering to show us how gullible you are. At this point we can all only validly conclude you are "gullible". Thanks for playing.

I'm not a gynecologist but I'll have a look!

T Roper wrote: I'm not a gynecologist but I'll have a look!

Diagnosis?

JNE wrote:TRoper, just as I thought: you will pass on volunteering to show us how gullible you are. At this point we can all only validly conclude you are "gullible". Thanks for playing.

How much weed does this guy smoke? Wow....

cragmantoo wrote: How much weed does this guy smoke? Wow....

Next it will be pot's not bad for kids. It comes from the Earth! God put it there for me you man.

Bill Kirby wrote: Next it will be pot's not bad for kids. It comes from the Earth! God put it there for me you man.

He does have a 4 year degree Bill. Dont believe the hype, its a conspiracy to keep children unhappy.

Jim Fox wrote:Last one.... “The main problem in any democracy is that crowd-pleasers are generally brainless swine who can go out on a stage & whup their supporters into an orgiastic frenzy—then go back to the office & sell every one of the poor bastards down the tube for a nickel apiece.” ― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72

I think this is as appropriate and true in 2016 as it was in 1972.
RIP, Hunter

So did we decide on the climbing president yet? Maybe Trump? Get the old revolution started sooner? While the fed is busy defending it's self from insurgents I can power bolt some sport lines in the national parks.

Dang it's hard to keep you all on topic, kinda like hearding kittens.

J Q wrote:So did we decide on the climbing president yet? Maybe Trump? Get the old revolution started sooner? While the fed is busy defending it's self from insurgents I can power bolt some sport lines in the national parks. Dang it's hard to keep you all on topic, kinda like hearding kittens.

Wait, I want to argue about pot some more....

which candidate would be able to climb the highest grade?

Tim Lutz wrote:I am also suspicious of legalization of all drugs. I should have said full scale marijuana legalization.

That's that argument that drinkers always had against marijuana. They wanted Their Alcohol/Nicotine/Caffiene/Benzos, but not Marijuana.
Really, the drug war isn't a ganga war, it's a drug war.
And the policies and practice that make it destructive are the same for all drugs.
Psychedelics are fairly unlikely to kill anyone, but no, they certainly are not healthy dietary supplements any more so than MJ is. But the drug war destroys lives and the black market organized crime thrives on a product that is less healthy than what it would be if it were legal.
So - I'm always a little surprised by people that make that argument for just 1 drug...

Tim Lutz wrote: huh? how is a 'public push' not criminalization?

Maybe 'educational' stuff (PFDFA, IE) 'brain on drugs' commercials? Drunk Driving commercials? Smoking kills commercials?
Not that I think it's terribly effective, but you did ask, so I answered that part of it.

Tim Lutz wrote:Todd, ok, let's say there are significant risks, what about the research that shows a myriad of physical and mental benefits?

Uhhh... To casual and occasional or habitual but uncontrolled use of MJ? Dude, I've stuided pharmacology, neurobiology, clinical neurology, and even specifically drugs. And I've been on the legalization train since before I was old enough to vote...

But what are you talking about? I'm not saying that there is nothing, but I certainly won't paint with a broad brush like that.

Long Duk Dong wrote:Mike or Tony, Either of you care to respond to my question on page 33?

What question?
I saw you post some Chompsky quotes, but that doesn't really pose a question to me.

Quinn Baker wrote: Gary Johnson is a fine guy, I have nothing against him, but as a third party candidate, he has no chance of winning. As such, a vote for him is voting against your own self interest.

Whenever I hear that arguement I get this visual of a parade of Zombies (infected with the D/R virus) slowly parading down the street, arms extended forward:
"Must eat the seed corn... must keep the RNC/DNC in power... must prevent actual free elections..."

The system needs to burn. This argument is what keeps it alive.
And if you ever ask yourself how it is that we got to a point where all you can do is pick between the lesser of 2 evils, this is it. This is how it happens.

Nobody will vote 3rd party because nobody will vote 3rd party. No other reason.

Bill Kirby wrote: The funny thing, to me anyway, is the stat that emergency room visits involving Marijuana went up a bunch in CO. That shows that more people are smoking pot than before. That statistic could be used to stop any legislation.

Not a 'fact' and not a very defensible conclusion. It certainly is not probably true, even if plausibly.

ER visits are up by a few... perhaps a lot in %, but relatively small in total number, and it's almost all related to edibles, not smoking.
And that does not mean that many more people are doing it.
It means 2 things:
1) That people are no longer afraid of going to jail if they go for treatment and are more likely to seek treatment. This is the fundamental argument for almost all harm reduction efforts involving limited immunity (IE: CO SB-20-12), and it has been proven to be true by any study that has explored it. Contraband has always had limited reporting or treatment seeking associated with it because it is/was illegal.
2) That a few more naive people are doing edibles and that they find out later that edibles are not the same as smoking it in terms of kinetics. They are naive of that fact, not necessarily of MJ in general. There are more 'edibles' users.

So yeah, that "statistic" could be used to fight legislation. But in reality, that's just your narrative, not a fact.