re: OT potheads, what's your opinion of "wax?"

quote:

---

I quote this because it's the basic crux of what I think you're saying, the theme of Obama's retraction of his statement, and the leading, vague argument by opponents. "We just don't fully understand it yet." Opponents will say the same thing 1000 years from now, or as long as they can get away with it.

---

I insist that providing a casual relationship isn't necessary. Here is why. Some people have a schizophrenic mom or dad. They go smoke for a weekend and get brought in with symptoms of schizophrenia. You admit them. Upon learning the whole history, instead of starting them on meds, you wait. You give them time. They come back to normal. They don't require treatment after the fact. They never show schizophrenic signs other than while smoking. Do you or I need a causal link rather than casual association (don't go dyslexic on me there) to determine the best way to treat them?

From here, I say that this number isn't that big. It's also not that concerning. What IS concerning is the notion that, instead of this happening to the current percentage of the population that number expands and includes people that aren't identifiable (called "normal").

So I will agree with your point that not knowing whether the at-risk group expands or not and saying "we don't fully understand" will be gotten away with for as long as it can (or until widespread use is achieved, looked at, and documented as more, less, or no change in current side effect profile from current trends and strains.

quote:

---

Any and all of them that can be. In Africa, people huff their own fermented shite.

---

I'll concede the point, but I will also leave you with a "you know damn well that more people use more highly concentrated toxic versions of drugs for recreational use to the point that they're putting themselves at risk than those that take the super-powered drano and ingest or shoot it up," even if I can't prove it.