I understand but
@pardus is acting like no such evidence exists.
Also, that's not my whole argument. If something - a chemical compound- is harmful to an organism at one point in its development or life cycle, it's not unreasonable to hold out the expectation that it will likely be harmful to the organism at other points of its life cycle. The way the argument is being put forward it seems like marijuana advocates want to believe it's harmless despite the lack of science showing it is safe.
Except that it is. There are drugs that are catastrophic to a developing fetus that later in life are totally safe. 100%. It is so common in fact that we have a whole category of drug called teratogenic. I'm going to go out on a limb and say I have forgotten more about chemistry, biology, and physiology than all but maybe 2 members on this board have ever learned. I understand that substances are dangerous based on the phase of life. But saying something that millions of people are currently using, is somehow super dangerous, while allowing equally or more dangerous chemicals l(ETOH, nicotine, caffeine, but with no age limit)to be ingested by anyone based on their age is fucking absurd. Alcohol can cause someone to literally have a dissociative episode, in relatively small amounts less than 10 liquid ounces. Yet again it is totally legal, so legal that I have to watch advertisements with my young family members on TV. That is insane. Meanwhile if an adult wants to take a bong rip they cannot due to people who don't understand what THC does to the body, refuse to listen to research that has been conducted, while sitting at home and sipping their beers.
I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but
@JBS, it sounds like you're mixing two debates together a little bit. I certainly don't presume to speak for them, but from what I'm reading it seems like you're sorta trying to pigeonhole
@TLDR20 and
@pardus into both advocating recreational use for adults and its general, as opposed to medicinal, application and availability to minors to cover a lack of provided facts. They've supported their arguments with numerous citations for arguments that are so part of our cultural zeitgeist as to be common sense.
I'm not a fan of pot, at all, but when I read things like
the story of Charlotte Figi, it's hard for me to deny that it has its merits. Similarly, I don't really give two shits if you'd like to light up a doob instead of drinking a Bud Light or two (
something-something-"smoking bud" pun). Again, I don't mean to speak for the guys, but supporting legalization for adults to use as they would a shot of whisky and supporting the medically-controlled applications of
CBD-heavy, nearly-THC-free strains to minors (by doctors) aren't mutually exclusive notions, and they're certainly not the same as "legalize it universally without any restrictions."
Nobody is saying "legalize weed, and while we're at let's let Timmy smoke all the pot he wants;" they're saying "legalize it for adults, because seriously, who gives a shit," and, separately, "lend it some credibility in the medical fields, which is the only justifiable use by a minor." They're separate debates with separate bodies of supporting evidence required for them, and while Marijuana may be harmful to the developing brain (which is now debatable thanks to strains that favor CBD to THC), I'm sure Charlotte's parents are pretty happy their kid's 300 seizures a week have stopped. In addition to the notion that it has medical benefits, its recreational use by adults who would otherwise use legal vices like booze and cigarettes has shown itself to be no more (actually way less) harmful than the aforementioned.
Just my two cents.
-62
