[mandmandam]

> it's difficult to hear theories from folks that don't have as much of a stake.

It's not a theory that CBD has anti-psychotic properties. It certainly does, we just don't fully understand why.

My theory is that it will someday be part of treatment plans; and as someone with skin in the game I would hope that you care enough to learn a bit more about it. The comparison to anti-vaxxers with autism in the family is not appropriate here.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

> is not appropriate here

Actually, if the agenda of pushing CBD therapy applies, then it is. I know a number of folks that have autistic children, of various levels, from "nerd," to "wheelchair-bound." Their parents are usually absolute saints, regardless of their political views, or misinformation diets, and live in constant pain; making daily sacrifices that I don't think many folks here, can even comprehend.

We were discussing a serious mental illness, and, as someone that is a caregiver for someone like that, I think that my experience is relevant; just as someone who believes that their child's condition was caused by something that is really a red herring.

The real villains, here, are the people that have secondary agendas (like legalizing drugs, or pushing political agendas), and look at people like us, with very real pain, as nothing but pawns, to be used to push their agenda (Think of the children!).

CBD, like Blockchain, probably has some valid application, but, because it was so unexplored, scientifically, it is currently about 75% snake-oil. We'll find out what it's good for, over time. The same can be said for other drugs, like MDMA, microdose LSD, or psilocybin.

[mandmandam]

CBD has an antipsychotic effect. There's not really any debate on that in the scientific community, and I've already provided a link. That's not part of some sinister agenda to legalize cannabis, it's just stating facts to clear up the misinformation which at this point you are willfully repeating.

> The real villains, here, are the people that have secondary agendas (like legalizing drugs, or pushing political agendas), and look at people like us, with very real pain, as nothing but pawns, to be used to push their agenda

Your assumption that I don't also have personal experience, and a stake, and real pain with this issue is based on what exactly? Did I miss the part where you asked me about my own experience, or does your personal experience trump my own for some reason?

I do, in fact, have all three. That has no bearing whatsoever on the basic fact that CBD has confirmed anti-psychotic potential with particular regard to schizophrenia, as was already linked above.

Finally, there's no secret agenda here - cannabis should be legalized. It's just basic common sense and decency, for all the reasons I've already stated and more. Prohibition doesn't work and we have decades of data proving that beyond any doubt.

Have rates of psychosis shot up in states where cannabis was legalized? No, according to a massive analysis of 63,680,589 beneficiaries followed for 2,015,189,706 person-months [0]. So please, stop with the reefer madness. I'm sorry about your family member but if you want to help people you could really try looking at the data.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

> I do, in fact, have all three.

I don't believe you. If you had, you would have led with it, just like I did. I value people that have skin in the game. Jenny McCarthy is a big fat pain in the ass, but she really does have an autistic kid, is a good mother, and has formed her worldview around that.

> So please, stop with the reefer madness.

WTF? I've never believed that crap in my life. Interesting that it's important to you, that I support that twisted worldview. You've mentioned it a couple of times, so it seems to be something that you're fixated on.

I do, however, have considerable experience with the fallout from drug use. I have spent my entire adult life, helping folks out, who have had their lives shattered by it. There are a small percentage of the population that can't handle drugs, and need help to recover from it. I do my best to help them out, and don't insist that the vast majority of the population change their worldview to fit mine.

Personally, I think that pot should be legal everywhere, including at the federal level (which will basically kill all the "mom and pop" operations out there, so be careful what you pray for). I don't use it, and don't care, myself. That doesn't make me an enemy.

I'd gently suggest that a professional forum, read by many of the most influential people in tech, might not be the best place to be a crusader for drug use.

[mandmandam]

> I don't believe you. If you had, you would have led with it, just like I did.

You really can't imagine someone arguing from scientific research over their own personal experience?

> Jenny McCarthy is a big fat pain in the ass

Again with the autism/vaccines comparison, again missing the point, again doing yourself and your family member a disservice.

> WTF? I've never believed that crap in my life.

You keep repeating the claim that there's no therapeutic value to cannabis. That's madness, my friend, by the very literal definition of ignoring reality.

> don't insist that the vast majority of the population change their worldview to fit mine.

That's exactly what you're doing though? You're insisting that people ignore the research which I've linked multiple times now, and adopt your worldview which is based on vague assertions and claims; and you insist that anyone would argue the same way as you're doing when that's neither true or sensible.

> Personally, I think that pot should be legal everywhere, including at the federal level (which will basically kill all the "mom and pop" operations out there, so be careful what you pray for).

Huh? I can't tell if you're insinuating I'm a drug dealer or what your point is here. I'm certainly not the one who made this debate about whether cannabis should be legal or not; I just pointed out that prohibition made it much more dangerous to consume.

> I'd gently suggest that a professional forum, read by many of the most influential people in tech, might not be the best place to be a crusader for drug use.

As has been pointed out by people above, you're the one on the crusade here. My point, which I've repeated many times now, is that CBD has shown potential to help people vulnerable to psychosis and schizophrenia. I don't know why that triggers you so hard, or why you can't engage with the research which shows that very clearly, but I wish you the best all the same.

[talentedcoin]

The one paper you keep shopping around here does indeed affirm that CBD may have some neuroprotective properties. That doesn’t change the fact that for the vast majority of people susceptible to schizophrenia or psychosis, that cannabis (always a mixture of THC and CBD in its natural state) is dangerous for them and can trigger mental issues. You can feel superior or more intelligent than others as much as you like, but that will not change this fact. You are getting a negative reaction from people who know this because we have been negatively affected by it, either ourselves or people we know. If you yourself “engage with the research” beyond your tunnel vision, you will see that the link between cannabis and mental issues is pretty well established by this point. In fact, refusal to acknowledge downsides of cannabis use is one of the hallmarks of cannabis use disorder. Pluck the beam out of your own eye.

[mandmandam]

> cannabis (always a mixture of THC and CBD in its natural state)

Come on man, I've been explicit from the start that I'm talking about high CBD low THC strains. If you refuse to acknowledge that then you're wasting both our time.

> You can feel superior or more intelligent than others as much as you like,

Weird thing to throw out there. Do you often feel like people giving you more information is an assault on your intelligence or value as a person? Is that helpful for you? ...

> You are getting a negative reaction from people who know this because we have been negatively affected by it

By high CBD, low THC cannabis? Be honest now.

> If you yourself “engage with the research” beyond your tunnel vision, you will see that the link between cannabis and mental issues is pretty well established by this point

I never denied there's a 'link'. There's clearly a link, but to claim that it's well understood is a gross exaggeration, and insisting that it applies to high CBD low THC cannabis is an obvious lie (no matter how many times you repeat it).

> refusal to acknowledge downsides of cannabis use is one of the hallmarks of cannabis use disorder. Pluck the beam out of your own eye.

Now you're implying I have a disorder and a drug problem? Even though at no point have I "refused to acknowledge downsides of cannabis".

So, recapping: I posit that high CBD low THC cannabis could help schizophrenics. I provide multiple links to researchers in this field saying the same thing. And by doing this, you feel entitled to make to accusations of me being a drug dealer, having a substance abuse problem, a superiority complex and a mental disorder?

... It's not ok to talk to people like that. And yet you end all that with "pluck the beam out of your own eye"; as if I were the one casting judgment??

[https://i.ytimg.com/vi/eeEyVZiVW_M/hqdefault.jpg]

[aspenmayer]

> The real villains, here, are the people that have secondary agendas (like legalizing drugs, or pushing political agendas)

The natural state of affairs is silence, as plants don't care about humans. The actual history of plant illegalization is inherently political, and inextricably racist in America due to Nixon.

[mandmandam]

I agree, except that the racism involved with prohibition goes right back to Day 1 with Harry Anslinger [0].

0 - https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=harry+anslinger+racism&atb=...

[aspenmayer]

I agree, except that isn’t how you cite sources. What’s the point of that? I know how to search, thanks. I will treat every instance of this kind of “let me Google that for you” whether it has Google or not as a native ad and will flag. Please cite a source, or don’t, but either way, stop shilling.

Thanks.

[mandmandam]

> that isn’t how you cite sources

And this isn't an academic paper. If you want to learn about Anslinger, so you don't make false claims, my link is a perfectly cromulent starting point.

> Please cite a source, or don’t, but either way, stop shilling.

Not sure you know what shilling means - I trust you can google it if you don't? If you do, what is it you believe I'm shilling?

[aspenmayer]

> Not sure you know what shilling means - I trust you can google it if you don't? If you do, what is it you believe I'm shilling?

The search engine you mentioned is who benefits.

We’re both right, actually. I don’t disagree with what you said, just the needless url you linked. I agree with what you said, but Nixon is also responsible for his racist words and recordings thereof. There were a lot of racists in history.