So I was reading his recent statements about pot legalization:
"If we want to expand this universe of people that are addicted and abusing drugs, well, you’ll have that chance in November," he said at a news conference. He added, "I don’t think that any state became stronger by being stoned."
I found his statements to be principally incompatible with the state's gun policy, which is beloved by republicans. Don't get me wrong, I totally support gun rights and all that, I just find it odd that politicians who support un-permitted concealed carry laws, un-permitted open carry laws and don't even support a maintaining a gun registry in the state somehow think pot legalization is such a dangerous policy.
Am I the only one that thinks this is empty fear-mongering?
That's what most infuriates me about this issue... All the politicization of it has literally retarded our scientific understanding of the plant. That's a real shame. This could be a cure for various illnesses, a cause of them or the next big breakthrough in field of study. We have no way to know because, despite living in the 21st century, we're barely scratching the surface on this plant. So frustrating.
Your comments are all over the place........did I make you think someone was going to take away your pot? Maybe you are using it now. You went into a mental rant and ended up saying nothing of any consequence other than repeating what I said.
Nahhh... You said it makes you nuts, and he said it didn't. But, he was nicer about it.
Classy way to accept an error...
You can deny that it is legitimate information or pretend as if it reaffirms your own statements, just know that the information which completely debunks your claim is still there for all, even you, to actually read.
Furthermore, defaulting to personal attacks when someone introduces information that challenges your beliefs is itself a cognitive distortion.
There is nothing irrational or illogical about challenging false claim, but especially not with verifiable information. You can be angry at me all you want, the facts are still the facts, insults are inconsequential to that.
Thanks Excon, appreciate that :)
Fork made it clear in her statement that she had not used it for a long time.
I found her arguments clear, concise and backed by the best peer-reviewed research in the field.
I tripple checked and could not see any statement by Fork that repeated what you said.
Also, I think she was very polite in the way she stated her case.
I remember reading the study she vaguely referred to above when it was first released and was dumbfounded even then at how the media could, in good conscience, propagate conclusions that were never even inferred from the study itself.
In my lifetime, that situation may be the single best example I could put my finger on as to how the media manipulates science in a effort to push a political narrative. People have been regurgitating a false conclusion ever since and despite the fact that handfuls of competing, published, peer reviewed studies have consistently upended that entire premise.
It will certainly leave one in awe of the true power our media possess and the blatant abuse of such for practically no reason at all... just to pitch the fear of the faceless.
I find it helps to keep an eye on which magnate owns which newspaper, TV channel etc - the owner's bias comes through in selection and presentation of issues and events.
The more sensationalist the rag, the less checking for authenticity.