The Latest Study in the 'Anti-Cannabis Campaign'

curious2garden · May 24, 2016

Singlemalt said:
I get it, you are data collecting. You wish to assign certain anecdotes to certain members cuz we're stoners.
Edit: A term paper for your psychology class?

G/D how are you right so much? I'm callin' strega on ya!
https://www.rollitup.org/t/jail-gets-a-bad-rap.906740/page-34#post-12624384

Singlemalt · May 24, 2016

This guy is making shit up to argue about. Bet ya he is a psychologist wannbe, certainly has no hard science under his belt

curious2garden · May 24, 2016

Singlemalt said:
This guy is making shit up to argue about. Bet ya he is a psychologist wannbe, certainly has no hard science under his belt

I completely agree with you, psych student. Google can give you facts but not the underlying concepts you had to actually pay the tuition for that.

hyphyjoose · May 24, 2016

Singlemalt said:
Because she quoted you, get it you. You mentioned Jacobs, no one else did. Gads

Nice try at smoke and mirrors. She/you/whoever originally posted about FUNDING institutions, implying confounding by funders. She mentions Jacobs Foundation by emboldening my quote when I mention their name (because of the discourse regarding supporters from the few previous posts before that). I admit I fallaciously make an EMOTIONAL APPEAL (not an AUTHORITATIVE APPEAL), but you guys continued to make "appeals to bullshit" about the study even after the Jacobs bit (plus the part about funding Confounders and the implication that it was fallacious because of this was made before i mentioned Jacobs Foundation)

Singlemalt · May 24, 2016

The study is flawed due to conclusions drawn. It was obvious if one has ever done rigorous scientific research. I wish to know why you have made this personal; you weren't attacked until you began attacking. Unless you have a vested interest/relationship with said study, your behavior is off.

Singlemalt · May 24, 2016

cannabineer said:

LOL

hyphyjoose · May 24, 2016

Singlemalt said:
The study is flawed due to conclusions drawn. It was obvious if one has ever done rigorous scientific research.

Okay, which conclusions are flawed, and what method of your expertise in rigorous scientific research proves it?

I wish to know why you have made this personal; you weren't attacked until you began attacking. Unless you have a vested interest/relationship with said study, your behavior is off.

"attacked" and "attacking" are such strong words. I merely responded to some asinine claim that I was making appeals to authority when I wasn't, and that the study was making appeals to popular consensus, fear, and authority thru funding corruption.

PS>

It was obvious if one has ever done rigorous scientific research.

Can you make it obvious for me then and just put the thread to rest? In your next post, dismantle the article's conclusion using your methodology and evidence.

qwizoking · May 24, 2016

hyphyjoose said:
current lifestyle issues

fine ill play along,
no current lifestyle issues related..
profit off of production, no monetary constraints there. have no current cannabis dependencies

hyphyjoose · May 24, 2016

qwizoking said:
fine ill play along,
no current lifestyle issues related..
profit off of production, no monetary constraints there. have no current cannabis dependencies

who needs a cannabis dependency when you have a cocaine addiction

(nice avatar)

curious2garden · May 24, 2016

hyphyjoose said:
Nice try at smoke and mirrors. She/you/whoever originally posted about FUNDING institutions, implying confounding by funders. She mentions Jacobs Foundation by emboldening my quote when I mention their name (because of the discourse regarding supporters from the few previous posts before that). I admit I fallaciously make an EMOTIONAL APPEAL (not an AUTHORITATIVE APPEAL), but you guys continued to make "appeals to bullshit" about the study even after the Jacobs bit (plus the part about funding Confounders and the implication that it was fallacious because of this was made before i mentioned Jacobs Foundation)

And that was when he abandoned the english language

hyphyjoose · May 24, 2016

curious2garden said:
And that was when he abandoned the english language

Well, you left reason at the front door so I thought I'd let grammar wait in the car

qwizoking · May 24, 2016

hyphyjoose said:
who needs a cannabis dependency when you have a cocaine addiction (nice avatar)

thats hash :dunce:

there were a series of pics, i was making some sort of point. i think about grain boundaries a couple years back and people seem to recognize that pic as me

here are a few of the others if interested

https://www.rollitup.org/attachments/699-jpg.2848520/

and one of my favorites just cause

hyphyjoose · May 24, 2016

dandyrandy said:
I used to smoke pot. Now I snort it.

qwizoking · May 24, 2016

↑
fine ill play along,
no current lifestyle issues related..
profit off of production, no monetary constraints there. have no current cannabis dependencies
who needs a cannabis dependency when you have a cocaine addiction

(nice avatar)

14 minutes ago Report
Like

but what does your comment have to do with anything?
whether i use cocaine or not... not related to the op

hyphyjoose · May 24, 2016

qwizoking said:
thats hash

there were a series of pics, i was making some sort of point. i think about grain boundaries a couple years back and people seem to recognize that pic as me

Dude that's crazy, that's really hash in the last pic? It looks like straight up meth. BTW I wasn't trying to insult you, Sorry, didn't mean for you to take it the wrong way-I was just trying to be funny

Singlemalt are you going to dismantle this study with your methodology dude? I'm really interested in your response

qwizoking · May 24, 2016

no lol, but i have heard that and many other substances..
ive seen purple, pink, orange hash. i just use my background when producing.
you can read "qwizos qwiso" if you like for a slightly more info

tyler.durden · May 24, 2016

This thread is crunchy and delicious. Certainly 5 stars. Carry on...

WeedFreak78 · May 24, 2016

Could a big factor be that long term cannabis users have a harder time finding employment and passing random on the job drug tests? A joint could be a 30 day positive. A line of coke, 30 rack, some pills Friday night..your good Monday. Alcohol and most other drugs are easier to hide from testing.

curious2garden · May 24, 2016

hyphyjoose said:
Well, you left reason at the front door so I thought I'd let grammar wait in the car

LOL deja vu all over again, from 2011 no less, you seem to really enjoy this topic.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-asso...-health-problems-a-longitudinal-study.496899/

How was that three year hiatus?

cannabineer · May 24, 2016

curious2garden said:
LOL deja vu all over again, from 2011 no less, you seem to really enjoy this topic.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-asso...-health-problems-a-longitudinal-study.496899/

How was that three year hiatus?

And I answered and didn't remember, oh the shaaame

The Latest Study in the 'Anti-Cannabis Campaign'

Well-Known Mod

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Mod

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Mod

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Mod

Ursus marijanus

Similar threads