what does the data say

thats my point

if study shows that gun free zones result in more shootings then go the opposite

here in the US we are seeing more lax research towards psilocybin and LSD now, with more open access to research done in the 60s and 70s

This is good, it means we can actually make proper things for people

Or not, if we consider to be too dangerous

*if* and thats a big if

Like weed, there's the positive of canabidiol and negative of THC, but weed inevitably has both of them

Ive been following the research into CBD and THC now for well over 15 years and the general benefits to long term consequences is almost nothing compared to competing drugs in those treatment plans

And I believe in most drugs the good doesn't outweigh the bad

No one has died of a THC overdose

Yet prescribed painkillers cause the deaths of tens of thousands a year

As I said before, dying ain't the only concerning consequence

Increasing your chance of developing schizophrenia by 6 times is really fucking scary, so to speak

As someone who wants to form a family, so is getting sterile

Thats so dependent on neurology that we dont have the means to make proper determinations for the populace one way or the other

Instead the studies that have been published show those with signs and symptoms being checked, vs paranoid people

We lack data on people who report nothing

Sterility is not linked to THC

That is a scare tactic that has been repeatedly shown to be in error

Behaviors linked with high THC intake are the cause, not THC

At least chemically speaking

I'm talking about the whole drug as commonly used, not necessarily a specific composite

Also, for some reason there has been a while lot of new research being done since 2012

If we go to that epidemiological level then we can factor in a lot of compounds

I'd say that we would need at least another 20 years to start to fully comprehend the details of illegal drug usage

I wouldnt trust since 2012 given everything, Cali decriminalized and legalized medical around 1996

We should look to the data since then and the overall data over the last 15 to 20 years and patient reports

Since they're mostly illegal they didn't bother researching it a whole lot, but now that legalization is getting less rare some are actually investing in it

But there's a huge gap between 1990 and 2010 research and culturally wise

Besides, new technology

I dont agree again to that they dont research

Even with drugs being illegal WE DO RESEARCH

My lab worked often with contraband substances like psilocybin

Would either of you consider abortion as a healthcare option if it meant the mother dying but child surviving with minor defects

Never said they ain't being researched, but they're definitely not being researched enough

That I agree with, we were restricted by the very laws I say I disagree with

We need a means to pursue research, make drugs, make safer alternatives, educate people

We should really just keep the laws and deregulate research, thus keeping both the scientific and political community happy

At least for the time being

maybe, it might help

Make drug usage safer and effective but don't commercialize it but this research we are lacking on would only result in the population being the test dummy

Hence Trump's right to try act

yup

You don't try to restrict a drug to make sure the population doesn't develop an alternative stronger than what you've restricted

That's a black market

My mother was a benefit of right to try a few years back in Florida and I am grateful for it

She was in end stage breast cancer and an experimental trial came up