It is so hard to say what might drive someone to do that and what if anything can prevent it. But I don't think cannabis has a history of making people violent or aggressive. I believe alcohol stimulants and depressants like opioids can lead to depression and violence. Under the influence of pills and/or booze on a regular basis it is possible for someone to develop their own sense of reality or mentally ill or lose touch with reality I think. If they don't go outside much or stop talking to people that might be a sign but then again they might continue acting normal to everyone and hide it.
But violence is such a boundary to cross I'm not sure if pills or booze alone are enough to do that to someone. It may depend on their personal experiences and resilience/resolve without those things. Frankly it's a scary subject but that would be a good thing to do either as a public service or a test, experiment of sorts. PTSD sufferers with and without cannabis. If many use it now there's probably a reason.
I'm not able to speak for pain or chronic pain sufferers. My sympathies are with you. But just think about if all the fentanyl and opioids were done away with. How many users of vicodin valium and fentanyl are not really taking them for chronic pain? Only some can speak from experience here and if a doctor prescribes a bunch of this stuff but has not taken any or been addicted to it themself then it's a strangely motivated scenario from the get go IMO. What if the doctor is also addicted is that any better? What about the side effects and withdrawals from all of this drug addiction (prescriptions)? What about if being high on pot and refraining from (other) drugs is the most stable, sane, or least harmful of all? Except just food and water, there is a replacement or substitution here in one form or another. Although the lines or definitions are blurred.
Quite frankly if the rule book has cannabis described so negatively then that source of information cannot be trusted. What I mean is, trace the history of government information, propaganda, statements and actions with its war on drugs. Now who is it exactly pushing a new agenda? Where is the resolution between these two things? If the CBG enzyme textbook author does not give a 100 page forward on the criminal justice system and Reefer Madness history in the United States then it's not accurately depicting cannabis or doing the plant or people justice.
In diplomacy a lot of us try not to be too specific but it is now a pretty small world and in any given industry everyone can see everyone's face pretty quickly so to speak. I don't want to sound bitter but scientists or the science community at large aren't known for being open communication with the open source press. Bickering is more common, all manner of adjectives which are less friendly come to mind (secrecy instead of transparency, propriety instead of sharing, infighting or hiding information or people from one another indefinitely at any cost). This would be specifically keep to myself and leave me alone don't ask any questions keep all of this separate and secret don't tell anyone my business information. Not sure where to include this but it sticks out like a sore thumb how scientists and doctors are always pointing at pictures of molecules with no accompanying sociology report. That being people society human beings human nature etc.
The FDA talks about how much they fed a rat and how many rats died. Pause for a moment - there is a model for animal experiments where humans force feed them drugs until 1/2 of them die, and write it down to figure out how much you can feed people. Is that really a good starting point, for anything? They do not present and discuss how this drug will impact or has impacted society and benefits or consequences down the road leading to cascade effects or larger social economic effects. So is the molecule picture actually anything or is it just a distraction like a diversion play in a ball game? Separate from here have a look see how clean and well tended this is, not for a paid or bribed county inspector no but for the public anyone is free to see it. That kind of stuff does not inspire confidence it does the exact opposite crumbles trust or a relationship now spanned out over several decades.
Opioids, or heroin, are among the strongest "worst" "drugs" we know and synthetic pain medications are advertised as 10-10000X stronger than heroin. That Reefer Madness from the 1930s is so ridiculous, upon review it must be a purposeful attack in other words socially politically motivated nothing to do with facts or science. Which means that it was an orchestrated lie when it was made and released. I'm not citing that film directly but in reality that drug should be changed for heroin or cocaine or meth and it would be accurate. Instead of banning weed and having tobacco commercials for what 70-80 years before saying that tobacco is harmful. Here - your threshold for tin foil hat or optional information may vary, documents support a social, political motivated government agenda 1936-.
What do you think has happened to society as an aftermath of all manufacturing of opioids? Has anyone committed violence or theft because of, driven solely by drugs or the drug seeking behavior from addiction? How many lives would not have been ruined or lost had those pills not been manufactured? Will the drugs just flow from somewhere else across the border in the other direction? Or does more supply always lead to more addicts and suffering? It doesn't put any doctors or government officials in a comfortable spot IMO. Now with a history of being at the top of the money pile - nearly all doctors are rich, I'd say come from money, but apparently it isn't polite or encouraged to openly brag about wanting to be rich as a major goal. The physician might mention going on vacation but doesn't actually pull out the invoice or their checking statements in front of patients. There are far too many middle parties for that.
Sorry if it sounds like grandstanding from my soapbox or eccentric of the week. I feel it isn't me so much as things which need to be said, someone has to say it. Ed Rosenthal and Jorge Cervantes are authors. Sam the Skunkman is a resin breeder and DJ Short's work is in much if not most of all modern cannabis to some extent. How likely is it that they or other people on this forum have close friends connections to publish their graphs and pictures and opinions in science journals? On that note, has genetic engineering been used on cannabis like it has on corn and soy, and if so which strains varieties are these? It is a public health concern and it must be disclosed which if any cannabis has been bred with genetic engineering techniques. Using a breeding technique for a claimed benefit and then keeping it a secret from the public is dangerous. Don't say it's ok and it is better if you won't even say what it is or when and where it's happening. And then it gets complicated (or not very complicated at all) when you see that CRISPR or the new genetic engineering technique is being advertised as helping to cure cancer. So the cancer lab puts out all the toxic byproducts and takes in all the grant money and may as well be the primary cause of cancer itself at this point for all I know. And holds events sponsored by industries that make the most harmful stuff. What they are advertising as a cure for cancer, is itself the entity (or another piece) that contributed to, led us into this mess in the first place. How can anyone trust a medical system that has taken us here? We know roundup causes cancer, the science reports are lagging behind several decades from reality in the field. This is more of the same, from the same people who are not admitting roundup causes cancer. In very simple terms, no convolution of definitions.
Last edited by Mengsk; 11-10-2018 at 11:18 PM..