or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 107

post #1591 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Veen View Post

I think you ignored the word "common" in my post. "When used in small doses, no COMMON side effects have been reported with Tylenol."
Yes.

And ataxia is a common side effect of small doses of cannabis?
post #1592 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

And ataxia is a common side effect of small doses of cannabis?

In my experience, yes. But we've now strayed very far from the original message of the meme.
post #1593 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

And ataxia is a common side effect of small doses of cannabis?

One issue with your argument here is that marijuana doesn't really have the same system for reporting side effects as drugs that are available through legal means (e.g. Tylenol/acetaminophen). Generally, legal drugs like Tylenol are bound to have a wider variety of side effects reported than many illicit drugs, simply because the monitoring exists.
Given that Tylenol is probably used by a much higher percentage of the U.S. population than marijuana (just a guess), a wider variety of side effects will probably be seen (and, therefore, reported). Not to mention that the legal, social, etc. repercussions that may accompany admitting to marijuana use may cause under-reporting of marijuana use, and therefore marijuana-related side effects.
The important part is to take a look at how commonly reported those side effects are; I'm fairly sure that most of those side effects that you listed above are fairly rare, and don't occur quite often - many usually accompanying overdose, or people with concomitant conditions such as liver disease, etc.

This is not all to say that marijuana may not be more safe than Tylenol (which is possible), it's just that I think that it's very difficult to compare the two drugs in this sense.

Sorry to continue the derail.
post #1594 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwyhajlo View Post

One issue with your argument here is that marijuana doesn't really have the same system for reporting side effects as drugs that are available through legal means (e.g. Tylenol/acetaminophen). Generally, legal drugs like Tylenol are bound to have a wider variety of side effects reported than many illicit drugs, simply because the monitoring exists.
Given that Tylenol is probably used by a much higher percentage of the U.S. population than marijuana (just a guess), a wider variety of side effects will probably be seen (and, therefore, reported). Not to mention that the legal, social, etc. repercussions that may accompany admitting to marijuana use may cause under-reporting of marijuana use, and therefore marijuana-related side effects.
The important part is to take a look at how commonly reported those side effects are; I'm fairly sure that most of those side effects that you listed above are fairly rare, and don't occur quite often - many usually accompanying overdose, or people with concomitant conditions such as liver disease, etc.
This is not all to say that marijuana may not be more safe than Tylenol (which is possible), it's just that I think that it's very difficult to compare the two drugs in this sense.
Sorry to continue the derail.

100% agree.
post #1595 of 5454
Let's get the thread back on track:

post #1596 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

Let's get the thread back on track: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Sounds reasonable.
post #1597 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

[/SPOILER]
Sounds reasonable.

Perhaps, but only to those whose understanding of the American concept of "separation of church and state" is utterly lacking in both comprehensiveness and nuance.
post #1598 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

Perhaps, but only to those whose understanding of the American concept of "separation of church and state" is utterly lacking in both comprehensiveness and nuance.



People can't have a nuanced understanding, they can however comprehend nuance. Either way it doesn't require a comprehensive understanding of the American concept of "separation of church and state" to believe that the idea that churches should be subject to equal taxation is reasonable. It also doesn't require someone to agree with the idea to realise that it is reasonable.
post #1599 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

People can't have a nuanced understanding, they can however comprehend nuance. Either way it doesn't require a comprehensive understanding of the American concept of "separation of church and state" to believe that the idea that churches should be subject to equal taxation is reasonable. It also doesn't require someone to agree with the idea to realise that it is reasonable.

Except for the fact that the context in which Garfield presents his idea is the American concept of the church-state separation. He didn't say "it's reasonable to believe churches should be taxed." He said, "churches ought to be taxes because of the church-state separation." To understand why he's wrong, one must understand the concept of church-state separation much better than the person who posted that picture does.
post #1600 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

Except for the fact that the context in which Garfield presents his idea is the American concept of the church-state separation. He didn't say "it's reasonable to believe churches should be taxed." He said, "churches ought to be taxes because of the church-state separation." To understand why he's wrong, one must understand the concept of church-state separation much better than the person who posted that picture does.

Not a student of American history but are you you referring to the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause? So does the govt prohibit me from playing golf by imposing taxes on my golf club?

Also I don't agree with your interpretation of what he is saying. He is not saying that churches should be taxed because of the separation of church and state, he is saying that the separation should be extended.
post #1601 of 5454
..
post #1602 of 5454
post #1603 of 5454
post #1604 of 5454
Quote:

That is just full of lolz.

What does this one even mean:
37. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses
post #1605 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

Let's get the thread back on track:


Well you're not really taxing the nation more you're just not taxing it as much as you could be

The same bad argument could be made for any tax breaks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.