Slashdot Mirror


Bad Reporting, Not Email, Worse Than Marijuana

MoNickels writes "Turns out, those endless news reports and blog entries in April about "texting makes you stupid" were inaccurate. As linguist Mark Liberman at LanguageLog now reports by way of apologizing to Wilson, it wasn't Wilson's fault, but that of "rotten science journalism." Psychologist Glenn Wilson was reported to have done a study said that chat and email, as the Guardian put it, "are a greater threat to IQ and concentration than taking cannabis." But Wilson says, "This...is a temporary distraction effect—not a permanent loss of IQ. The equivalences with smoking pot and losing sleep were made by others, against my counsel, and 8 [subjects] somehow became '80 clinical trials.'" The original Slashdot story was covered back in April."

290 comments

  1. Finally... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 3, Insightful

    /. admits they made a mistake...

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    1. Re:Finally... by Propagandhi · · Score: 5, Funny

      But did they admit their mistake soon enough? I've been smoking pot 24/7 since that article ran (/. told me it was OK!) and now I may be severely retarded. Any other nerds in my boat?

      Man.. I've really gotta stop trusting everything I read on the internets, someday this is gonna get me in trouble. ..

      Oh well, I'll always have those free Xboxes and iPods I won...

    2. Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the dupe will be along shortly.

    3. Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Slashdot admitted somebody else made a mistake. If they were admitting their own mistake, it'd read more like, "Not going well. Appreciate all the hate mail. Really encourages improvement."

    4. Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pot does not make you retar

    5. Re:Finally... by DenDave · · Score: 1

      I suspect that because /. told you to smoke pot you could sue them and make Million$!!
      Then you could sit back and smoke pot till the end of your days....

      --
      -if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
    6. Re:Finally... by Hosiah · · Score: 3, Funny
      smoking pot 24/7 since that article ran

      On the plus side, you can program in Lisp, now.

  2. The Reason by cached · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The reason that such things occur i because I think that we can not do much about media sensationalism or the scientific ignorance of many journalists. On the other hand , there's no reason why better information about science and technology should not also be available to the public.

    --
    +1 funny, -2 overrated. Life isn't fair.
    1. Re:The Reason by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      If we want real scientific information to be available to the masses, we should get the scientific journals to publish their material online for free. There's probably a lot of highschools, and maybe some colleges and universities who don't have proper research material, such as access to current scientific journals. I don't see why scientific journals have to only be for those who are paying. If you're only choice for free science news is Fox, then that's what you'll have to settle for.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:The Reason by PlacidPundit · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The reason that such things occur i because I think that we can not do much about media sensationalism or the scientific ignorance of many journalists.

      Well, what we really need to be able to fix is ignorant journalists who think they know everything. Which is about 99% of them.

    3. Re:The Reason by rjshields · · Score: 1

      I think the saying "knowlegde is knowing you don't know everything" is particularly apt in this case.

      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    4. Re:The Reason by sznupi · · Score: 1

      That, and igonarnce of mainstream readers. Plus - the thing that they want to read such things. "Oh, look matey, those geeks aren't as smart as us after all!"

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:The Reason by StressedEd · · Score: 1

      If we want real scientific information to be available to the masses, we should get the scientific journals to publish their material online for free.

      Good luck. Someone has to pay. If you want to do that you will need an author pays model, such as in Optics Express. Alternatively you could go to the arXiv, of course there, you won't get the "benefit" of peer review.

      Then, not being scientificly trained in the appropriate field, how do you make any sense of what you are reading?

      It's not such an easy problem to solve.

      --
      Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
    6. Re:The Reason by dusik · · Score: 1

      You don't know what you're talking about!

    7. Re:The Reason by PlacidPundit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep. But our media has a massive ego to keep inflated. That kind of approach would just get in the way.

  3. Why report good? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why report properly when this means that you'll be scooped-up by a botching competitor?

    Media don't sell news, they sell eyeballs. When you buy a paper, you're the product and not the client.

    1. Re:Why report good? by Miguel+de+Icaza · · Score: 2, Funny

      "they sell eyeballs. When you buy a paper, you're the product and not the client."

      ditto for this place

      --
      Before adopting WHATWG, read the moonlight.NET EULA [http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx]
  4. In other news by NoGuffCheck · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Slashdot to rebrand:

    Slashdot. Rotten Science Journalism for Nerds. Dupes? Yeah we got 'em.

    --
    serenity now!
    1. Re:In other news by mysqlrocks · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or how about, "Reading Slashdot, Worse Than Marijuana".

  5. I smoke pot 24/7... by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... And aye dont feal any more stupider.

    --
    Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
    1. Re:I smoke pot 24/7... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You don't smoke pot. But you are stupid.

    2. Re:I smoke pot 24/7... by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 2, Funny

      How can you make two, very significant, assertions based on one joke posted on the internet?

      --
      Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
    3. Re:I smoke pot 24/7... by Jambon · · Score: 2, Funny
      And aye dont feal any more stupider.

      OMG Reelly? cuz liek ive ben IMing tuuuunz of peepl fer sooooo long and liek I think its reelly helpt mee wiht liek skool and stuph...lol 8)

    4. Re:I smoke pot 24/7... by rm69990 · · Score: 1

      LOL! So true

    5. Re:I smoke pot 24/7... by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Perhaps I will initiate use of an instant messaging client and protocol pair with my colleagues to prepare for the upcoming Galois theory of groups of m-differentiable manifolds of the Cantor space examination.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    6. Re:I smoke pot 24/7... by hitchhacker · · Score: 1


      The joke is only funny to those who have bought the propaganda being distributed about marijuana. People that accept information without consideration, in my opinion, are stupid.

      -metric

    7. Re:I smoke pot 24/7... by RumpledElf · · Score: 1

      You lie. I work with people like you and they don't even use email, let alone IMs. It would never work. Maths people are ... strange. However, one could deduce that it is *because* they don't use IMs that they are such brainiacs (we have a few here that don't even have televisions).

      BTW I just quit, so if you want a job where you can do math stuff all day, and you can teleport over here to Australia, you can have my old job ;)

      --
      An Australian MMORPG under development - http://restlessworld.hidden-waters.com
  6. really that bad? by fredistheking · · Score: 2, Funny

    But the real question is whether causal marijuana usage really has a lasting effect on your IQ.

    1. Re:really that bad? by Sorthum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That depends entirely on who funds the study. :)

    2. Re:really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude! ...and even whether causal marijuana usage really has a lasting effect on your IQ...

    3. Re:really that bad? by Peyna · · Score: 3, Interesting

      http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2140

      Of course, how many pot smokers do you know that just give up and quit?

      --
      What?
    4. Re:really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone I know who smoked in their twenties and is now in their thirties / fourties. At least ten people...

    5. Re:really that bad? by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I knew this one girl in my high school who had some SERIOUS concentration problems after smoking pot for a while.

      Freshmen year she was on the all Honors / A.P. course track, and by senior year she was in all the "Basic Remedial XYZ for dummies" courses. She talked a bunch of people out of smoking pot after she stopped.

      I try not to judge people, but it wasn't worth risking to me.

    6. Re:really that bad? by khayman80 · · Score: 5, Informative
      I've got another journal article (from the American Journal of Epidemiology) regarding this topic: http://www.ukcia.org/research/CannabisUseAndCognit iveDecline.html

      Long story short: a study involving repeated IQ tests of nearly 1400 participants over a time period of 12 years showed absolutely no statistical correlation between marijuana use and cognitive ability.

    7. Re:really that bad? by ZiakII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, how many pot smokers do you know that just give up and quit?

      probally close to 300+

      but then again I'm in the miltary

    8. Re:really that bad? by sm00f · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've just gave up and quit multiple times myself, you might feel a bit edgey and bitchy for 2-3 days after but then you are fine, not any worse than caffeine withdrawal IMO. of course if I had the $ and a good supply I'd never quit because marijuana gives me brilliant ideas and more creativity for my job.

    9. Re:really that bad? by fredistheking · · Score: 1

      And I have smoked since I was 15. Got As in HS before and after the fact. Got As in college and a BS is EE.

    10. Re:really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Causal use? As far as I know, people always get high after they smoke, rather than before. ;)

    11. Re:really that bad? by ZiakII · · Score: 1

      sorry typo "military"

    12. Re:really that bad? by jkauzlar · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I'd heard this about Carl Sagan and just looked it up in Wikipedia:
      Carl Sagan was an avid user of marijuana, although he never publicly admitted it during his life[4]. Under the pseudonym "Mr. X," he wrote an essay concerning cannabis smoking in the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered, whose editor was Lester Grinspoon. In the essay, Sagan commented that marijuana encouraged some of his works and enhanced experiences. After Sagan's death, Grinspoon disclosed this to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson. When the biography, entitled Carl Sagan: A Life, was published in 1999, the marijuana exposure stirred some media attention.

      I remember in college having roommates who would do just about everything, including homework, while stoned. Personally, I could never remember the details of a movie I'd watched while stoned, so I can't imagine it could be good for schoolwork. Most of the potheads I knew never made it far, and some are doing really great, but Carl Sagan and scores of successful writers (like the entire beat generation from the 50's & 60's) have shown that pot doesn't have to make you stupid if you're motivated to begin with.

      If you ever listen to Dr. Drew on radio loveline you know they can tell a pothead, even if he isn't stoned, from the initial drawl of their 'hello.' The apparent IQ effect on potheads probably has a lot to do on the kind of people smoking it and where their priorities lie.

    13. Re:really that bad? by SiMac · · Score: 1

      It's called "medium-term" cognitive impairment. It disappears after at most 6 weeks.

      It's much worse for some than others.

      There's evidence saying there is none or a statistically insignificant effect of marijuana usage on IQ. There are also plenty of aspects of the thought process an IQ test doesn't measure, like, say, short-term memory, so this can't be taken as conclusive evidence that marijuana isn't harmful to the brain.

      Now, on the other hand, psychosis is indeed a serious, proven, permanent risk of pot-smoking.

    14. Re:really that bad? by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 1
      Hey, they're your brain cells to risk.

      I told you, no judgements, just a little personal story...

    15. Re:really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Difficult to quantify that question. I am an big marijuana smoker, not just casual, and continue to score 140 or above on several IQ tests.

      Then again, maybe I'm a special case and in no way representative of the aggregate of either abusive or casual pot smokers with relation to the effects of drug use on IQ. While in college, I got stoned *a lot* and discovered that, when stoned, I really became absorbed with my lessons in calculus and philosophy, and in both I excelled - but my intrest in other subjects became weak to nonexistant when I got stoned, and because I got stoned so much I did not excell in those other subjects. Much like my roomates who, when stoned, would rather watch cartoons than study the "trippy" derivatives and "cool" essays by Thomas Jefferson, Richard Nixon, Descartes, Nieche, or Plato.

      (Yes, I know; Plato didn't actually write any essays....)

      As well, there are many other factors which has effect on IQ scores. Plus, IQ tests aren't an accurate measurement of intelligence in the first place.

    16. Re:really that bad? by justin12345 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Correlation is not causality.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    17. Re:really that bad? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      You missed a little something. The percentage of the risk. One or ninety? Makes a huge difference.

      1. a mental disorder characterized by symptoms, such as delusions or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact with reality.
      2. any severe form of mental disorder, as schizophrenia or paranoia.

      Given that psychosis is somewhat severe (above), and a decent percentage of the population smokes, I'd guess on the lower percentage.

    18. Re:really that bad? by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      I had to quit cause I got so annoyed by the people who clearing are acting the experience instead of enjoying it. That's even more annoying than knowing people are mixing the ounce with lawn grass.

    19. Re:really that bad? by ToxicBanjo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can confirm that.
      I'm a successful software developer and IT admin with a long standing contract with a multi-million dollar company and I have been smoking pot off and on for 15 years. I have seen a lack of concentration while I'm high but nothing in regards to loss of mental capacity in the long run.
      In fact, some of my most creative work has been while I was intoxicated.
      I'm also a long time sufferer of Migraine with Aura and have not only noticed a decline in frequency but also a significant decline in intensity of my Migraine attacks. I firmly believe this is a direct result of cannibis. It used to be common for me to be prescribed opiates for pain management and now I don't need to put my body through that kind of trauma. The physical effects of Percacet, Morphine, Codeine, etc far outway the benefits imho.
      I think the distinction needs to be made though that I'm not an abuser of substances, I don't smoke cigarettes, I don't drink, and my pot use is confined to my house and the evenings when I'm finished work. Some people have a beer afterwork, I have a joint.
      I don't endorse use as it can become a problem, but I also think that governments and medical practitioners should seriously look at marijuana law reform. I'm an adult and I should have the right to do what I want provided I don't hurt anyone else in the process, besides, alcohol or cigarettes kill more people each year than pot ever could. I'm not saying we should have the right to take any drug, but I think anyone who has smoked pot at one time in their life can agree that its "government endorsed" distinction as a life destroyer is totally unfounded.
      Just my $0.02

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
    20. Re:really that bad? by smchris · · Score: 1

      I took one of those one-day/one-credit courses from Andrew Weil, http://www.drweil.com/ , before he metamorphed into the alternative health dude and was still known as the post-Tim Leary drug researcher.

      He told us about the early research he participated in that showed people can learn to compensate for the effects of marijuana and show little statistical difference from controls in a driving simulator. Grant didn't get renewed to pursue that line further. He said that in itself was a lesson learned.

    21. Re:really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, lots!

      Among my friends I think just about everyone smoked marijuana casually (meaning once a week, tops) at some time in their life, and some still do. None of these people are or were addicted, and none has had trouble quitting, either for good or for very long periods of time (which is more than I can say for cigarettes).
      I smoked pot casually in my late teens, then quit for several years (well, except for very special occasions, like once or twice a year), not because I felt like I had a problem, but because I didn't really feel like smoking anymore. In the last couple of years I've started smoking again, not because I need to or because I lost my job or something, but because I feel like it, and I enjoy it. It's that simple.

      I think a lot of people who've never smoked pot has a mental picture of people who has that is way off. A lot (most) of us are just regular people who just like smoking an occasional joint.

      Sure, smoking every day will most likely fuck you up, and I've seen it happen, but so will getting drunk every day, and I've seen that happen too.

    22. Re:really that bad? by oh_bugger · · Score: 2, Funny
      I've just gave up and quit multiple times myself

      Good job on that

      --
      Go home and shave your giant head of smell with your bad self
    23. Re:really that bad? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "nearly 1400"

      Actually, it was only about 700. Not it wasn't! Yes it was!!

    24. Re:really that bad? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Correction: Correlation is not NECESSARILY causality. But it MIGHT be.

    25. Re:really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you aren't one of them?

    26. Re:really that bad? by ZiakII · · Score: 1

      And you aren't one of them?

      Belive it or not I have not once smoked pot and I never really regret it

    27. Re:really that bad? by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      Ok, fair enough. How about:

      Correlation does not imply causality.

      And I want it legally mandated that this disclaimer be attached to every crapola "scientific" news article where the author is doing just the opposite.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    28. Re:really that bad? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Severe depression can also cause sudden failure in school, and
      drug use of any kind is often associated with depression. It is
      likely that she is using marijuana as a scapegoat, people love
      blaming their problems on drugs.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    29. Re:really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please be understanding... correlation does not imply causation.

      there was a period in my life when i went from honours student to skipping class, getting high all the time, fucking off school, and watching my marks drop like a stone.

      was it the pot? it probably didn't help. but the fact that it became increasingly clear that my dad was fucking other women and my home had become somewhere i didn't want to be was more likely.

      pot was an escape. not the cause. im now in a very good university, far away, funded by divorce money. woot. and i do enjoy the odd sticky bud now and then.

    30. Re:really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, you can't actually write intelligible English, but who am I to judge?

    31. Re:really that bad? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      They do?

      I don't know, but far more common around here is "blaming your problems" on depression, rather than "I'm failing because I've turned into a total pothead."

    32. Re:really that bad? by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. You don't turn into a "total pothead" unless you have other problems. I've tried all sorts of drugs, but I've never seen the attraction in using any of them regularly.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    33. Re:really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, on the other hand, attribute my personal and academic successes to drugs. Those people who vehemently believe all drugs are evil and can't handle a story saying otherwise like that, stop reading now.I used to be plagued with severe anxiety based social problems (never had more than 1-2 friends at a time from the 4th grade and throughout most of high school), had a complete lack of motivation (which had no effect on my grades since I'm exceptionally intelligent (99.97th percentile) until I got to college where I actually had to pay attention and study), and complete inability to focus (ADD/I, for which doctors refused to prescribe stimulants because of a strong family history of heart problems on both sides and me being overweight); and depression that was understandably caused by all of this. 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation SSRIs did nothing for depression or anxiety. Benzodiazepines (Valium, Xanax, Klonopin) I was prescribed, and alcohol which acts the same way (GABA agonists), only made my social phobia worse since I was so focused on compensating for my impairment I just shut down so I didn't do anything stupid, and made me extremely tired because of comorbid chronic fatigue syndrome.
      Since legitimate medical channels, and socially acceptable alcohol made absolutely no difference, I turned to drugs. Marijuana has little to no effect on me. So, I started doing other drugs. Hard drugs. Cocaine, OxyContin, and later, heroin and methamphetamine. I soon found myself able to function normally in social situations, made alot of friends (mostly non-users, not drug friends), and actually dated for the first time my sophomore year of college, and found myself very motivated to succeed and able to put in the concentration and effort my neuroscience major entailed, and able to be awake enough to get things done. My GPA went up, alot. I've been regularly using hard drugs for 4 years now, and they've had nothing but a strong positive impact on every aspect of my life: personal, social, and academic. There have been no deleterious effects on my health.
      I'm not saying drugs are great and everybody should use them. Obviously, alot of people who regularly take the stronger drugs end up with lots of problems and it ruins their lives. The key is moderation. In moderation, even the stronger drugs can help your life, particularly when you have debilitating problems that are not helped by traditional methods. I've never stolen or commited any other crime to get, or while on, anything; and unless I'm out at a club or other party, I never dose high enough to actually be impaired/otherwise f*d up. I'm far more impaired if I'm not on something.

      The point of this is, with everyone always associating drugs with losers, and as the parent was talking about people always blaming their problems on drugs, and drugs being responsible for all these social ills, I just wanted to provide everyone with an experience with drugs that has actually been extremely positive, something government propaganda and deep rooted social stereotypes would have you think is absolutely impossible and never has happened. Even hard drugs do have a beneficial impact on peoples lives especially people like me with dopamine deficiences that all these drugs boost, so long as they continue to exercise control over their use, which many are able to do, but certainly many are not (statistically, the vast majority of users of all drugs, including hard drugs, are not addicts, according to the NSDUH).
      Drugs are not bad (even hard drugs). Excessive use is bad. For me it was better to be a happy and successful druggie, than a constantly antisocial unmotivated non-user who was tired all the time and never able to do anything with his intelligence. IMO, anything who blindly thinks any and all drug use is immoral and users should just be sent to jail, has obviously never looked beyond the stereotypical gutter trash junkies and crack-addicted muggers, and the misconception that intelligent successful people can't be hard drug users.

    34. Re:really that bad? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      What are you referring to with regards to opiates?

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    35. Re:really that bad? by njyoder · · Score: 1

      Actually, they did find a correlation, they just dismissed it as cognitive decline as being due to age rather than marijuana use. They even admit the test they used isn't that sensitive to measuring cognitive decline. Guess you should read the study you paste :-(

    36. Re:really that bad? by khayman80 · · Score: 1
      Actually, they did find a correlation, they just dismissed it as cognitive decline as being due to age rather than marijuana use.

      The point is that cognitive decline occurs in every group (nonusers, light users, heavy users) to the same degree within the bounds of experimental uncertainty. In fact, if you'll notice right under table 3, you'll see this direct quote:

      "Both light and heavy users of cannabis evidenced less cognitive decline than nonusers, although this finding was not statistically significant at the conventional level of p (less than) 0.05 (model 1). After adjustment for the other variables in models 2-4, there was no association between cannabis use and cognitive decline."

      They even admit the test they used isn't that sensitive to measuring cognitive decline.

      I think what they mean is that they would like to be using an MRI on the subjects while testing them to look for evidence of decreased brain activity that wouldn't be revealed in a simple scantron-like test. Or, possibly, they mean that there are other written tests available that are "better" (though I'm not sure how to quantify how exactly the test could be better) but that they didn't use for some reason. For instance, the "better" test might have been longer, thus serving to discourage people from signing up for the study and as a result decreasing the statistical validity of their results.

      In any event, I wouldn't read that statement as a disavowal of the results. This type of self-doubt is extremely common in scientific journals- any scientist worth his salt lists all the problems with his experiment that he can see by himself. And, yes, IAAPSS (I am a pot smoking scientist).

    37. Re:really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nice to read the results of studies, but knowing a few "burnouts" makes me doubt their findings.

    38. Re:really that bad? by kendallemm · · Score: 1

      Those burnouts are usually people who are doing many more drugs than just marijuana.

    39. Re:really that bad? by hitchhacker · · Score: 1
    40. Re:really that bad? by syukton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      of course if I had the $ and a good supply I'd never quit because marijuana gives me brilliant ideas and more creativity for my job.

      I agree 100% with this statement. Lester Grinspoon MD, a former Harvard professor and all-around genius, has some things to say about his first experiences with marijuana, when he was in his 40s. He came to the conclusion that everything should be thought about both stoned and straight, in order to gain a great deal of perspective on any matter.

      Marijuana effects everyone differently. Take into consideration as well that genetically, there are many different types ("strains") of Marijuana, which carry effects related to their genetic disposition. There are two main families of marijuana, Sativa and Indica. Sativa varieties are native to the equatorial regions in what would largely be considered tropical climates. North Africa, Vietnam, Thailand. Sativa varieties provide what is often called a "mental" high, a very uplifting and energetic feeling combined with inspirations and new ideas. Sativa varieties tend to be very tall and branchy with limited flower (bud, marijuana) production, which dramatically affects yields. Sativa connoisseurs however are always willing to sacrifice quantity for quality. Indica varieties are from places like Afghanistan, Turkey, Pakistan, more mountainous regions with higher elevations. Indica varieties tend to grow short and fat, shaped like a christmas tree. Indica varieties produce more flowers than Sativa varieties. Indica varieties provide a "body" high, with amplification of physical sensation, it makes you sleepy, it makes you just want to sit still. Most commercial marijuana is hybridized between these two main types of Marijauna, optimized for high and yield.

      The point I'm getting at with the above paragraph is that commercial pot is sometimes a crap shoot when it comes to the effect, and since the effect generated is one generated through hybridization, the mix of cannabinoids may (and often does) affect different people differently. I know people who can't think straight ("maintain") while influenced by marijuana, and then there's people like me who don't even miss a beat.

      I find marijuana carries one detriment that I must acknowledge: my short-term memory does suffer in terms of capacity and recollection ability, but I have a voice recorder to compensate for that, leaving me with oodles of insight and perspective with few recognizable detrimental side-effects.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    41. Re:really that bad? by localman · · Score: 1

      marijuana gives me brilliant ideas and more creativity for my job.

      No, it doesn't. And I have nothing against anyone smoking pot for fun (I regularly donate to both NORML and MPP, in fact). But I know a lot of potheads and a lot of non-potheads. And I can't see any trend that indicates pot makes people more creative. It seems to make people feel more creative, which is great for the person smoking the pot. But the most truly creative people I know are usually drug free.

      I suppose you could argue that those creative drug free types would be even more creative with pot. But my creative druggie friends seem about the same level of creativity before and after. They just view themselves as more creative. I guess maybe if your limitation is your own negative view of your work, then it can help eliminate that barrier for you, but your output isn't actually any better, I don't think.

      All anecdotal, but so are most pot theories :)

      Cheers. Enjoy a bowl.

    42. Re:really that bad? by rjshields · · Score: 2

      Don't call people who smoke pot "druggies". It's not fair to tar them with the same brush as heroin and cocaine addicts. How would you like it if I called you an "alcie" or a "druggie" because you enjoy a beer at the weekend?

      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    43. Re:really that bad? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      Hardly statistically rigorous, but I've known probably over a hundred people who smoked pot regularly, and only one of them (in fact, the only case I ever even heard of) was diagnosed with cannabis psychosis.

      This particular person was apparently already emotionally disturbed before he started smoking, and used to smoke about an eighth of skunk pretty much every day.

      So yeah, from my direct experience you're looking at around a 1% chance, if you're already disturbed and smoking enough every day to get about ten people high. If you factor in the fact that "newsworthy" occasions like this tend to get gossiped about a fair bit (and so you'd presume I'd have at least heard about other cases, e.g. involving friends-of-friends), probably a lot less even than that...

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    44. Re:really that bad? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Being stoned all the time is obviously a stupid idea. I sometimes get the impression that American potheads smoke it all day long. In Netherland (where it's legal) most people I know only smoke pot on parties or in weekends. I assume Carl Sagan didn't smoke it 24/7 either.

      The point is to use it in moderation. Too much of anything is always bad. Compare with alcohol: a single glass of alcohol per day is actually good for your health. Being drunk all the time certainly isn't.

    45. Re:really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as an occasional user, I have no problem up and quitting. I'm fairly casual with it. I have more problems leaving my tea behind, including an extreme black cloud over my head.

    46. Re:really that bad? by Mike+Markley · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I did the same thing, and, in fact, barely qualified to graduate; however, I didn't touch pot for the first time until well after high school, and I only touched booze once before graduating (and that was during a summer break). Anecdotes are nice but prove little.

      With that said, someone without a particular interest in smoking pot who doesn't do so probably isn't missing out on much. I doubt it's any big loss if the guy's turned off to the stuff.

    47. Re:really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you feel qualified to comment whilst knowing nothing about a subject? You don't even smoke cannabis yourself. Nice job, asshole.

    48. Re:really that bad? by deathCon4 · · Score: 1

      US Doctors did tons of studies back in the 60's on the effects of THC (active ingredient) on the human body, and found that it did nothing more then make people laugh and fall asleep. However, there is no denying the negative effects of smoking ANY product, cigarettes, pot, crack, etc., it all destroys your insides.

    49. Re:really that bad? by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      Anyone notice that the guys name in that article was Peter Fried?

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    50. Re:really that bad? by ScottyH · · Score: 1

      I gave it up and quit. Haven't smoked in years, but all my friends still do.

    51. Re:really that bad? by localman · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I intended it in a facetious manner. You know, like the term was used in high school. I hoped the rest of my post revealed that while I don't think pot is a cure-all as it is sometimes promoted, I also think that it is a safe and should be legalized.

      Cheers.

    52. Re:really that bad? by rjshields · · Score: 1

      It's certainly not a cure all, but yes I think it is fairly safe (as long as you're not driving or operating machinery, etc!).

      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    53. Re:really that bad? by localman · · Score: 1

      How do I "know nothing about the subject"? Because I haven't tried it myself? Have you tried being president of the United States? Do you ever give your opinions on the topic?

      You are right that I don't smoke, but I am a pro-cannabis activist. Are you? How much money and effort have you put into legalizing marijuana this year? Do you work to present a balanced view of marijuana in the public eye? Or do you just go around calling people "asshole"?

      Cheers.

    54. Re:really that bad? by aug24 · · Score: 1

      Count me another one... got bored of it after about sixteen years of getting stoned every single night. That's a few Js every single night for sixteen years, then I just stopped with no problems doing so. FYI, the only effect I noticed was EXTREMELY vivid dreams for a month or so.

      I'm still earning lots, still considered damn clever... still got an ego the size of Madagascar ;-)

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    55. Re:really that bad? by buckthorn · · Score: 1

      I'm an adult and I should have the right to do what I want provided I don't hurt anyone else in the process, besides, alcohol or cigarettes kill more people each year than pot ever could

      I love that both of these thoughts are expressed in the same sentence.

      Not a commentary on anything but the irony.

    56. Re:really that bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because it's difficult to explain without writing a paragraph. Go read the article about early onset cannabis use and a functional polymorphism in the COMT gene in the Journal of Biological Psychiatry.

    57. Re:really that bad? by SiMac · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, for most people you can't trace the psychosis to cannabis smoking.

      It's all related to how much you smoke early in your life (adult cannabis use appears to have no effect) and your genetic makeup.

      It is not always evident that marijuana has caused the psychosis. The study I'm referring to traced the first 25 years of the lives of 1000 individuals. It only shows correlation and not causation, but if you read the study, it's quite difficult to provide an alternative explanation for the discrepency in rates of schizophreniform disorder.

    58. Re:really that bad? by huiac · · Score: 1

      Some things you should bear in mind to go along with your argument:

          - Schizophrenia is a 'young person's' disease: the greater majority (80% rings a bell) of 'regular' schizophrenia manifests in juveniles or young adults, so it's not clear whether a reduced risk in adults is in any way peculiar to a cannabis-induced psychosis;

          - There's substantial evidence for 'self-medication' in both diagnosed and undiagnosed schizophrenics - their 'real world' may be so confused and distressing that anything that reduces their anxiety, or their awareness of and sense of personal involvement in their daily life, may be very attractive; this makes it hard to distinguish a drug-induced psychosis from an existing one that is either aggravated by drug use, or simply accompanied by self-medication.

      You don't specify which study you're referring to, but some such studies have been criticised for poor sampling; e.g., selecting their sample from a group that has already received psychiatric treatment.

      That's not to say you're wrong or right, but to point out that science in this area is difficult to produce and interpret for many reasons.

      John.

    59. Re:really that bad? by sm00f · · Score: 1

      Yes it does give me great ideas and creativity, maybe you should try it sometime. I write all the things down that I "figure out" when im high. When im totally sober and read those thoughts the next morning It amazes me at what detail they go into. Pot seems to directly influence whatever parts of your mind control "pattern recognition" and "creativity" if you ask me. It also seems to connect your body to your mind so you can actually understand what the previous sentence means. I think the government is absolutely terrified of marijuana for precisely these reasons that it seems to make most people think in abstract / more complex ways (ie not easily brainwashed thru the crappy media). Of course there always the 50% of stoners that are just smoking it because they think it "makes them cool" or they want to "avoid reality"... But I really think 1/2 of us "stoners" are intellectuals that realize how marijuana can open your mind to possibilities not seen before.

    60. Re:really that bad? by sm00f · · Score: 1

      Just have to say I loved your post above and wish I could mod it up! there are many positive things marijuana can bring you if you let it (ie not staring at the idiot box tv or something vs actually thinking about things or try to do some creative work.) But I totally agree it has the downside of temporary short term memory problems (get a pen and paper to write what you think down when you are high) And don't forget the evil munchies lol that doesnt help me out much either. But I love the insight / abstract thinking I can obtain after smoking. I just write my ideas / thoughts down if waranted and then the next morning re-read then and be simply amazed. I can also completely understand where jazz players back in the 30's-50's or so (some of the first big time pot smokers) would say they could just "pluck music out of the air". It definately enances my ability to enjoy and if i knew how create music. But i haven't really tried creating any... yet.

    61. Re:really that bad? by sm00f · · Score: 1

      I'd have to say it seems to be MUCH better than any pharmaceutical anti-depressant drug out there... pretty much everybody i know that smokes it is 100% totally happy laughing every 5 minutes no matter how messed up they were to start with.

    62. Re:really that bad? by localman · · Score: 1

      I tell myself I'll try it when I'm bored with the straight options. As it is I write down all the things I "figure out" when I'm straight. I read those thoughts the next morning and it amazes me all the detail I go into ;)

      If it works for you, keep using it. I certainly agree that many intellectuals use pot as a means to get in touch with different ideas. I guess the thing is that they usually seem about as clever from the outside when they're straight as when their high. Thus my comment.

      In any case, best of luck to you.

      Cheers.

    63. Re:really that bad? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "That's not to say you're wrong or right, but to point out that science in this area is difficult to produce and interpret for many reasons."

      Not least of which because drugs' very illegality makes studying the users and effects massively harder.

      And the fact that, since the 1950s at least, the US government has spent billions telling people pot (for example) provably leads to everything from rape to murder to psychosis to funding terrorism. To now publically back down and actually scientifically examine if they were baselessly bullshitting the populace for the last half-century (in fact, initally for purely economic reasons) would be a credibility and PR catastrophe, not least of which because of the millions who've grown up in the mean-time believing every word they were told on the subject.

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
  7. The real problem? by GenKreton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems that regardless of how many mistakes are made in scientific journalism that the root cause of the problem will never be addressed.

    As long as money is the motivation for making and reporting discoveries, we will have skewed results (actual and/or reported) and our efforts may, more often than not, be focused in the wrong directions.

    Are the days of curiosity forcing advances in science and eagerness to discover and learn promoting good journalism and sharing over with?

    1. Re:The real problem? by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Insightful


      As long as money is the motivation for making and reporting discoveries, we will have skewed results (actual and/or reported) and our efforts may, more often than not, be focused in the wrong directions.

      I think you're got it a bit wrong. The problem isn't that money is the object, the problem is that the way to get that money (at least for mainstream media) is to get eyes and ears of consumers reading/watching/listening. The facts don't matter to that end, and are hard to discover when they're wrong. There's little motivation to get the story right because the market for science reporting is small. Stories aren't corrected tommorow, tommorow there's another story. Hell, a lot of the time even the mainstream stories are dead wrong, just look at what happened to Dan Rather. Even when the media reports that it's dead wrong, the motivation is still finding eyeballs and ears, not fixing mistakes.

      --
      AccountKiller
  8. Email vs. Marijuana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is a non-issue to realize that most of the modern day losses in productivity come from distracted workers using the internet for personal pleasure rather than company projects. This distraction effort splits the focus of the individual and causes a decrease in the finite amount of cognitive processing ability given to any one task. Marijuana on the other hand results in modification of the reward pathway system in the brain. So there is an actually psychochemical difference in the brain which leads to addiction. Between the two, marijuana actually modifies the brain negatively while email only distracts. I really wish these people had taken the time to realize this before putting out a sensationalist piece of work.

    -----

    Wow... just Wow

    1. Re:Email vs. Marijuana by reidbold · · Score: 1

      Reference, or makin' shit up?

      --
      -Reid
    2. Re:Email vs. Marijuana by centipetalforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      PArtially correct... marijuana does alter the reward pathway system in the brain. But it depends on the person who's using it whether it's a negative or positive effect. Me, when I smoke I become extremely motivated to finish something I started, and this has had a a hugely positive effect on my life, as I have become self employed and live a comfortable lifesyle thanks to ganja. And you are wrong about it being addicting... it is indeed habit forming but with moderation a person can smoke every day for years (like I have) and give it up for months when necessary with no ill effect whatever (like I have).

    3. Re:Email vs. Marijuana by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Marijuana on the other hand results in modification of the reward pathway system in the brain. So there is an actually psychochemical difference in the brain which leads to addiction.

      Marijuana isn't addictive.

      Between the two, marijuana actually modifies the brain negatively while email only distracts.

      Marijuana does not modify the brain. It affects it yes, but once it's gone the brain
      is the same. Also, an adverse effect on attention does not preclude other positive
      effects. For instance it has positive effects on mood and creativity. Also, distraction has physical effects on your brain. Every thought you have corresponds to physical activity in the brain.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Email vs. Marijuana by g0at · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Marijuana? Addiction? Show me some proof.

      I smoke weed from time to time. I sure ain't addicted.

      -ben

    5. Re:Email vs. Marijuana by tdsanchez · · Score: 1

      You don't think that constant (over) consumption of our modern pop culture isn't addictive? Ever known anyone who had their broadband cut off or whose PS2 broke? Contant exposure to general media, including images of sex, death, power and wealth possesed by others don't affect our reward system?

      When men see someone they are sexually attracted to, their pupils dialate, their dopamine goes into overdrive, and their short term memory is affected. Men spend billions on prositutes and titty dancers. Sounds just like a drug to me. And you can bet the reward systems of a sex addict or gambler (or internet user) are different from that of a 'normal' human.

      There are more simliarities between living in our materialistic culture and a simple chemical intoxication/addiction than you think.

    6. Re:Email vs. Marijuana by evildogeye · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Marijuana isn't addictive.


      American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV doesn't require drug users to go through withdrawal in order to classify them as addicts. Instead, the criteria for what is called "drug dependence" looks how deeply people are immersed in drug use, for its negative consequences for their lives, and for its disturbances of their normal life functioning, including family, work, and health.


      Marijuana does not modify the brain. It affects it yes, but once it's gone the brain
      is the same


      Although science is not absolutely conclusive on this, it is fairly clear that Marijuana usage does permanently modify the brain to some extent. Once it is gone, the brain may be similar, but it is definitely not the same. As people age, they normally lose neurons in the hippocampus, which decreases their ability to remember events. Chronic THC exposure may probably hastens the age-related loss of hippocampal neurons. In one series of studies, rats exposed to THC every day for 8 months (approximately 30 percent of their lifespan), when examined at 11 to 12 months of age, showed nerve cell loss equivalent to that of unexposed animals twice their age

      Study

    7. Re:Email vs. Marijuana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marijuana most definetely is addictive. Mostly mind-addiction, but some cases of physical addiction are known. Have a look at the article on jellinek http://www.jellinek.nl/vraagenantwoord/full-story. php?q=508&id=3[NL] http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pag econtent?lp=nl_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jellinek.nl %2Fvraagenantwoord%2Ffull-story.php%3Fq%3D508%26id %3D3 [fished] about this subject.

    8. Re:Email vs. Marijuana by bogado · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If marijuana is or isn't addictive is a no issue, it is a fact that alcohol and nicotine are both addictive and they are perfectly legal in most countries. Some people feel that we should persecute those who smoke or drink and phase those two products into illegality, but I do fell otherwise, I think we, by we I mean my country, your country and every other one, should prefer freedom over prohibition.

      I particularly don't use marijuana or nicotine, but I do drink and have friends that do smoke, and guess what? As long as they respect me and don't "smoke me" in closed places I don't really mind. It's bad for them, and I would be happy if they would stop, or in some cases slow it down, but it is their choice after all, I sure as hell don't want to stop drinking, I like it, and do it occasionally with my friends (you call social drinking).

      In the light of those I think marijuana should be legal, be it addictive or not. Maybe even harder drugs should be legal, maybe with a better medical accompaniment or some kind of insurance added to the market price. Fact is that what makes the drug market so good and profitable is the fact that it is forbidden and the creation of legalized ways to acquire drugs would hurt this market that is associated with violence and many problems.

      Just to be on the safe here, I don't think that all should be magically liberated tomorrow, but a studied phase out of the underworld can make things better.

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    9. Re:Email vs. Marijuana by stinerman · · Score: 1

      It is generally accepted that there is no physical addiction to marijuana, but there can be a psychological addiction (but, of course, so do many video games).

    10. Re:Email vs. Marijuana by huiac · · Score: 1

      Almost everything you do modifies the brain.

      Your diet affects the receptors in and overall composition of neural membranes, and real-world things like reading a novel, learning the piano, or selling insurance affect its overall structure; any skill you learn, anything you can remember and draw from in later life.

      Right now, for the most part, we have only the coarsest understanding of the nature and significance of these changes, and what's 'bad' as opposed to good or neutral; but they are real and there, as evidenced by your ongoing personal growth since puberty - you just aren't the same person you were 5 years ago, regardless.

      And, of course, if Marijuana didn't have any effect on your brain at all, I expect you'd change suppliers at the very least :)

      John.

  9. Carl Sagan Smoked Pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From Wiki "Carl Sagan was an avid user of marijuana, although he never publicly admitted it during his life. Under the pseudonym "Mr. X," he wrote an essay concerning cannabis smoking in the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered, whose editor was Lester Grinspoon. In the essay, Sagan commented that marijuana encouraged some of his works and enhanced experiences. After Sagan's death, Grinspoon disclosed this to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson. When the biography, entitled Carl Sagan: A Life, was published in 1999, the marijuana exposure stirred some media attention."

    Billions and billions of stars... whoa man far out.

    1. Re:Carl Sagan Smoked Pot by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      So you're saying he kept losing count, and had to settle for "billions and billions"?

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Carl Sagan Smoked Pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, for him and the millions of Americans who smoke cannabis, decades of scientific testing have exonerated the plant as a health hazard, except the act of smoking. Here is the The Merck Manual of Diagnostics and Therapeutics, the world's most widely used medical textbook, entry on Cannabis (Marijuana). It supports that the plant is fine as a drug, just don't smoke it.

    3. Re:Carl Sagan Smoked Pot by Mechcozmo · · Score: 1

      Carl Sagan? Wasn't he the Butt Headed Astronomer? Bah, those wimpy lawyers...

    4. Re:Carl Sagan Smoked Pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he was. The same year Apple started losing its market share like never before. Those were some very bad management times.

  10. That's interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was having this discussion with a co-worker just the I'm sorry, what were we talking about?

    1. Re:That's interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An anecdote:
      My friend: I hear we're going to have some nice weather tomorrow.
      Me: What?
      My friend: I said, we're going to have some nice weather tomorrow.
      Me: I don't follow.

      This is one of my most amusing memories, and I wouldn't trade it for 10 IQ points. And if I _did_ trade 10 points for it, I'll keep it.

  11. journalists need better training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is why undergraduate degrees in journalism shuold be abolished. Aspiring journalists need to get a background in something, anything, so that they have a better grasp of specific subjects and general critical thought.

    News media also need to not be profit-driven, but I also want a pony.

  12. what about marijuana? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just as a side note, a lot of things we do in our daily routine are more harmful than smoking marijuana. Especially if were talking about eating or vaporizing the stuff. Most of the chemicals (or very similar in composition/function) are already inside our bodies.

  13. the man is takin my IQ by ShineyMcShine · · Score: 2, Funny

    I blame the man for lowering my IQ and for takin my stash...

  14. At least.. by Gavin86 · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least being stoned all the time makes dupes more tolerable when I don't remember reading them the first time.

    --
    "Progress comes from the intelligent use of experience."
    1. Re:At least.. by Ranger · · Score: 1

      At least being stoned all the time makes dupes more tolerable

      Hmmm... maybe I should try that instead of bitching about the dupes. What do you expect from a bunch of ninth grade mentalities who seem incapable of using a simple search function on slashdot or google? Maybe the posters are stoned too. It would explain why they don't remember the dupes. And if they type anything in the search fields stoned they'll laugh their asses off when they type in the search term "don't make me get my flying monkey."

      --
      "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  15. Well... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Article title is definitely true! With pot I'm only disoriented for an hour or two, but sucky reporting leaves me in a confused daze forever...

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    1. Re:Well... by imidan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thing is, most academic researchers don't rely on popular media for either distributing their research or for learning about other people's. Wilson doesn't care about "publicity," at least not the kind that he gets from places like The Guardian. He's presented his findings in a peer-reviewed academic journal and at conferences attended by other researchers interested in his field. That's the only way that researchers are taken seriously by their peers.

  16. What's wrong with Pot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's wrong with pot anyway? Some of the brightest people I know smoke it - several times a day. I don't understand why it's _so_ illegal. How did it become illegal?
    What does everyone have against it?
    Shit, cigarettes, antidepressents and sleeping pills are worse than pot.

    1. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pot, and almost all other drugs, were illegalized for racist reasons. For cocaine it was blacks, for opium it was Chinese, and for pot it was Mexicans. Cigarettes and alcohol aren't banned because white people used them back in the old days, it wasn't just minorities. Yes, it's completely stupid. But then again, so is racism in the first place.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're looking to read this paper. While the URL title has the word "conspiracy" in it, the author of the paper takes very special care to ensure that there is no conspiracy involved. The author outlines very clearly the rationale behind early marijuana illegalization and how a local policy (used primarily to round up Mexicans when the US was still fighting with Mexico over Texas) was influenced by many different interests until it became a federal policy.

      There's no single "conspiracy" about the demonization of marijuana. It really is nothing more than a series of profit margin minded business decisions made by ignorant people in positions of power. Not unlike the primary function of every other aspect of our illegitimate Federal Government.

    3. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pot, and almost all other drugs, were illegalized for racist reasons. For cocaine it was blacks, for opium it was Chinese, and for pot it was Mexicans. Cigarettes and alcohol aren't banned because white people used them back in the old days, it wasn't just minorities. Yes, it's completely stupid. But then again, so is racism in the first place.

      Tobacco was introduced to Europeans via Native Americans and then brought back to Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco#History), and alcohol originated in ancient Sumeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer#History). There goes your theory about it being racist.

      The difference is that alcohol and tobacco are very old, socially accepted institutions, whereas crack cocaine and the like are relatively new to society at large. It's reasonable to assume that after enough time, these drugs may be socially acceptable as well.

      "Thanks to crack, I can get a blowjob for a buck!" -S.O.D.

    4. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by Istaraen · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Why make something that is (1) harmless to other individuals when controlled, (2) not especially more harmful than many other accepted things, (3) highly profitable, and (4) effective for controlling a large population illegal?

      It's simple. Racism is only one part.

      The truth is there are three major reasons.

      (1) If drugs are illegal, they are worth more money. Simply supply and demand. If you limit the supply channels, prices go up. If you make it illegal and build the image of drug use as undeserably, a certain percent of rebel youth et al. will also be drawn to it. Demand. Money. There's some accusations, too, that the CIA and other wonderful people like that are involved with it, too.

      (2) If drugs are illegal, it gives us something to arrest a lot of people for. How many people are in jail for drug offenses? How many lives are destroyed because of former drug use coming back on job applications, etc.? Drugs are easy to plant. (I don't trust the police.) Therein lies the racism, to a degree. Also, before the USA PATRIOT act, there was the RICO act. Civil rights don't apply to pot heads.

      (3) And now for the central reason: If drugs are illegal, it helps keep poor people poor. Who is arrested on drug charged? White, middle-class, money-laundering businessmen? Or inner-city blacks? If you were convicted of smoking pot, do you think your place of business would approve of it? Might not you risk being fired over it, even? Yet George W. Bush did it. He's also an alcoholic. And he's rich.

      The rich can get whatever drugs they want. Even Newt popped pills. The rule of--or rather, enforcement of--law does not apply to them. It affects the poor.

      Kinda like taxes.

    5. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in other news... we've never landed on the moon.

    6. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by rebelcan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Marijuana wasn't made illegal because of Mexicans. It was made illegal because the president who passed the bill to make it illegal was endorsed by companies that manufactured paper and harvested cotton. At the time, hemp products were in a position to take the market away from the cotton and paper industries.

      Don't have any links to verify, because I read it in Uncle John's Bathroom Reader. But here's another link for you ( don't know how acurate it is ): http://www.cannabis.com/untoldstory/hemp_2.shtml

      --
      God is dead -- Nietzsche
      Nietzsche is dead -- God
      Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
    7. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by pbaer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice conspiracy theory. I highly doubt the govt makes certain drugs illegal for the sole purpose of planting them on people, especially when there are better things to plant (like kiddie porn).

      More likely drugs other than tobacco and alcohol were banned because they come primarily from outside the US. I don't quite know the economic incentive for doing this but I'm sure there's a good one related possibly to mercantilism. Also you need to remember how much lobbying the tobacco industry does and how much of a hit their profits would take if pot was legalized.

      --
      There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
    8. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by YeEntrancemperium · · Score: 0, Troll

      Marijuana has a spiritual effect and can help open your third eye. The Christian church does not want this.

    9. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just something poor people say.

    10. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by fafalone · · Score: 4, Informative

      Opium and marijuana use in the Chinese culture (and cocaine use in South American cultures-coca leaves) was just as acceptable as tobacco and alcohol in European culture, and dates back thousands of years as well. They just weren't socially accepted institutions for the ruling white Europeans, and therefore were outlawed. That's clearly racism, your incredibly narrow view and failure to consider other cultures history makes you sound like one of those government anti-drug propaganda people, whose flimsy arguments against drugs embarass them everytime they debate people who've bothered to study the topic with a neutral, open mind.

    11. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's talking about America. Whites predominately used tobacco and alcohol in America, whereas what he said was true about races (blacks used cocaine, chinese opium, mexicans marijuana). The show on History channel Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way explains it perfectly and unbiased.

      Marijuana has been used for thousands of years, same as Mescaline-containing cactii like Peyote.

    12. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1
      The truth is there are three major reasons.

      Your points are valid, every one correct. But they don't really addresse the only point that really matters to the people who could actually change anything:

      Changing laws about marijuana to make it legal or decriminalized makes it more likely people would want to re-evaluate the "lock 'em up!" strategy for other actually dangerous drugs too, for example in favor of treatment and job training. Although cited frequently by politicians when confronted, the chance of failure isn't what stops them, it is the chance of success. Because if it became clear that people had been duped for 40 years by the "Lock 'em up!" political brand into wasting billions of dollars, millions of lives, and decimating poor male youths (through death and imprisonment,) it would be the end of literally thousands of political careers. Incumbent politicians won't ever do something like this because it would open them to severe criticism later, even if you can point to ten countries like the Netherlands where minor drugs like marijuana are tolerated and crime is generally quite low. ...Unless you happen to make controversial films.

      I don't have a solution, other than the hackneyed cliche to "Throw the bums out!" Remember when that old-guy bought that huge ad in the New York Times? What really changed? As far as I can see, nothing...
      --
      Who did what now?
    13. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Tobacco was introduced to Europeans via Native Americans and then brought back to Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco#History), and alcohol originated in ancient Sumeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer#History). There goes your theory about it being racist.

      The difference is that alcohol and tobacco are very old, socially accepted institutions, whereas crack cocaine and the like are relatively new to society at large. It's reasonable to assume that after enough time, these drugs may be socially acceptable as well.


      I don't understand the logic. Tobacco wasn't banned even though it came from another race, therefore when pot was banned it couldn't be because it was popular with another race? Cocaine was widely used in the West (a "socially accepted institution") before being banned after the media started talking about an epidemic of black cocaine use. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#Prohibition) . Pot has been used in the West since at least the 18th century (Queen Victoria used it to help menstrual pains!) and it wasn't until the 20s, when reformers started calling it "marijuana" instead of cannabis to highlight it as Mexican - and ran any number of ads and propaganda films designed to connect pot and Mexico in the public mind. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#Proh ibition_and_criminalization_in_the_US). I don't think I need to go into the use of opium in the West, considering the degree to which the Opium wars changed the history of both Britain and China.

      Now I don't actually think they were banned for racist reasons - I think that was a tactic used by prohibitionists to get popular support for the bans. They were banned because America periodically goes through spasms of Puritanism and that one hit drugs, and unlike alcohol they were never unbanned because they weren't popular enough. And this ferver of the US to keep these drugs banned has led to them being banned in countries where they certainly were "socially accepted institutions", like Columbia, China, or Mexico.
    14. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      Wormwood-drinks (or Absinthe) were a legal drug once which you consumed in bars.

      Marijuana only 'recently' has been criminalized and cocaïne was perfectly accepted.


      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    15. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by kamapuaa · · Score: 2, Informative
      No, that's not at all true, your post shouldn't be marked informative. Opium is native to areas to the North and Northwest of India. In China it has long been associated with corrupt foreign powers - first introduced by Portugese traders in the 15th century, and then becoming common (and pushed on the population at gunpoint when the government tried to ban it) by the English in the 19th century. Perhaps you're familiar with racist images of old Chinamen smoking away and think it's part of Chinese life, but that's not at all true. If you're caught with even a small amount, you're likely to go to jail for a long time. Marijuana has been known to South Asia and the Middle East for some time, but not in East China, don't know where you got that one.

      Coca leaves and Cocaine are not the same thing. Coca Leaves are a very mild drug - the South American Indian words for "tea" often come from their name for "Coca Leaf Tea," because of their comparable effect. It just isn't absorbed by the body in a way that gets one high like Cocaine. Cocaine is an organic chemical derived (but not extracted) from these coca leaves. Claiming the two are equivalent is BS.

      Cocaine is illegal in Africa. Marijuana is illegal in Mexico. Opium is illegal in China. Is it because China is racist against Chinese people? Mexico is racist against Mexicans? It must be comforting for people to believe that all the evil forces of the world unite to fight pet issues - greedy anti-hemp lobbyists, racist Southern sheriffs, etc. But holding these views up to even the lighest analysis shows both history and obvious contradictions being willfully ignored.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    16. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by jcorno · · Score: 1

      As crazy as it sounds, I actually know a former Atlanta area police officer who thinks that's exactly why marijuana should stay illegal. It's apparently a common practice to plant something in order to hold someone they know is guilty before they have enough evidence to go to court, or in case some important piece of evidence is excluded from the trial. I don't know how often other police departments do it, but here they look at it as an invaluable tool of the system.

    17. Re:What's wrong with Pot? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      They just weren't socially accepted institutions for the ruling white Europeans, and therefore were outlawed.

      Hehehe. That's cute. You might want to consider where the term 'anatomical snuff box' came from, and what all those rich Europeans were putting there (it also explains the blue-blood's sniff). Then see if you can get a copy of a Sear's catologue from the early 1900's. You could get a can of cocaine for an American nickle. The original Coca-Cola formulation contained....wait for it.... COCAINE.

      You are correct that racism was used to push the ban on marijuana, but your arguments fall rather flat after that. Well, one for three ain't completely terrible.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  17. Slashdot's Bad Reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    How appropriate that a story about bad reporting makes it to slashdot, a site that just perpetuates it.


    I mean, just take a look at yesterday's story about armed dolphins, which was patently false, and had no basis in fact.

    Did slashdot editors even RTFA or correct it afterwards? No, of course not. It seems to be par for the course here nowadays. Post the most fantastic, sensationalistic articles to spark pagehits and flamewars, and the editors sit back and cash in.

    The excuse that it's the readers jobs to correct just doesn't hold. The editors have a duty to inform in an accurate and factual matter, even if this is just a crummy overgrown tech blog.

    1. Re:Slashdot's Bad Reporting by jrockway · · Score: 1

      > Post the most fantastic, sensationalistic articles to spark pagehits and flamewars, and the editors sit back and cash in.

      Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. These are the slashdot editors we're talking about -- do you really think that they're that smart?! (I don't.) :D

      --
      My other car is first.
  18. Well... by Donniedarkness · · Score: 3, Interesting
    At least Wilson got some publicity!

    Honestly, I doubt his report would have gotten around quite as much if it would have been reported correctly. And now that the correct info is getting out, he's getting even more publicity. In the end, I think that Wilson probably is going to benefit from this.

    --
    Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
  19. shouldn't that be by Unski · · Score: 3, Insightful

    marijuana reporting, er, not bad email, is better than..

    er..

    toast! I want toast!

  20. Oh well... by mongoose(!no) · · Score: 1

    Oh well, back to email then...

  21. Chat and email a threat to concentration??? by Luminary+Crush · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obviously those people at the Guardian have not yet read Slashdot.
    Welcome to our information age crack house.

  22. Holy crap by Inoshiro · · Score: 1, Funny

    You know, you think you're not going to get anything because you're on Linux, but that works seamlessly with no plugins under Mozilla.

    My hats off to the illuminata that made it possible for me to be able to see stupid high school kids screw around!

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    1. Re:Holy crap by arose · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Mozilla has built in Flash playback now?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    2. Re:Holy crap by StonedRat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's flash dude, flash has had a built in movie player for some time now. I'd much rather have flash used for movies like this than stupid media player plug-ins, shame not everyone uses it.

      --
      "Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." - Arthur C. Clarke.
    3. Re:Holy crap by centipetalforce · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why you say this.... flash is bandwidth inefficient, the new h.264 codec for quicktime 7 is extremely efficient and gives FAR greater quality than the pixelated video we just suffered through... so why no plugins? You give no reason why not.

    4. Re:Holy crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely correct...I think I'll go download quicktime for linux right now!

    5. Re:Holy crap by Afrosheen · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I have the latest Quicktime installed and every codec I can think of, and on Windows, I STILL can't watch h.264. It's not really 'there' yet so don't sing it's praises. I even tried it with the Windows version of Mplayer thinking something magical would happen but nope...no dice.

        Maybe I'll give it a shot if I can find a Mac.

    6. Re:Holy crap by Louis+Guerin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That would be you being useless, not the codec. VLC supports it just fine, unsurprisingly, since they're involved in its development; as should any other decent media player, once you install codecs from http://x264.nl/ or one of dozens of other repositories on the web. I still haven't seen a single person fail to get it working on windows, osx or any distribution of gnu/linux.

      L

    7. Re:Holy crap by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and at least in Firefox, you can't turn it off!. (Well, you can try, but it simply doesn't work.) Damn it, where's my IE shortcut...?

    8. Re:Holy crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      h.264 works fine for me, Windows Quicktime 7. Sounds like you're just bad at computers.

    9. Re:Holy crap by IdleTime · · Score: 1

      As fasr as I know, and I'm writing this from 64-bit FireFox under 64-bit Gentoo, there is no internal flashplayer in FireFox and 64-bit flash is still a wet dream. I only got a blank frame and a stupid install plugin bar which ofcourse leads to nothing since the plugin do not exist. Useless!

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
  23. I think this story qualifies by Oz0ne · · Score: 1

    ... n/m

  24. Sounds like... by Paladin144 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sounds like that reporter was smokin' crack.

    [rimshot]

    Oh come on! For once, it's ontopic! :-)

  25. Depends who you talk to by phizman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you spend all day emailing jokes and images, then it should be pretty obvious you are going to take a hit to the IQ. Not all people discuss stupid sh*t though email/im/irc.

    1. Re:Depends who you talk to by TheComputerMutt.ca · · Score: 1

      If you spend all day email jokes and images, then you're IQ's probably already pretty abysmal.

    2. Re:Depends who you talk to by Itanshi · · Score: 1

      I stand to reason that people who go to 4chan (may not exist anymore, not that i'd want you to go anyways) take a huge hit on their IQ

  26. Assumptions... by Sheetrock · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Our brains are influenced by much of what we do. Wandering away a bit from this "scientific study", I wonder if we are being permanently and negatively affected by increasing the pace at which we are being asked to task-switch due to technology.

    The original article, despite its unfortunate lack of correctness, did give me pause to question whether permitting and accepting distraction with the sort of ease and frequency that is now present between cellphones and e-mail and fax and the Internet is actually causing long-term damage to our ability to think critically and plan the most efficient use of our time -- instead, the immediacy of a phone call or e-mail adds priority from proximity to matters that may be better left till tonight or tomorrow.

    I've been noticing a sharp increase of people with brain-fry over the last decade, and it can't all be from drugs.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:Assumptions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a meme (for lack of a better word) that I've been trying to promote in various subtle ways: You Don't Have To Answer That Phone. I don't push it on volunteer firemen, but you get the idea.

  27. Uhhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is *exactly* the sort of thing I don't trust Wikipedia as a source on--random, presumably unprovable anecotes with no evidence whatsoever.

    Besides, you'd think he'd have been a little more mellow if he toked. Wasn't he the BHA? :)

    1. Re:Uhhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's not something that three seconds of Googling could corroborate, or anything.

    2. Re:Uhhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like any good encyclopedia, Wikipedia is just pulling together sources here. Their footnote on the topic links to a BBC article that mentions the claims. The claims all arise from the same place it seems, but while I would hardly call them ironclad I can't find anyone presenting evidence against them. The real question to me is, why do you find it unlikely?

  28. Coral Cache: by heeeraldo · · Score: 0

    The first link was down when I tried to visit, so here's the UPenn link, Coralized.

  29. Pervasive problem by erick99 · · Score: 1

    This is a pervasive problem. Too many folks blithely assume that if they find a piece of information posted on the Internet it must be a fact. Too many articles site "facts" without citing the source(s) of those fact(s). And, even then, the sources need to be vetted as well. Critical and thorough peer-review gives some degree of confidence when we learn something from a scientific journal. This sort of review is not available (in general) on the Internet. So, a lot of care must be taken before assuming a fact is, indeed, a fact.

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
  30. Meanwhile.. by Mr2cents · · Score: 4, Funny

    You can't trust wikipedia! Trust the mass media!

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  31. Not only Carl Sagan by sp0rk173 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Richard Feynman was an out user of recreational Marijuana, and he was one of America's leading physicists.

    Of course, the burn out down the street who does nothing with his life except collect welfare is also an out user of marijuana. Bottom line? Everyone's different. Bottomer line? The burnout down the street might not want to do anything with his life, whereas Richard Feynman dug physics and math. Pot tends to lead you to do what you want, as opposed to what you should. Maybe if he didn't smoke, Feynman would have been some kind of accountant helping people get rich instead of contributing to the world of physics. Which would have been better? Who knows.

    Anyone who's ever gone to a scientific conference can tell you that marijuana might not actually have any effect on IQ. Many, many scientists are pot heads, especially the especially bright ones.

    1. Re:Not only Carl Sagan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Feynman said he did it from time to time, but he decided he didn't like messing with his thinking too much, so he wasn't a regular user.

    2. Re:Not only Carl Sagan by fafalone · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know what kind of scientific conferences you go to, but I suspect they were before longitudinal studies on marijuana's effects on IQ were published. For example, Fried et. al. concluded in a peer reviewed article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (166, p. 887) that marijuana use does have an effect on IQ; a negative impact for heavy use, and a positive effect (and more positive than not smoking even) for light use; it also showed there was no deficit for former users who had not smoked for more than 3 months.
      "Results: Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p 0.05) in a dose- related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6)."

    3. Re:Not only Carl Sagan by etzel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The burn out down the street who does nothing with his life except collect welfare is also an out user of marijuana. TRUE.
      Maybe if he didn't smoke, Feynman would have been some kind of accountant helping people get rich instead of contributing to the world of physics. UNLIKELY
      Marijuana is no different than alcohol except that when you go to the liquor store, they don't offer you crack.

      --
      "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
    4. Re:Not only Carl Sagan by zxnos · · Score: 1

      all the best wizards smoke ganja too...

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    5. Re:Not only Carl Sagan by LarsWestergren · · Score: 1

      Maybe if he didn't smoke, Feynman would have been some kind of accountant helping people get rich instead of contributing to the world of physics. Which would have been better? Who knows.

      Maybe if he didn't smoke, he would have been an EVEN BETTER physicist and mathematician, and we would have reached the singularity by know. Which would have been better? Who knows.

      I'm not saying pot is good or bad, just pointing out that you are playing "what if" games and then taking the results as evidence supporting your claim.

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    6. Re:Not only Carl Sagan by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Maybe if he didn't smoke, he would have been an EVEN BETTER physicist and mathematician, and we would have reached the singularity by know. Which would have been better? Who knows.

      Based on what scientific evidence exists, I'd bet hevily on Feynman's physics contributions being unaffected by whether he smoked. Next you're going to tell me that any alcohol use noticeably damages my brain and only puritans can do greaat work.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    7. Re:Not only Carl Sagan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Some of us can afford a few IQ points.

  32. The "media" is just awful by 1010011010 · · Score: 0, Troll

    They want us to take them seriously. They want to shape the debate and control the dissementation of facts. But they're such idiots!

    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  33. Inaccurate news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
  34. What's this about cannabis now? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Sorry I completely lost track of what you were saying hahahaha

    No seriously what?

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    1. Re:What's this about cannabis now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shit... *put down the joint and ponders*

  35. Re:Worse than this? The horror.... by Kickboy12 · · Score: 0, Informative

    Haha. Seriously. It's pathetic how uneducated people really are to the effects of cannabis.

  36. Dude! by jkauzlar · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This website also lists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Feynman, among others.

    This website, while not too reliable-looking, lists several surprising names, including notable politicians (but we're discussing IQ here, so ignore those) and cites Bill Gates as a possible pothead. Most of the names listed are musicians (like Bob Marley-- duh!) and actors and writers, and if you're going to talk about them, you can just go ahead and list about every musician since the 50's :)

    1. Re:Dude! by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      "and cites Bill Gates as a possible pothead. "

      Heh, if that's true, I'll actually *pay* for my copy of Windows!

      (Note to BSA: Just kidding...I have a legit copy.)

  37. Evidence Please? by Ieshan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Pot tends to lead you to do what you want, as opposed to what you should."

    Empirical evidence please? It seems to me that, as you put out, we're actually talking about "proof by the exception" (look! I can point out a few famous people who used pot!) rather than "proof by the rule" (the majority of pot users are non-famous random joes, and it seems to have a very small, temporary impact on their ability to judge the world in a reasonable matter).

    "Many, many scientists are pot heads, especially the especially bright ones."

    And many more scientists, the bright ones, aren't. Promise. Although I'm not accusing you of it, this is, essentially, the fallacy of ignoring base rates.

    1. Re:Evidence Please? by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the majority of pot users are non-famous random joes

      s/pot users/people/

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    2. Re:Evidence Please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is it really a rule when there are exceptions?

    3. Re:Evidence Please? by Hrodvitnir · · Score: 1
      the majority of pot users are non-famous random joes

      The majority of people are non-famous random joes
      --
      "There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
    4. Re:Evidence Please? by temi · · Score: 0
      (the majority of pot users people are non-famous random joes, and it seems to have a very small, temporary impact on their ability to judge the world in a reasonable matter).

      adjusted

      (the majority of people are non-famous random joes, and have a very small, ability to judge the world in a reasonable matter).

      /just sayin

    5. Re:Evidence Please? by CharonIDRONES · · Score: 1

      (the majority of pot users are non-famous random joes, and it seems to have a very small, temporary impact on their ability to judge the world in a reasonable matter).

      And guess what, most people in the world are non-famous random Joes. Let me ask you this, have more people been able to come up with brilliant ideas on alcohol than on pot? Probably.

      How 'bout people beating the shit out of each other drunk? High?

      -Brandon
      Full disclosure - Yes, I do smoke pot, and drink

    6. Re:Evidence Please? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      yes, and they over look the possibility that the bright ones who smoke pot may have been brighter if they didn't?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Evidence Please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exceptions make the rules.

    8. Re:Evidence Please? by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      The evidence is this: I'm incredibly brilliant and incredibly stoned.

  38. Rerunning the experiment by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Ok, then, so let's go rerun the experiment with a Slashdot-sized set of subjects. If your Slashdot ID is even, go have some pot. If it's odd, go send some text messages to other odd-numbered Slashdotters tonight. End of the evening, we'll see who's got better karma, who had a better evening, and who just stayed home and ordered pizza...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Rerunning the experiment by Mike+Markley · · Score: 1

      You're suggesting that socializing with other Slashdotters is somehow superior to staying home and ordering a pizza? Have you *met* other Slashdotters? :)

  39. Surely... by jesdynf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Surely you're toking, Mr. Feynman?

    --
    Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
  40. Profit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    1. ?*
    2. ?*
    3. ?*
    4. POT!

    * Dont remember


    And then this one email replied to the other email: "Re:"


    So where do you send the email?
    and when do you get the pot?
    has anyone actually gotten any pot yet? or is this a hoax?

  41. Mod this up by HTL2001 · · Score: 2, Informative

    a great summary of the history of drugs. I remember specificly why for opium, its because the chinese were able to work insane hours taking jobs away from whites. Given most are very harmfull, but as it was said by someone else commenting... it depends on who does the study. there is only one study that says pot smoking reduces intelegence... I speculate that its just the way the person is REGARDLESS of weather they smoke pot or not

    BTW I don't do any drugs, but I hate misinformation

    --
    By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
  42. Re:Worse than this? The horror.... by ikkonoishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, because I trust a site named cannabis news to give me unbiased reporting of the effects of cannabis.

    I also trust cigarette companies to tell me all the negative side effects of smoking tobacco.

  43. Do you really want to know? by G27+Radio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a study involving repeated IQ tests of nearly 1400 participants over a time period of 12 years showed absolutely no statistical correlation between marijuana use and cognitive ability.

    All the scientific studies show this same thing. All the studies showing that marijuana use does permanant damage always turn out to be bullshit. OK, saying "all the studies" might sound like a generalization--but actually try to find one that uses any kind of scientific method and shows that marijuana is bad for you. It's suprisingly hard considering what a great evil people claim it to be. It's truly evil that very sick people aren't allowed to use this cheap, easily produced drug to help them through their illnesses. It's illegal for no good reason.

    BTW, if you sit around the house and smoke pot incessantly, it's true that you're probably not going to accomplish much with your life. Don't think that just because pot isn't inherently bad for you that you can't abuse it.

    1. Re:Do you really want to know? by RPoet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Brain changes or not, tobacco smoking kills. Few people seem to regard this when they argue for pot.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    2. Re:Do you really want to know? by ScottyH · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about tobacco?

      For all you know, the dangers of tobacco are an inherent quality of the plant itself...although I must admit it seems likely that inhaling the smoke of any plant isn't too good for you.

    3. Re:Do you really want to know? by G27+Radio · · Score: 1

      Brain changes or not, tobacco smoking kills.

      Smoking crack kills too. What does this have to do with pot? Absolutely nothing. First of all, pot is not tobacco. Also, pot doesn't need insecticides and other chemicals to grow. Not to mention all the additives that the tobacco companies add to cigarettes. No doubt you are inhaling some carcinogens when you smoke something, but smoking pot is nowhere near as damaging or dangerous as smoking a cigarette.

      Keep in mind that there are many ways to consume marijuana. For example the THC can be vaporized and inhaled without actually burning any of the plant matter, which gets rid of the carcinogen problem. Marijuanna also makes a great cooking ingredient.

  44. Good News by freek808 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I guess I will go back to smoking dope and hanging out on IRC without feeling guilty anymore.

  45. Pot use and intellectuals by totallygeek · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Uh, Berkeley Software Distribution! BSD, LSD...coincidence?!?!? Damn fine projects came from lids of herb. Get over it!

  46. No way by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's no way that casual...wait, what was I saying? Could you repeat the question?

  47. The author used emails to investigate.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mark Liberman made a point with such mistake. He shouldn't take all the emails he receive for granted! It makes your IQ lower. :)

  48. Aha! by hullabalucination · · Score: 1
    you can just go ahead and list about every musician since the 50's :)

    Just as I always suspected. Lawrence Welk--Closet Spliffmeister.

    http://www.zeldman.com/classics/welk/

  49. and to think.... by mdman · · Score: 0

    What do ya know... and to think I gave up Instant Messaging for weed!

  50. Re:Worse than this? The horror.... by Kickboy12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What you want it to say? 'Site of Republican and Facist lies about drug use'? That's like saying; "That article is from NYT, I refuse to believe a hurricane killed thousands of people, but when Fox News says it it's ok.". The information in that article is true. If you have a problem believing it, then try a little investigative reporting and look it up. Stop dismissing things just because you don't trust the source of the information. Think.

  51. Off Topic: Slashdot Story Deleted?? by mtxmorph · · Score: 1

    Is anyone else suddenly missing a slashdot story from earlier today? It was on the main page and IT page. The title was "Microsoft Windows Is Officially Broken."

    It only exists in my web browser cache right now. The original link was http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/09/26/1334220.shtml and that just gives an error now.

    Here's the blurb:

    Microsoft Windows Is Offically Broken
    Posted by Hemos on Monday September 26, @11:50AM
    from the broken-bjork-bjork dept.
    TripMaster Monkey writes "This just in from Smartoffice News: Windows is broken and Microsoft has admitted it. Jim Allichin, Vice President and co-head of the Platform Products and Services Division, reportedly has told Bill Gates that Vista is "not going to work". From the article: "[Longhorn] is so complex its writers will never be able to make it run properly." Allichin is spearheading a revolution within the company to change how the software giant works. The solution: a more 'Linux-esque' methodology, of course."

    When I saw it there were 36 comments, and they're all deleted now. Here were some of the posters:
    Not surprised (Score:3, Interesting) by BWJones (18351) *
    Well... (Score:2, Informative)by AngryUndead (733008)
    Windows Broken? (Score:2) by Shadow Wrought (586631)
    Officially? (Score:1, Offtopic) by Spy der Mann (805235)
    "Stuff that matters" (Score:3, Informative) by Joe U (443617)
    Boken Windows (Score:1) by mario64 (573112)
    ...
    ...

    Wierd.. anyone else? Conspiracy? Bad backup? Or fake news? ;)

    1. Re:Off Topic: Slashdot Story Deleted?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The link works fine for me.. maybe it's a bug in their new software..

    2. Re:Off Topic: Slashdot Story Deleted?? by sinewalker · · Score: 1

      not sure, but after reading the article, it definately falls under the heading of "bad reporting", so it's maybe not so off-topic after all!

      Seriously, I'm no MS fan but I couldn't find how this article was living up to it's headline. More like, that MS had to start over because they finally recognised the problem with a monolithic approach.

      Reading between the (rather repetative) lines of this article, It sort of sounds to me like MS have finally discovered some of the benefits of modular programming, in a 1970s Unix style of "everything should do one thing well". Gosh, it only took them 30 years. And still they have fears that their so-called "inovation" may be crippled by the new approach. It seems to highlight a serious mis-understanding that MS engineers have about how to produce code, that we could see from the end results, but could only speculate over before.

      --
      “Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso
    3. Re:Off Topic: Slashdot Story Deleted?? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      It was a dupe - there was a story pretty much saying the same thing two or three days ago on the Slashdot front page.

  52. So wait... by flav0rc0untry · · Score: 1

    ... ... does this mean I can... ... ... start toking again? ... or... what?

  53. Re:Worse than this? The horror.... by monkeydo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It'd be a lot easier to check their claims about the studies they cite if, well, they had cited any studies. Otherwise, it's just pothead optimism.

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  54. Re:Worse than this? The horror.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you mean that's not a /dot editorial staff meeting??

  55. In the words of... by the_hellspawn · · Score: 1

    Donald "Your fired!"

    --
    "The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
    1. Re:In the words of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay me.

      -- Donald

  56. Mmmyup... by urinetrouble · · Score: 1

    I'd just like to remind everyone that while there is no proven correlation between smoking the devil weed and cognitive disfunction, it still damages your lungs. Inhaling anything other than oxygen or air isn't the best of ideas if you like being healthy, especially if that anything other than happens to be some kind of smoke.

    1. Re:Mmmyup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then eat it. It goes great in italian food, especially lasagna and bolognaise. The high fat content and long, slow cooking times are really effective at getting large ammounts of THC out of the weed.

    2. Re:Mmmyup... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      you can use a steamer for weed, and not smoke it, That is the preferred way for ill patients to get the maximum medicinal effects.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  57. He should just smoke some dope by Garridan · · Score: 1

    Quoth Dr. Wilson, "Since then, I've been asked these same questions about 20 times per day and it is driving me bonkers."

    More like, it's driving him stupid! What a shame. The dude wasted his entire life getting a degree, just so he could prove that doing a single study has dropped his IQ score by 10 points. To think that he could've just quit before he ever applied to college, started smoking marijuana... and he'd still be smarter than if he'd done that study.

  58. personal experience by British · · Score: 1

    I was just recently in Amsterdam, and of course had to visit a coffee shop. I took the lighest weed there. Mind you, i only smoked pot 3 times prior to this.

    So, as I was there, feeling the effects(after having to use "the cone", ie joint roller for dummies), and felt nice and relaxed. I whipped out an issue of BBC Top Gear, and read it. I must say, if anything, weed increased my reading comprehension skills!

    For their little car reviews(paragraph or 2), I was able to nicely visualize the car in question.

  59. You seem to forget something... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One thing is the legalization and banning of drugs.
    A VERY DIFFERENT thing is whether the drugs effectively are harmful or not.

    Just because there are interests in keeping the drugs illegal, doesn't mean they're harmless. After all, if people with power don't care about suing 13yo's and single mothers, and tobacco companies don't care about lying and making addictive stuff, do you think druglords will care if their drugs are harmful or not? No, they just want the money.

    And this is another reason to make MORE studies about the effects of marijuana. So we can know the TRUTH even if people from both sides oppose it. If some components of pot are good as medicine, let the people know it. If some other components are lethal, let also the people know it.

    The point is not going to the extremes of saying "anything related to pot is poison!" and "pot is not harmful at all!"

    1. Re:You seem to forget something... by localman · · Score: 1

      Except that real-world usage rates support the claim that "pot is not harmful at all". Well, at least compared to alcohol, tobacco, sugar, television watching, internet usage, driving cars, talking to religious zealots, not getting enough sleep, and listening to clearchannel radio.

      I mean, pot is already used a lot. All over the world. But how often do you hear of someone dying or being seriously hurt solely because of pot? Not often. I'm sure it happens occasionally, but people die occasionally for all sorts of normally "safe" things, as defined by society. People die from eating McDonald's, or taking asprin. And violent behavior? You rarely hear of a pothead on a killing spree. No more common than a killing spree inspired by an angry rock song. These are all anomolies. And pot should be judged, like everything else, by the vast common case: safe recreational use.

      It's going on all around you. It's time society moved past this and stopped punishing good citizens.

      Cheers.

    2. Re:You seem to forget something... by rjshields · · Score: 1
      The point is not going to the extremes of saying "anything related to pot is poison!" and "pot is not harmful at all!"
      Pot is rarely harmful in moderate recreational use. The problems come from heavy use and when people have a predisposition to mental illness. Since recreational users by far the largest group, these kinds of statements are not so far-fetched. Compared to alcohol, pot is hardly harmful. You can kill yourself with a few bottles of spirits but you'll pass out and whitey on the floor before cannabis can do any harm, then wake up with a bad case of the munchies. The people in charge don't want you to know that cannabis is not harmful since you'd also know then how retarded the laws are surrounding cannabis.
      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
  60. Re:Worse than this? The horror.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well i have to say a site like cannabisnews.com or marijuana.com and hempcultivation.com are all probably more accurate to the effects of pot then our mainstream media is (after all the regular media and the government would prefer we didnt use pot).

  61. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Frito Lay reports record profits. Here's Tom with the weather....

  62. Grumble.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I whole-heartedly believe it's time for the negative image Cannabis has to change. The negative stereotype of the "lazy stoner" simply doesn't hold up these days. Many respectable people, even the mayor of New York, have tried and/or still use Cannabis. There's been multiple studies showing how Cannabis simply isn't as dangerous as the drug propaganda wants you to believe it is. It's been proven to have medical value, and there are people who will benefit from using Cannabis medically. There's absolutely no reason why it should still be outlawed in this day in age.

    Besides, who in the hell has authority to dictate what one person can and cannot put in their body?

    1. Re:Grumble.. by Juliemac · · Score: 1

      Similar to Roe vs Wade.
      People of one religion telling me what I can and cannot do with my own body. Even if I am not of their religion....

  63. kava, anyone? by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 0, Troll

    While we're on the subject of drugs, I was just wondering if anyone else here likes to drink kava

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  64. State dependence by wytcld · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's well-known through research that memory is best for things which you experienced when in a similar state. So you remember sad things better when you're sad, happy when you're happy, stoned when you're stoned, straight when you're straight, tired when you're tired, and so on. This makes biological sense: You're most likely to have use for the lessons of a part of the past when you're next in a most similar situation.

    It's also part of how we are able to key our personalities for different functions: That morning cup of coffee; the happy hour drink after work.

    This is a separate effect from that which can be occassioned by heavy drinking or (perhaps) really heavy pot smoking, where the circuits for laying down long-term memory appear to be interrupted so that even going back to a similar state won't retrieve the memories. But it's a confounding factor in reports about pot. Someone who's normally a bit depressed, but becomes happy when stoned, will remember things from the time when stoned just fine -- when they're stoned again. However, in their accustomed depressive state, not so much.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  65. Open Access by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    This is perhaps slightly astray of the topic, but what's more important than noting that this study has been overhyped and stretched by the media into something it isn't, is Liberman's mention of Open Access journals. I'm overjoyed to read that the key scientists involved with some journals have rebelled against the overbearing corporate presence in the world of the scientific journal and have taken their expertise with them to found new journals based on principles of open access to all.

    The point of journals is to provide a mechanism for peer review of research, to filter the copious amounts of research for the benefit of the reader. However, the trend has been to jack up the price so severely - both for subscribers and for accepted submitters - that access to peer-reviewed research has been hampered rather than enhanced by journals. The spirit of scientific research is that of the Creative Commons, and I am really hoping that the technology and cheap distributed bandwidth offered by the Internet will allow the interests of the scientific community to be separated from the interests of the corporate world. We would be much better off with journals that essentially provide digital signatures for the research articles they accept for "publication", allowing the researchers themselves or third parties to distribute the articles under a CC-type license, thus eliminating the need for a large publishing infrastructure, since any publishing could occur on the reader's or the library's printers.

  66. Re:Worse than this? The horror.... by kfg · · Score: 1

    I also trust cigarette companies to tell me all the negative side effects of smoking tobacco.

    Have you read the actual 1964 Surgeon General's report on smoking and health, you know, the one that put all the warning lables on the packages in multiple countries?

    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_1964/sgr64.htm

    Just because a study is funded by the government doesn't mean there isn't a biased agenda at work and it's not a steaming pile of poo whose actual results weren't as badly handled by the press as the case currently in question.

    And if you don't believe me just refer to what's going on right now with ID and the "faith based" American government administration;and the press. Governments are perfectly willing to tell you what to think and offer "scientific studies" to back it up; and the clueless journalism majors who don't understand even the basics of the issues (or even of journalism) are perfectly willing to misreport it, as fact.

    KFG

  67. Worse than what? by vandan · · Score: 1

    I reject outright that smoking pot affects your IQ in a negative way. In fact, I assert that it increases your intelligence. Whether that results in an increase in IQ points or not is a topic for another discussion. But the point remains that smoking pot stimulates you to think in different ways ... and variety of thought processes and perspectives is particularly important in the intelligence of an individual. I would even say it's the most important.

    Now, I have never seen a study released by an independant group of researchers that claims that smoking pot detracts from your intelligence. I have, however, seen many reports that state that right-wing propoganda is horribly destructive - not just to the IQ, but to civil liberties, and even the fates of whole nations ( Iraq comes to mind ).

    Finally, I think that even if smoking pot does detract from an IQ 'score', then it's worth it if it allows people to see through the bullshit foaming from the mouths of the Christian fundamentalists and neo-conservatives pushing for an even more bloodthirsty execution of the war on drug users.

  68. Interesting observation by yotto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the one hand, this realization flies in the face of contemporary linguistic thought. On the other hand, OMFG U GOT SO PWNX0RZD!!@!~!~!

  69. Obligatory Video Link For Stoned Reporters by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Do *NOT* be like this guy!

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  70. Everything is worse than marijuana... by lewp · · Score: 1

    Because marijuana is awesome.

    --
    Game... blouses.
  71. Correction again by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

    Correlation does imply causality, but it doesn't prove it.

    What were we talking about again?

    1. Re:Correction again by bradkittenbrink · · Score: 1

      You potheads are using two different definitions of the word imply (definition 2 vs definition 3 or 4). Now before you try to prove each other wrong, go eat some cheetos and get over it.

  72. no its not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it isn't ontopic...crack and marijuana are completely different drugs...

    Marijuana is THC and is smoked, while crack is cocaine mixed with baking soda to get a stronger effect from less cocaine (but with worse side effects) and is snorted (iirc)

    so yeah, you're talking about a different drug to the one involved in the study

    1. Re:no its not by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      Marijuana contains THC, in several different forms. THC, and its interactions with canaboids, are the active agent.

      Crack is freebased cocaine, a chemical proccess that enables the cocaine to be effectivly smoked. Freebased cocaine is not soluble in water, so can not be snorted. The 'worse side effects' part is that smoking delivers a more intense, shorter, immediate high, leading to a stronger (potential) addiction.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  73. idiot sum bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, you sons of bitches, why in hell would you compare anything to marijuana? you are goddamn idiot sum bithces.

  74. Bad Reporting? by jafac · · Score: 1

    Right now, I'd say that the worst threat to freedom and democracy is Bad Reporting. Worse than Terrorism. Worse than Birkenstock Wearing Liberal Feminist Lesbian Berkely Graduate Students. Worse than Free Software.

    It makes people, on average, stupider than getting their head and upper bodies squashed flat in a hydraulic press. I know. I did a study.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  75. Not really by Ogemaniac · · Score: 1

    There does appear to be a small effect of outcome vs funding source, but it is not big enough to routinely switch the main point of the results. In all honesty, the researchers' own biases towards producing anything interesting/publishable is a much greater problem than any external pressure put upon them by the agency or corporation funding the work.

  76. Why is it always up to the scientist? by jtangen · · Score: 1

    Again, the onus is on the scientist rather than the journalists to set the record straight. Why not include a course or two on research methodology in journalism degrees and get it right the first time?

  77. Re:Worse than this? The horror.... by rjshields · · Score: 1
    Yes, because I trust a site named cannabis news to give me unbiased reporting of the effects of cannabis. I also trust cigarette companies to tell me all the negative side effects of smoking tobacco.
    Yes, because comparing a multi-billion dollar corporation to a small, non-profit web organisation is not at all retarded.
    --
    In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
  78. liquor stores sell tobacco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Marijuana is no different than alcohol except that when you go to the liquor store, they don't offer you crack."

    Liquor stores sell tobacco which kills thousands of people every year -if they discovered it now, do you think they'd make it legal? Also I'm guessing the majority of small time marijuana dealers don't sell crack, small town hippie stoners making a couple of extra bucks are in a completely different social subculture from the crack scene.

  79. Re:Worse than this? The horror.... by DohnJoe · · Score: 1

    heh, thanks for introducing me to the video service of google, I'd never seen it before, but I quickly found this cool video, you should check it out:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-668182070 61948192&q=bong

    it shows some asian guys playing ping pong with bullet-time effects. Everybody has probably seen this already since I'm usually the last to see this kind of things but anyway... back to the topic!

  80. Point Of Order: The Nixon Report by Gamerider · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse Effects of Short-Term or Subacute Use "No subject reported any adverse effects from smoking. The subjects were generally able to conduct their usual daily activities including jobs. However, they reported they did not function completely up to par during the several hour duration of the acute drug effect. There were no effects which persisted for more than three to five hours and cumulative effects were not noted day to day. No persistent decrements were seen in behavior, mental status, EEG, heart, rate, short-term memory, or psychomotor function tests. In sum, daily marihuana smoking for 21 days was well tolerated by well-adjusted graduate students." "No abstinence syndrome or physical dependence was observed after abrupt termination of smoking. Signs of mild to moderate psychological dependence. were possibly seen in the heavy [users] group but no evidence of psychological dependence was seen in the casual users." "Urinalysis, complete blood counts, cell morphologies and differentials, and blood chemistry determinations (calcium, phosphorous, glucose, blood urea nitrogen, uric acid, cholesterol, total protein, albumen, total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, lactic dehydrogenase, and serum glutamic oxalacetic transaminase) were unaffected." "Normal body temperature was not altered. No significant change, in pulmonary function (decreased. vital capacity or acute broncho spasm) was observed during the marihuana smoking period." "No signs of neurological abnormality were observed. No cumulative effect of marihuana to cause, impairment of cognitive function was noted on a battery of tests sensitive to organic brain function." "Both groups [heavy and light users] became progressively more convivial and less task-oriented in group discussions. They offered less suggestions in problem-solving tasks but continued to efficiently solve the problem." "Finally, repeated use of marihuana over the 21day period did not decrease motivation to engage in a variety of social and goal-directed behaviors. Almost without exception, every subject earned the maximum number of points every day throughout all non-drug and drug periods. No consistent alteration in pattern of work could be related to repeated marihuana use. Subjects often performed very high work output while they were smoking marihuana and experiencing the maximum drug effects. Repeated marihuana use, did not decrease subject's motivation to complete the study. Nor was any noticeable effect observed on interest and participation in a variety of personal activities, such as, writing, reading literature, keeping up with current national and world events, and participation in both athletic and esthetic endeavors." Effects of Long-Term Cannabis Use "Psychosomatic abstinence syndromes often reported were physical weakness, intellectual apathy, loss of appetite, flatulence, constipation, insomnia, fatigue, abdominal cramps and nervousness, restlessness, and headache. For most heavy users the syndrome of anxiety and restlessness seem to be comparable to that observed when a, heavy tobacco smoking American attempts to quit smoking. However, the psychological dependence appears to be severe as evidenced by the f act that one group of subjects were unable to cease their habitual use although the frequency of use, was only eight to 12 times per month (Soueif, 1967). This psychological dependence may have made some users claim physical dependence so that the government did not terminate dispensing them their drug. Studies in the United States using much lower doses for shorter periods of time have revealed little if any evidence of psychological dependence (Bromberg, 1934 Mayors Committee, 1944; Williams et al., 1946)." "Mann et a]. (1970, 1971) and Finley (1971) studied the effect

    1. Re:Point Of Order: The Nixon Report by packeteer · · Score: 1

      The site "www.druglibrary.org" that you linked to is a drug reform policy website. They encourage the reform of drug policies uncluding the legalization of Marijuana.

      The original "cannabisnews.com" page you linked to said "No trustworthy study has ever shown that marijuana use damages the reproductive system, or causes chromosome breakage." This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, or more specifically you calling pot proven to be safe when this is jsut not the case. Marijuana enthusiasts say that any study that says pot is bad must be wrong. Many people think that any evidence of pot not being so bad comes from marijuana supporters.

      The two biggest problems with marijuana use are accidents caused, vehicle or otherwise, and addiction/habituation. Again the "cannabisnews.com" page says "In reality, it appears that marijuana use tends to substitute for the use of relatively more dangerous hard drugs like cocaine and heroin, rather than lead to their use." This comes from a gross misunderstanding of how chemical dependance works.

      I do support a reform of drug policy but there is no need to make up lies and stretch the facts to support my reasons for this. Marijuana is a dangerous and illegal drug. The illegal part is something we can change, the dangerous is not.

      Face the facts, we are better of without anyone using marijuana, or alcohol, or any dangerous drug. This will NEVER happen of course so we are really hurting ourselves by thinking we can prosecute our problem away.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    2. Re:Point Of Order: The Nixon Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      On the contrary, the source of the Nixon Report is the Nixon Administration. It wanted to study the drug as extensively as it could at the time. It was specifically looking for negative qualities for political reasons (to support the 1970 OmniBus Drug Act, which is the basis for drugs being illegal today). Whether this study is reproduced at a pro- or anti- drug site does not diminish its impartiality (with respect to its ultimate findings) or change its source.

      As for your hand-waving, unsupported claims about the dangers of marijuana, you have utterly failed to provide even one source to support your claim. I, on the other hand, can negate any source you might find by way of the latest edition of the most widely-used medical textbook in the world, The Merck Manual of Diagnostics and Therapeutics.

      From the entry titled Cannabis (Marijuana) Dependence:

      Chronic or periodic use of cannabis producing some psychologic dependence but no physical dependence.

      Any drug that causes euphoria and diminishes anxiety can cause dependence, and cannabis is no exception. However, heavy use and complaints of inability to stop are unusual. Cannabis can be used episodically without evidence of social or psychologic dysfunction. The term dependence probably is misapplied to many users. No withdrawal syndrome occurs when the drug is discontinued, but some heavy users report disrupted sleep and nervousness when they stop.


      This entry is, quite simply, the final word on cannabis. Only a study done in the past year could change this. And, even then, the study would, per the scientific method (the basis of medicine), await confirmation. I have seen no such study in the scientific literature. Have you?

      And please don't provide a political article or anecdote to support your claim.

    3. Re:Point Of Order: The Nixon Report by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      just fyi, they can't even spell "marijuana" in a "scientific" study. So why will I believe them?

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    4. Re:Point Of Order: The Nixon Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In scientific studies done in the 70's, 80's, and earlier, what we today spell marijuana (or, more appropriately, cannabis) was spelled with an 'h', as marihuana. Sorry, but that's just history. Spellings change over time. As do laws and regulations concerning substances.

      You can read more here: National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse

    5. Re:Point Of Order: The Nixon Report by dajak · · Score: 1

      Marihuana is a perfectly correct name in many languages, and was used in American English: 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.

  81. Editors, watch out! by Arru · · Score: 1

    So how does editing Slashdot and smoking crack measure up to all this?

    --
    There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
  82. Opium wars, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Opium and marijuana use in the Chinese culture (and cocaine use in >South American cultures-coca leaves) was just as acceptable as >tobacco and alcohol in European culture, and dates back thousands >of years as well. They just weren't socially accepted institutions for >the ruling white Europeans, and therefore were outlawed. That's >clearly racism

    Are you trolling?
    1. Opium was perfectly acceptable in much of European society in the 19th centuy (see Confessions of an Opium Eater - Thomas DeQuincey)

    2. Not only was it acceptable - the British Empire, the most ruthless drug syndicate in history, declared war on China. That's right, they declared war, and not once - twice!

    3. The Opium wars began because Chinese authorities blocked the import of British opium from India. Apparently the devastation caused by mass quantities of opium was unacceptable.

  83. Temporary? So is Marijuanna by logicnazi · · Score: 1

    Alright it is a temporary effect. Well the recent long term studies of MJ use indicate that no effect on IQ is observed after a month of sobriety even for heavy smokers over decades.

    Alright, I agree this doesn't make this study good science but that is no reason to promulgate false impressions about weed. I mean this is exactly the sort of dangerously subliminal effect which can create a widespread belief in a falsehood. If slashdot posted a study saying weed caused loss of IQ people would at least critically evaluate it but by introducing it in the background while you debunk another study as false gives the impression of being a generally accepted fact.

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

  84. Heh... by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 1

    I also like how you so vastly comprehend the nature of the word "sarcasm"; mainly directed toward criticizing the article. But then, of course, you already know much about "criticism". The only difference between you and me, is that your criticism is based on stupid assumptions, whereas mine are not.

    --
    Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
  85. Gateway Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been smoking pot 24/7 since that article ran

    Hey, careful there! You've heard of the "gateway theory"? It argues that you are at risk of gradually progressing from a pot smoking Linux hippie into an acid gulping BSD developer, before you even notice it yourself! Brrrr, scary... *shiver*

    There also a "gates theory" version involving expensive and very addictive cocaine, brain damage, and passing out randomly, but I digress.

  86. Re:Worse than this? The horror.... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    Dude, maybe it's like a conspiracy and shit. I mean the companies make loads of cash off tobacco, and they own the government. You think we'd have invaded Iran if we were all stoned? That's why they don't want you smokin' weed, man. Hence all the lies.

    Stop bogartin' that blunt man and, pass it over.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  87. Bad Reporting Must Not Go Unpunished by davro · · Score: 1

    Reporters either Sex up or Dumb down a "story" never do we recieve a plain vanilla story, period.
    This fasination of comparison based "news" reporting really make me angry.

    Email !== Marijuana

    Marijuana has always been a good way of getting involved in extracurricular community activities.

    Resin/Hash Watch out for those "Bling Burns" smoking without an ashtray, Song Goldie Looking Chain (soap bar).
    Skunk/Weed Better for your head.

    Marijuana/Drugs are the only reason i hold down a respectable job, nothing worse than being unemployed with no drugs.

  88. dodgy journalism alright by Depris · · Score: 1

    leading the public to believe cannabis is bad.....it's inexcusable.

    --
    I'll make you a deal. You pray to God for help and I'll stop the moment he shows up.
  89. Link to increased risk of Schizophrenia by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Particularly if smoked when younger. My brother was heavily into marijuana during his teens. He's now been on anti psychotics and subsequently anti depressants for around 10 years now. He isn't a functioning member of society any more but the current crop of anti psychotics are actually quite good, he only hears voices and thinks the aliens are out to get him occasionally.

    In terms of IQ, age, job (tech support) and TV are almost certainly far worse for your brain, there's even an article in this month's Mensa mag about it. Late teens my IQ was in the 160s, well into the top 1%. I recently tested in the top 2-3% range, quite a come down.

    --
    Deleted
  90. Wrong Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There also a "gates theory" version involving expensive and very addictive cocaine, brain damage, and passing out randomly, but I digress.

    Sounds more like the "bush theory". The condition is especially dangerous when eating pretzels...

  91. The hierarchy in college by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Students that fail out of engineering go into computer science
    Students that fail out of computer science go into business
    Students that fail out of business go into journalism

    I have seen all of these happen.

  92. Re:Worse than this? The horror.... by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

    Nice video. Once again, Marijuana proves to make some people stupid. Who would pay $60 for a 1/2 qtr!? Shiiiiit.

    --
    You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
  93. Look at this picture and tell me he isn't stoned.. by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    Looks like he just finished a grueling bong session to me...

    http://blog.monkeymethods.org/images/billgates01.j pg

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  94. Re:Worse than this? The horror.... by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

    I apologize for being OT, but it's worth the karma hit to get the answer...

    Does anyone know what tv show this is from? I've seen a couple videos done in the same style. One of the others is called Karate Master and can be found on stupidvideos.com

  95. masturbation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    is what we should be fearing the most. i personally think that i have lost at least 12 to 15 iq points from extreme levels of masturbation between the years of 11 and 33. we're talking twice a day (minimum) each and everyday. it's like a gateway drug and has now gotten me addicted to porn (which has to get weirder everyday for the same "stimulation"). on top of that i think that it has slowed my physical reflexes and retarded my social skills.


    i also think that my balls have developed a permanent and odd pungent odour that on the rare occassion smells kinda sexy.


    smoking pot has only made me more of a wanker.

  96. correlation is NOT causation!!! by frankie · · Score: 1

    Arrr, lack of pirates caused global warming

    Do any of those schizophrenia studies demonstrate directionality? It sounds much more plausible to me that people with emerging brain chemistry problems might be inclined to try recreational drugs as a coping mechanism.

    1. Re:correlation is NOT causation!!! by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      "Do any of those schizophrenia studies demonstrate directionality?"

      Yes.

      --
      Deleted
    2. Re:correlation is NOT causation!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, no, they don't, which is why you provide no examples.

      using a mood-altering substance may REVEAL PREEXISTING problems, but that is very different from *causing them*. You just fell into the same stupid assumption that idiots like Barry McCaffrey flap around.

      1/5 of American adults have genital herpes. 1/5 of American adults have smoked a significant amount of weed.

      Ergo: weed causes herpes.

      But wait...I was breastfed, then I started smoking weed, then I got herpes, then I got in a car accident.

      OH SHIT! Breastfeeding causes drug use, STDs, and auto crashes! no WONDER Ashcroft hates those jiggly globes of goodness

  97. Mark Twain said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's easy to quit smoking cigars, I've done it a thousand times!"

  98. Ain't rhetorical bullshit fun? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    I think the distinction needs to be made though that I'm not an abuser of substances

    They defined "abuser" as "anyone who uses an illegal substance". By international lawer-fu, there are no users, only abusers.

    governments and medical practitioners should seriously look at marijuana law reform. I'm an adult and I should have the right to do what I want provided I don't hurt anyone else in the process

    Wouldn't it be nice...

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  99. newspapers reduce your IQ by wadiwood · · Score: 1

    Especially ones owned by Murdoch (www.newscorp.com) but there are plenty of others.

    Anything that puts out USA Government/Mega-Corporation propaganda without questioning it is going to give its readers/viewers a lower intelligence.

    It's like those brain sucker monsters that roved the Dungeons in D&D. Now they're not so fictional.

    --

    -- it must be true, it's on the internet.
  100. Big fat flaw in your statement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cigarettes and alcohol aren't banned because white people used them back in the old days...

    You've never heard of Prohiobition? First they amended the Constitution to ban alcohol, then passed the Volstead Act. My grandfather had a beer-making kit in his barn during ALCOHOL prohibition.

    Marijuana was outlawed not because Mexicans smoked it, but because Harry Anslinger, head of teh federal Narcotics bureau, wanted more money for his bureau to better prosecute heroin addicts.

    Marijuana was chosen because the only people using it were Mexicans and musicians, and neither of these groups voted regularly.

    Cocaine was not a drug used by blacks; it was used by everybody. Coca-Cola originally had extracts from the coca plant; that's the plant they make cocaine from.

    Cocaine was actually a "pro temperance" (anti-alcohol) drug, which made folks work harder (while alcohol made them into lazy drunken bums). It was outlawed because of what it did to WHITE PEOPLE.

    Racism is a tool of the rich to keep poor whites, blacks, and browns at each other's throats and their attention deflected form the class that causes their misery. If you are a racist, you also are a tool of the rich and your stupidity helps make the rich richer. .

  101. "Clearly" racism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opium and marijuana use in the Chinese culture (and cocaine use in South American cultures-coca leaves) was just as acceptable as tobacco and alcohol in European culture, and dates back thousands of years as well. They just weren't socially accepted institutions for the ruling white Europeans, and therefore were outlawed. That's clearly racism, your incredibly narrow view and failure to consider other cultures history makes you sound like one of those government anti-drug propaganda people, whose flimsy arguments against drugs embarass them everytime they debate people who've bothered to study the topic with a neutral, open mind.

    I do not think that word means what you think it means. Racism is making a decision based on race, not without regard to race. Besides, you're not even referring to racism in your post, your referring to culture. Maybe a term such as ethnocentricity might be appropriate, as that's basically ignoring the existence of other cultures, but racisim it is not.

  102. Re:Look at this picture and tell me he isn't stone by splatter · · Score: 1

    Oh shit now that was funny..... damn near lost my hit..

    Yes that MUST have been a nice session, because he's stoned as a MF

    DP

    --
    "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  103. Marijuana increases your risk of schizophrenia by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Uh, go look through my post for the words "cause, causes, caused" etc. You chicken shit annonymous muppet.

    http://www.schizophrenia.com/New/Jan%2004/cannabis risk.htm

    You go on smoking as much of the stuff as you can get your hands on, they'll just section you, lock you up and dope you to the eyeballs with anti psychotics. If you're lucky you'll get some of the more recent drugs and you might be able to lead a semi-normal life when you grow up.

    --
    Deleted
  104. Fuck, I'll say it - ROFL by Elad+Alon · · Score: 1

    That's a damn good one.

    --
    News for merdes. Shit that matters.
    Ask me about my sig.
  105. Is this the latest trend? by MythoBeast · · Score: 1

    It seems that everything you eat can give you cancer. Are they now headed down the road of deciding what intellectual content causes stupidity?

    Let's face it, when you're talking about negative side effects (lethargy, obeisity, stupidity), watching television, regardless of what you're watching, is worse for you than marijuana.

    --
    Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
  106. MOD PARENT UP ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD PARENT UP !

  107. If it's all the same to you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll just keep on with my independent testing.

  108. marijuana dangerous FUDster by lpq · · Score: 1

    To the poor brainwashed American who has been successfully victimized by Partnership for a Think-free America", who believes that marijuana is "dangerous".

    First, look at the numbers: cigarettes, alcohol, and -- here's a big _fat_ problem: diet are top of the list killers in the US. Top spot is still heart disease traced to bad diet, over-eating, fat-foods and tobacco use. Cancer I think is around number #2, with over 18 deaths per hour - 24 hours a day 7 days a week -- over 400,000 people a year. Alcohol deaths have dropped due to _training_ -- has alcohol gotten less dangerous? No. There has been alot more spent on education.

    Now come up with any study that shows # of accidents caused by someone being "high". Last I heard the CDC had the deaths directly attributed to marijuana as -0-. Sure, the alcohol and pharmaceutical companies among other corporate lobbies (cotton, wood based paper, etc) have a strong vested interest in trying to make you believe marijuana "kills", but the stats they use test for metabolites in someone's body that stay around up to 30 days after use -- way longer than the effect.

    Second, as for actual effects on driving -- two studies that were buried found no driving degradation for moderate use in those who smoked regularly -- in fact of the two studies (one Oregon or Washington DMV), the other the CA CHP, the CHP study shows that smoking actually *improved* driving habits for _some_ drivers -- they were less rushed about getting places -- less tense, less prone to "road rage" and less prone to aggressive driving -- something now said to be an increasing cause of accidents. So get the facts before you talk about how dangerous it is and don't be fooled by the "Partnership for a Think-Free America: Just Say No to everything". I don't know about their current funding, but in their early years almost 2/3rds of their funding came from the pharma and alcohol industry. You wanna talk dangerous? Approximately 1/3rd of the pharma's patent portfolio would become virtually useless if people could grow their own at home. Heck -- it even inhibits cancer growth, which might explain why you don't see a Surgeon General's warning on marijuana smoking. To the contrary -- those who smoked cigarettes lowered their risk of lung cancer by smoking pot, they believe because the THC opens up the airways and allows the cancer particle to more quickly exit the lungs.

    As for the alcohol lobby's interest in keeping marijuana illegal? It's a competitor drug. Usage patterns of alcohol showed drops in sales when large shipments were verified as coming into an area. Alcohol kills alot more people than marijuana so you might want to rethink that "dangerous" thing. Alcohol also seems to let out the asshole in people far more freely with violence not being uncommon. The opposite effect seems more common with cannabis ingestion.

    There are many pharma drugs that just are not as good at treating various ailments as marijuana, or doing so without worse side effects.

    Heck -- Henry Ford designed his first car to run on biodiesel & ethanol. He was growing pot on his estate and was believed to be doing so to develop a cheap, environmentally friendly fuel for his new car. Unfortunately, oil reserves were discovered first, and it was cheaper to extract the already "energy" rich "earth-battery reserves" to power Ford's invention.

    A similar threat to Hearst's Publication empire came when an over abundance of hemp threatened the value of his large holdings of forest land as hemp can product about 4 times the paper/acre of tree, and can do so every year. It doesn't require lots of pesticides or fertilizers to grow -- it's a weed! Furthermore, you can skip a Very Dangerous step in making paper from hemp. Tree fibers are too stiff and long to be used in paper. They need to be broken down -- the only chemicals for the job are chlorine based products that produce toxic dioxins as byproducts. Those byproducts are costly to process as dioxin doesn't nat

  109. *pull pull pull* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wooooaaaaahhhhhhhh....