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."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5179038412 705987877
/. admits they made a mistake...
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
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.
Media don't sell news, they sell eyeballs. When you buy a paper, you're the product and not the client.
... And aye dont feal any more stupider.
Nobody's gay for Mole-Man.
But the real question is whether causal marijuana usage really has a lasting effect on your IQ.
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?
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
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.
I was having this discussion with a co-worker just the I'm sorry, what were we talking about?
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.
I blame the man for lowering my IQ and for takin my stash...
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."
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... --
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.
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
marijuana reporting, er, not bad email, is better than..
er..
toast! I want toast!
Oh well, back to email then...
Obviously those people at the Guardian have not yet read Slashdot.
Welcome to our information age crack house.
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.
... n/m
Sounds like that reporter was smokin' crack.
:-)
[rimshot]
Oh come on! For once, it's ontopic!
Electric Monkey Pants
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.
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.
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.
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/
You can't trust wikipedia! Trust the mass media!
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
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.
Well I never!
http://www.joejag.com/pics/cnn_columbia.jpg
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.
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?"
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 :)
"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.
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
Surely you're toking, Mr. Feynman?
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
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.
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.
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.
Or how about, "Reading Slashdot, Worse Than Marijuana".
Bradley Holt
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.
There's no way that casual...wait, what was I saying? Could you repeat the question?
Just as I always suspected. Lawrence Welk--Closet Spliffmeister.
http://www.zeldman.com/classics/welk/
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.
google.slashdot
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?
... ...
does this mean I can... ... ...
start toking again? ...
or...
what?
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
Donald "Your fired!"
"The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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 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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
On the one hand, this realization flies in the face of contemporary linguistic thought. On the other hand, OMFG U GOT SO PWNX0RZD!!@!~!~!
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
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.
Because marijuana is awesome.
Game... blouses.
Correlation does imply causality, but it doesn't prove it.
What were we talking about again?
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.
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.
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
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?
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
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
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:
0 61948192&q=bong
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-66818207
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!
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
So how does editing Slashdot and smoking crack measure up to all this?
There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
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:
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.
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;
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Looks like he just finished a grueling bong session to me...
j pg
http://blog.monkeymethods.org/images/billgates01.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
Uh, go look through my post for the words "cause, causes, caused" etc. You chicken shit annonymous muppet.
s risk.htm
http://www.schizophrenia.com/New/Jan%2004/cannabi
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
That's a damn good one.
News for merdes. Shit that matters.
Ask me about my sig.
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
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.
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