Slashdot Mirror


Cannabinoids Induce Brain Cell Growth?

Harlan writes "The Globe and Mail is reporting that researchers at the University of Saskatchewan are claiming that high doses of cannabinoids have induced new brain cell growth in the hippocampus, the part of the brain responsible for learning and memory, in rat subjects. There are some interesting potential implications in regards to high doses of cannabinoids found in substances like marijuana."

494 comments

  1. YEAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    WEeeeeEEEEEeeeeedddd

  2. This was never really in doubt... by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean, have you seen the complexity of some of those home-made bongs?
    There's some serious brain power gone into engineering those bastards.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:This was never really in doubt... by NickABusey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thurgood Jenkins: The MacGyver smoker is a very handy guy to have around, especially when it comes to reefer.
      McGayver Friend: Hey, man, we're out of papers.
      McGayver Smoker: All right. Then get me a toilet paper roll, a corkscrew and some tin foil.
      McGayver Friend: We don't have a corkscrew.
      McGayver Smoker: All right. Then get me an avocado, an ice pick and my snorkel.
      McGayver Smoker: [Friend looks at him funny] Trust me, bro. I've made bongs with less. Hurry up!

      --

      - Nick Busey
      www.pedalbmx.com
      www.nickbusey.com
    2. Re:This was never really in doubt... by Myu · · Score: 1

      Of course. How do you suppose the guys at Saskatchewan made this discovery in the first place? It doesn't take a rocket scientist hooped up on smack to work that one out. On the flip-side of the coin, though, this could potentially lead to a link between joints and the growth of cancerous cells, which would effectively eliminate its chances of legalisation.

      --
      Myu: ... The map's upside down...
    3. Re:This was never really in doubt... by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      i used to make them out of a plastic milk bottle and some scelotape and a nut.

      cut the handle in half, attatch the nut with scelotape to half of the handle, seal the other half of the handle. worked great and easily disguarded

    4. Re:This was never really in doubt... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      'disguarded'? Do you mean 'discarded'?

      Obviously it didn't help your braincells any.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    5. Re:This was never really in doubt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, you didn't pick up on the creative word play. Given that smoking marijuana is highly illegal in many jurisdictions, you do not want to be caught possessing a bong. Thus, you would be "on guard" against anyone possibly discovering your bong. When you throw away your milk jug bong, you are both discarding it and unburdening your guard against its discovery. Thus, you have "disguarded" the milk jug bong.

      Perhaps you should try a few good doobies to help boost your learning abilities.

    6. Re:This was never really in doubt... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      That has to be the stupidest explanation I've ever heard in my life.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    7. Re:This was never really in doubt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My roommate freshman year was a frequent bong user. He had a 0.2 GPA followed by 0.0. His friends were all in the square club (when you square your GPA and it gets smaller, you are a member). The empirical data does not suggest a strong correlation between bong use and brainpower.

    8. Re:This was never really in doubt... by kill-1 · · Score: 1

      Aargh, someone beat me to this.

      But it should be mentioned that this quote is from the film Half Baked (1998).

    9. Re:This was never really in doubt... by lastchance_000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're not getting enough cannabinoids.

    10. Re:This was never really in doubt... by machineghost · · Score: 1

      I think my favorite alternative paraphanalia(sp?) has got to be a potato. You can get one almost anywhere, and all you need is a regular knife and a little bit of time to turn it in to a fully functional pipe (with carb!).

    11. Re:This was never really in doubt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad sample -- I was and am a frequent bong user, in the pi+1/sqrt(2) club -- my GPA never dropped below this while getting double degrees in cognitive science and computer science and minoring in Chinese (no prior chinese experience) at Northwestern. I'm sure I have just as many bong-using friends in my club as your stoner roommate had. This would suggest no strong correlation between smoking and brainpower. Maybe you should smoke more before you do statistical analysis.

    12. Re:This was never really in doubt... by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      are you suggesting that products which contain cancer causing agents are illegal?

    13. Re:This was never really in doubt... by Dreamstalker_wolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anything can be "shown" to cause cancer, all it takes is the right studies by the right biased researcher. I fail to see how cannabis can be linked to cancerous cells, as cancer is basically a protein misfolding and cell division out of control. Linking marijuana to cancer formation would be effectively saying that weed causes protein formation to go awry, which is quite a stretch (in that I doubt it could be proven).

    14. Re:This was never really in doubt... by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Apples are quite effective as well, and personally, I prefer the appley flavor.

    15. Re:This was never really in doubt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when i arrived at dartmouth i had never smoked, and i struggled (a little bit) for my freshman and sophomore years. then i started smoking weed. at the same time, my grades really started to improve -- like, a lot. personally i don't attribute my academic improvement to drug use, at least not directly. however, after i got some wry comments about being a pothead from friends, i made a line graph showing my GPA over time, and marked the point at which i started smoking, and how my drug use increased thereafter; and there was a clear upward trend on both graphs.

      though i did great getting high and doing homework, i also know people who burned out smoking and started failing.

      i was a comp sci person, too, like you. i love to code high. love it. some people can't do it, i've been told, but i sure can. i code high like a fucking madman.

      yo, i hope you mean pi + (1/sqrt(2)) not (pi + 1)/(sqrt(2))

    16. Re:This was never really in doubt... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Hmm...that's thinking different!

    17. Re:This was never really in doubt... by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      *blurb blurb blurb blurb blurb blurb*

      *whoooooooooooooooooooooooooo.......*

      What?

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    18. Re:This was never really in doubt... by mhearne · · Score: 1

      How was this rated 5 points 'funny'? There is nothing funny about drug-war scumbags, or their success in preventing scientific research.

      Michael

    19. Re:This was never really in doubt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shit yeah man, get blazed, turn on some kraftwerk and write some code. I meant pi + (1/(sqrt(2)) -- implicit order of operations allows for delicious explicit ambiguity

  3. Now I can say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...that I am going to the health club when I pop into the local coffeeshop!

    1. Re:Now I can say... by davesag · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      coffeeshop you say - hmm you *must* be in The Netherlands then :-)

      --
      I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
    2. Re:Now I can say... by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Gee, what do they call them in your neck of the woods ?

      for those just tuning in, coffee shop = head shop

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    3. Re:Now I can say... by davesag · · Score: 2, Interesting

      where I live head-shops are called smart-shops and sell mild magic-mushrooms and all manner of mostly piss-weak hallucinogens and rubbish like gurana power. in coffe shops you buy grass and hash off a weed-cart which is a menu, not a trolley. in cafes you can buy coffee, although most coffee-shops do sell coffee as well as weed and hash and space-cake. some even sell alcohol too. very few sell food. I am not sure why someone doesn't just set up a cafe that sells grass, hash and serves good food, beer, wine, cocktails. they could get rid of all the rubbish stereotyped bob-marley parephenalia too in my humble opinion.

      --
      I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
    4. Re:Now I can say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our new pothead overlords.

      As Netherlands is beginning to awake to the national brain overweight problem, will we see:
      - brain fitness programs on tv?
      - brain diet tablets?
      - head waist slimming electronic-shock belts?

    5. Re:Now I can say... by SteveAyre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stoners with Munchies + Food = Profit.

      I'm surprised they don't sell food.

    6. Re:Now I can say... by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm..

      I think I kinda like your neck of the woods better :D

      I wish recreational drugs would be treated with equal respect here in northam. Such a big stink over nothing, IMO. Not that I consume that stuff anymore, but it's still annoying to see it still treated as an underground thing.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    7. Re:Now I can say... by dclydew · · Score: 1

      As Robert Anton Wilson once pointed out, those places would make more money if the employees didn't sample the wares (in his case the poor waitress (and everyone at the table) couldn't remember if they'd actually paid the bill or not).

      --
      Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
  4. specific brain cells? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i would suspect that THC spurs the growth of brain cells responsible for promoting hunger and suppressing satiety

    specifically for cheetos

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:specific brain cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that has to do with brain cell growth at all.

      And don't forget about garlic pretzels, some of us are connoisseurs of ... stuff.

    2. Re:specific brain cells? by gauge+boson · · Score: 1

      Not Cheetos... Funyons.

      --
      This is sqrt(not) a sig.
    3. Re:specific brain cells? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Nah, not Cheetos, those little bags of pizza bites.

    4. Re:specific brain cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn, you're a pro

    5. Re:specific brain cells? by PorkNutz · · Score: 1

      Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a Winner!

    6. Re:specific brain cells? by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      Good God Yes.

  5. Brain cells the are limiting factor by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is just my observation but when a persons health fails in old age, a key factor seems to be failure in the nervous system. I had a great aunt who lived five years after a stroke. Her body went downhill because her brain wasn't running the show properly.

    So I think treatments which can help revive the brain can also help other systems in the body.

    And it is the only organ which can not be replaced in some way by machinery.

    1. Re:Brain cells the are limiting factor by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      What about telomeres? Without replenishing them, most somatic cells will eventually stop reproducing. (IANAMolecularBiologist, however.)

    2. Re:Brain cells the are limiting factor by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      What about telomeres? Without replenishing them, most somatic cells will eventually stop reproducing.

      That's true, but nerve cells reproduce so rarely that they should have much more life remaining than other cells.

      I am not even sure if it has been shown that telomeres are the limiting factor in our current lifespan.

    3. Re:Brain cells the are limiting factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And it is the only organ which can not be replaced in some way by machinery.


      I, for one, welcome our biomechanically enbrained overlords!

    4. Re:Brain cells the are limiting factor by Admiral+Frosty · · Score: 3, Funny

      Whada ya mean brains can't be replaced? This man obviusly has not seen those future documentaries known to the public as "Ghost in the Shell".

    5. Re:Brain cells the are limiting factor by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      That's true, but nerve cells reproduce so rarely that they should have much more life remaining than other cells.

      I wasn't really referring to neurons, but all everyday cells that regularly replenish themselves.

  6. mirror ... for all you homeys too baked to click by larry+bagina · · Score: 0, Troll

    Calgary -- Forget the stereotype about dopey potheads. It seems marijuana could be good for your brain.

    While other studies have shown that periodic use of marijuana can cause memory loss and impair learning and a host of other health problems down the road, new research suggests the drug could have some benefits when administered regularly in a highly potent form.

    Most "drugs of abuse" such as alcohol, heroin, cocaine and nicotine suppress growth of new brain cells. However, researchers found that cannabinoids promoted generation of new neurons in rats' hippocampuses.

    Hippocampuses are the part of the brain responsible for learning and memory, and the study held true for either plant-derived or the synthetic version of cannabinoids.

    Advertisements
    Click Heread1
    Register

    "This is quite a surprise," said Xia Zhang, an associate professor with the Neuropsychiatry Research Unit at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.

    "Chronic use of marijuana may actually improve learning memory when the new neurons in the hippocampus can mature in two or three months," he added.

    The research by Dr. Zhang and a team of international researchers is to be published in the November issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, but their findings are on-line now.

    The scientists also noticed that cannabinoids curbed depression and anxiety, which Dr. Zhang says, suggests a correlation between neurogenesis and mood swings. (Or, it at least partly explains the feelings of relaxation and euphoria of a pot-induced high.)

    Other scientists have suggested that depression is triggered when too few new brain cells are created in the hippocampus. One researcher of neuropharmacology said he was "puzzled" by the findings.

    As enthusiastic as Dr. Zhang is about the potential health benefits, he warns against running out for a toke in a bid to beef up brain power or calm nerves.

    The team injected laboratory rats with a synthetic substance called HU-210, which is similar, but 100 times as potent as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the compound responsible for giving marijuana users a high.

    They found that the rats treated regularly with a high dose of HU-210 -- twice a day for 10 days -- showed growth of neurons in the hippocampus. The researchers don't know if pot, which isn't as pure as the lab-produced version, would have the same effect.

    "There's a big gap between rats and humans," Dr. Zhang points out.

    But there is a lot of interest -- and controversy -- around the use of cannabinoids to improve human health.

    Cannabinoids, such as marijuana and hashish, have been used to address pain, nausea, vomiting, seizures caused by epilepsy, ischemic stroke, cerebral trauma, tumours, multiple sclerosis and a host of other maladies.

    There are herbal cannabinoids, which come from the cannabis plant, and the bodies of humans and animals produce endogenous cannabinoids. The substance can also be designed in the lab.

    Cannabinoids can trigger the body's two cannabinoid receptors, which control the activity of various cells in the body.

    One receptor, known as CB1, is found primarily in the brain. The other receptor, CB2, was thought to be found only in the immune system.

    However, in a separate study to be published today in the journal Science, a group of international researchers have located the CB2 receptor in the brain stems of rats, mice and ferrets.

    The brain stem is responsible for basic body function such as breathing and the gastrointestinal tract. If stimulated in a certain way, CB2 could be harnessed to eliminate the nausea and vomiting associated with post-operative analgesics or cancer and AIDS treatments, according to the researchers.

    "Ultimately, new therapies could be developed as a result of these findings," said Keith Sharkey, a gastrointestinal neuroscientist at the University of Calgary, lead author of the study.

    (Scientists are trying to find ways to block CB1 as a way to decrease food cravings and limit dependence on tobacco.)

    When asked whether his findings explain why CmdrTaco taked it up the ass, Dr. Sharkey paused and replied: "It does not explain the effects of smoked or inhaled or ingested substances."

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  7. Yay! by sveskemus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always suspected... uhm, what were we talking about again?

    1. Re:Yay! by Jambon · · Score: 1
      I always suspected... uhm, what were we talking about again?

      Dude. Being a cannibal makes you smarter, man. Far out.....

  8. Ah... by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Funny

    You might grow more brain cells, but all of these new cells will be dedicated to designing more complicated bongs and imagining conspiracies to unravel, so the net functional gain is minimal.

    1. Re:Ah... by nihilogos · · Score: 2

      What do you mean the net functional gain is minimal? The inventors of the quad-chamber bong were geniuses, and its sophistication is the hallmark of a civilized society.

      --
      :wq
    2. Re:Ah... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Maybe so ... but that just means that regular use of the stuff by the general population will increase the Slashdot subscriber base by an order of magnitude or more.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Ah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe so ... but that just means that regular use of the stuff by the general population will increase the Slashdot subscriber base by an order of magnitude or more.

      /Douglas Adams

      There are some who would say that this has already happened.

      /Douglas Adams off

  9. So, what do you want to do tonight, Brain? by bsartist · · Score: 5, Funny

    Same thing we do every night, Pinky - get baked and munch out.

    --
    Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    1. Re:So, what do you want to do tonight, Brain? by ettlz · · Score: 1

      Brilliant! Can anyone draw a cartoon of this?!

    2. Re:So, what do you want to do tonight, Brain? by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1
      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
  10. Take that parents! by iamdrscience · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe skipping class to go smoke pot isn't such a waste of time after all...

    1. Re:Take that parents! by courseB · · Score: 1

      or skipping out during work... helped apple come up with programs like paint!

    2. Re:Take that parents! by jgerry · · Score: 1

      Why do you have to do one or the other? Smoke pot and then go to class.

      I did it for years and I gradumatated.

  11. Great... by fragmentate · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that my kids have read this we can argue about, "But DAD, Slashdot says!"

    1. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Now that my kids have read this we can argue about, "But DAD, Slashdot says!"

      Your fault for letting your kids read Slashdot. Not only do they get to see goatsed IIS servers, but also pages that advocate pot.

    2. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Kids basing decisions on scientific studies - even if those contradict our belief systems and/or values [or those of our corporate overlords] - is still better than that children are kept in ignorance.

      Actually, this applies to all people, not just kids. Take global warming as an example.

    3. Re:Great... by Jack+Earl · · Score: 1

      Just show your kid one of the Goatse hacked articles that have been up on Slashdot every other day. That ought to scare them straight about what Slashdot is all about.

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

      Last weekend my 16 yr old stepson came home with a joint another kid had given him. He showed it to his mom, and asked if he could try it out. We agreed to let him, at home, in a controlled environment. So he tried it, and spent the evening giggling, surfing the net, and watching me play Ratchet and Clank.

      When it wore off we talked about it, and while he enjoyed it, it was also a bit much for him. He decided that it's something that he would try occasionally if at all.

      We went through a list of things to take into account including:
      1) Trust the source. You don't want it dusted with PCP or Coke.
      2) Never do any drug with someone you don't trust with your life.
      3) If you're going to do it, make plans to stay in for the night with your friends.

      We could have yelled and screamed at him, or done any of several irrational parent things but I think this was the best approach. You can't stop them from doing it when you're not around, so at least educate them. And when his friends are experimenting, he may be the voice of reason that keeps them safe at the end of the night.

      And to save some DEA agent from wasting their time, I'm not an American.

  12. 100 times more potent form of THC by layer3switch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Certainly that can't be in a form of inhaling. However why is that this picture is on the news? http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/i mages/20051014/wxcanna1014/1014joints.jpg

    Sounds like someone just got too excited to hear the news, lite up that pipe and start posting news with whatever picture taken from pot party he/she attended.

    That just proves pot smoking kills more brain cells than promotes them. I rather eat fish than inject myself with 100 times more potent form of THC into my body on daily basis, thank you very much.

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    1. Re:100 times more potent form of THC by Alioth · · Score: 0

      Now the real acid (or really, alkali) test on fish-vs-pot: would you rather eat LUTEFISK than use pot?

    2. Re:100 times more potent form of THC by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      I don't know about lutefisk, but I rather eat fish than use pot.

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    3. Re:100 times more potent form of THC by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Lutefisk is fish. Or at least, it once was fish. Try it at your own risk.

    4. Re:100 times more potent form of THC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is actually from the marijuana party book store. That whole area in Vancouver is called "pot block." The marijuana party headquarters, their book store, and the New Amsterdam Cafe (the only cafe in vancouver that allowes you to smoke pot inside), are all located their. Cambie and Hastings to be specific. So the toker you saw, well, that's certainly no exception.

    5. Re:100 times more potent form of THC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mercury and other environmental toxins pervade the fish you might eat. So, in the interest of you own health, you would be much better off smoking Ganja.

    6. Re:100 times more potent form of THC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take both thank you.

      Few hits of THC followed by a serving of fish.

      Oh don't forget the lemon!

      -Sj53

    7. Re:100 times more potent form of THC by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      That arguement doesn't hold water. Are you saying since food we eat is polluted, we should just smoke pot?

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    8. Re:100 times more potent form of THC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That arguement doesn't hold water. Are you saying since food we eat is polluted, we should just smoke pot?

      No, you moron, he's saying that the fish we eat is polluted.... so polluted that it may actually be safer for you to ingest marijuana than fish.

      and I quote:
      Mercury and other environmental toxins pervade the fish you might eat. So, in the interest of you own health, you would be much better off smoking Ganja.

      Considering your strange obsession with "eating fish," one would think you'd know what he's talking about..... maybe you've been injesting too much mercury and can't read all of the words in a sentence carefully.

  13. Dude! by pookemon · · Score: 3, Funny

    It, like, alters your mind! Wohoa!

    --
    dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    1. Re:Dude! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      It, like, alters your mind! Wohoa!

      So uhh, mind expanding drugs, like, make your mind bigger huh?

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  14. Pot is sooo 2005. by crosstopher · · Score: 1

    1. Ingest a lot of this. (twice a day for 10 days, human dosages uncertain, $35/mg.)
    2. Wait 2-3 months for new neurons in the hippocampus to mature.
    3. ???
    4. Profit!

    1. Re:Pot is sooo 2005. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the fish in the upper-left corner wears a hat and is blowing a whistle...

  15. HU-210 by gfody · · Score: 5, Funny

    The team injected laboratory rats with a synthetic substance called HU-210, which is similar, but 100 times as potent as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the compound responsible for giving marijuana users a high.

    Clearly my dealer has been lying to me. He swore there was nothing stronger than his stuff. Where do I get HU-210? ..or better yet, how do I make it?

    --

    bite my glorious golden ass.
    1. Re:HU-210 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THC

    2. Re:HU-210 by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Funny

      The description of this highly pure form of cannabis deserves an appropriate street name...

      Since it's so much more powerful, kinda like crack compared to coke, how about we call it, by analogy:

      Crack Pot

    3. Re:HU-210 by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      I don't know about HU-210 specifically, but... THC has a 5-carbon (pentyl) side chain hanging off of its benzene ring. Synthetic analogs with longer chains (e.g., hexyl and up) in that position can be many times more potent than natural THC. They're not hard to synthesize if you're an organic chemist and can obtain the necessary precursors, but of course attempting to do so is likely to bring you more attention than you'll want.

    4. Re:HU-210 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *clap clap clap*

    5. Re:HU-210 by euxneks · · Score: 1

      Clearly my dealer has been lying to me. He swore there was nothing stronger than his stuff. Where do I get HU-210? ..or better yet, how do I make it?

      Come to B.C.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    6. Re:HU-210 by Dever · · Score: 1
      "Clearly my dealer has been lying to me. He swore there was nothing stronger than his stuff. Where do I get HU-210? ..or better yet, how do I make it?"

      Here is the next best thing.

      --
      - I'd prefer not to.
    7. Re:HU-210 by dclydew · · Score: 1

      Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!

      --
      Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
  16. About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've been smoking weed for years, and every time I get nice and baked, I tend to learn things quicker, and remember vividly everything I learn while high. I'm not surprised that injecting lab rats with a twice as potent THC like substance spurred neuron generation, quite frankly I'm surprised that in the USA, marijuana still remains illegal while drugs like Oxycontin are still kept in pharmacies. Perhaps that's why studies in this nature are conducted in other countries, the government wants you to use THEIR drugs. I say free the weed, it helps perpetuate neuron growth, so why stop it? Is the government afraid that, one day, the population might come out of a sobriety induced stupor to realize that the politicians are all overpaid bastards who leech off our money to feed their expensive tastes and high salaries, while giving us nothing but bullshit in return?

    1. Re:About time. by Kinky+Bass+Junk · · Score: 1

      "I'm not surprised that injecting lab rats with a twice as potent THC like substance spurred neuron generation,"

      Interesting to note that those who habitually smoke Marijuana misread "100 times" as "double".

      I'm in no way anti-pot, and am an occasional smoker. For around a week after getting baked, I always have hightened levels of creativity and, surprisingly, a higher attention span.

      --
      Anonymous Coward
    2. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While we're at it with the anonymous confessions I feel the need to chime in.

      Several years ago I met a man in his early 50's, proper, intelligent, well employed and whatnot. After a good many beers he confided to me that he had been smoking weed since his early 20's, and that his son actually didn't know about it until he had turned 18, when he boldly proclaimed to his father that he had tried smoking and was prepared to stand up for it. Good laugh that.

      Anyways, this got me thinking. I had smoked some in College and figured what the hell, if he can do it then I can. This was at the point when I was starting out my professional career, 7 years ago. Since then I've made a rocket career, earned the respect of my colleagues, cultivated my social network and smoked kg's of weed.
      Nowadays I cut it back due to lung cancer risks, but I still very much appreciate the toke when I come home in the evening, which allows me to completely let go of all the issues at work and actually spend my spare time regenerating.

      So what's the point to all this ranting? I'm not advocating here, and I definately don't think that large doses of stimulative drugs such as THC would be good for the general masses, however I don't think that of alcohol either. No, I rather think that the negative aspects of Cannabis come from the social interpretation of it, in a way creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    3. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In my experience, I've found marijuana to be a miracle when it comes to writing/debugging code. If I find I'm driving myself nuts, I'll take a break and a few hits - suddenly, that little problem I couldn't figure out before might as well be waving at me.

    4. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      While we're all chiming in anonymously, I'd like to let everyone know how surprising it is that I don't know more /.-techies-true tinkerers growing their own weed, in some ridiculously over engineered cabinet.

      Seriously folks, you want a rewarding discipline that involves a myriad of interesting technical problems, go grow. You wouldn't believe how much sheer ingenuity is bursting out of the illicit growing scene.

      There's also some sheer amusing thread names:

      Trichromes and an Electron Microscope

      Cylindrical, oscillatory LED blankets + self-regulating fogger/hydro system - DYNAMIC

      Foliar Feeding - nutrients squared!

      Quantum Sub-Particle Accelerator for root growth? (My favorite -Ed)

      Bonsai marijuana and their kids

      Sorry, Overgrow server

  17. Laws of nature are different in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    US Congress will make sure this is the case. Drugs may not harm the Canadians but they do harm American people.

  18. Re:mirror ... for all you homeys too baked to clic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "a synthetic substance called HU-210, which is similar, but 100 times as potent as THC"
    dang!!! who's in this team and can they hook a brother up!

  19. This looks like the original data (link enclosed) by CRabe · · Score: 5, Informative

    The authors are far more cautious in their interpretation than some of the /. readers...but then this is not that much of a surprise. PDF (a few MBs) http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid= 1253627&blobtype=pdf

  20. Re:Only a pothead could mistake a human for a rat by holy+zarquon's+singi · · Score: 1
    die a death on investigation by their pears

    Normally I wouldn't do the grammar nazi thing, but you must have quite a case of the munchies there!

    --
    "...we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." B.Spears 2003
  21. I don't get it... by lightspawn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why are rats attending a hippocampus in the first place?

    1. Re:I don't get it... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be hippiecampus now?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  22. I have doubts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is study is true... why can't I remember where I put my car keys?

    1. Re:I have doubts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you don't have a car.

    2. Re:I have doubts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sweet.

  23. I think there must be a mistake by Brendor · · Score: 3, Funny

    This article was posted 13 minutes too late.

    1. Re:I think there must be a mistake by HazE_nMe · · Score: 1

      Ha Ha... I would have gotten that sooner if it wasn't for the different time zones

    2. Re:I think there must be a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would you care to let the more, uh, intelectually challenged among us in on the joke? I don't get it.

    3. Re:I think there must be a mistake by Calydor · · Score: 0

      4:20, the very common codeword for pot smokers.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  24. Would anyone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... like to welcome our new dutch overlords?

  25. Just in time... by adrx · · Score: 1

    ...for EuroOSCON in Amsterdam !!!!

  26. It is still in doubt actually by nietsch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The mentioned research used 'canaboids', which is a group of componds resembling those found in cannabis(THC). It was already known that the brain uses neurotransmitters that are in the form of canaboids and it contains several types of receptor for it, just like opiates have human equivalents in the form of endorfines.
    But similar results done with THC (Tetra Hydro Cannabinol), the main compound in hash and weed have found no evidence for this cellgrowth stimulation. So let's not jump for joy yet. One experiment/paper does not mean it has been accepted as scientific fact yet.
    Besides, you can be sure that with such a hot subject and the way research is financed/politiced there will be more research 'debunking' this even if it turns out to be true after all.

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    1. Re:It is still in doubt actually by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the research talks about "cannabinoids." Cannabinoids are the primary psychoactive alkaloids contained in cannabis, of which, THC is the most concentrated in most strains, although each strain contains different levels of each. THC is a cannabinoid so it likely has very similar pharmacological effects as HU-210.

    2. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Dolda2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not that I want to debunk those results or anything, but saying that two similar substances of the same kind have the same effect would also imply that ethanol and methanol would have roughly the same effect. I doubt there is anyone on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference, though.

    3. Re:It is still in doubt actually by nietsch · · Score: 1

      How else can such a comment come from someone whose nick is the chemical name for LSD :-)
      You are right, i made a typo, cannabinoids it is. And yes other cannaboids occur in cannabis too.
      But your assumption that because they are in the same group they must have the same phamacological properties is a bit of the mark. To have the same properties it must bind to the same receptors in the same amounts. There these small difference with extra groups may make a big difference how the molecule actually fits. An extra acetyl or methyl group in the place where the receptor binds may cause a significant reduction in activity. So things are no so clear-cut as you say. THC might, but it might also not, have the same effects as the tested cannabinoid.

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    4. Re:It is still in doubt actually by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Informative

      that's a bad analogy. we're not talking about two substances that simply have similar chemical properties. we're talking about two alkaloids that have similar pharmacological properties. a closer analogy would be comparing two different kinds of exogenous opioids like diacetylmorphine(heroin) and morphine, or codeine and morphine, or a fentanyl analog and morphine, etc., all of which activate a shared set of receptors in the brain. cannabinoids also share a lot of common receptor sites with each other--by definition--thus they're more likely to have similar pharmacological actions. ethanol and methanol don't bind to neurotransmitter receptors in the brain.

    5. Re:It is still in doubt actually by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

      Cannabinoids are not alkaloids, either.

    6. Re:It is still in doubt actually by smallfries · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      On the other hand if you did want to debunk the results then their methodology would be a good place to start. The cell growth is implied by the rats reduced reluctance to eat in new surroundings. They're basing this on the fact that the rats ate more. Seriously. Has anyone done a study on whether or not rats get munchies from artificial cannabinoids?

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    7. Re:It is still in doubt actually by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      i said similar not same. just like different exogenous opioids produce very similar effects, but obviously aren't exactly the same.

    8. Re:It is still in doubt actually by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      sorry, you're right since cannabinoids aren't nitrogenous, but other than that they do bind to a shared group of receptors and activate a shared set of biological pathways, which is how they are categorized--by their pharmacological similarities.

    9. Re:It is still in doubt actually by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Besides, you can be sure that with such a hot subject and the way research is financed/politiced there will be more research 'debunking' this even if it turns out to be true after all.

      Yeah, they probably were studying MDMA ("ecstasy") this time. http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/000078.html

    10. Re:It is still in doubt actually by O.W.M · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ethanol and Methanol DO have roughly the same effect. You get the same intoxication from both of them. What kills you is not the methanol intoxication but the methanol hangover.

      Methanol is metabolized by alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) via formaldehyde to formic acid, being responsible for the metabolic acidosis in methanol poisoning.

      That's why ethanol is given as a cure for methanol poisoning; by adding ethanol to the bloodstream the metabolization rate of methanol decreases as the body will also metabolize ethanol, and thus the level of toxic methanol byproducts in the blood will be kept at a non-lethal level.

    11. Re:It is still in doubt actually by nietsch · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you read the article? That is where I got my info from.
      And FYI: the aargument was if cannabis causes brain cell growth, not if weed is good or bad.
      And as for my bias: I've grown about a kilo of the stuff over the years. Does that make my bias clear?

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    12. Re:It is still in doubt actually by nietsch · · Score: 4, Informative
      from TFA:
      They found that giving rats high doses of HU210 twice a day for 10 days increased the rate of nerve cell formation, or neurogenesis, in the hippocampus by about 40%.


      Are you still sure that the only method they used was injecting cannabinoids and measuring how much they ate?

      I guess that experiment is an accepted test for anxiety, and prozac cum suis scores very good on it. Science gets better if you use standard test where you can. Even though your 'munchies' hypothesis sounds plausible, it still cannot explain the neurogenesis bit.
      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    13. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1, Funny

      They taste the same to me

      --
      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;
    14. Re:It is still in doubt actually by nietsch · · Score: 5, Informative
      Because I like to amuse you so much, i'll cite it for you:
      In another study, Barry Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Princeton University, gave mice the natural cannabinoid found in marijuana, THC (D9-tetrahydrocannabinol)). But he says he detected no neurogenesis, no matter what dose he gave or the length of time he gave it for. From this New Scientist article.

      Happy now?
      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    15. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Zan+Zu+from+Eridu · · Score: 1

      But similar results done with THC (Tetra Hydro Cannabinol), the main compound in hash and weed have found no evidence for this cellgrowth stimulation. One experiment/paper does not mean it has been accepted as scientific fact yet.

      Please post a link to the research you are referring to. It is clear from the article that Xia Zhang, the professor of neuropsychiatry who did the research on HU210, doesn't know of its existence:

      "Chronic use of marijuana may actually improve learning memory when the new neurons in the hippocampus can mature in two or three months,"
      It strikes me as odd that you're better informed on the subject than he is, considering his research and all?
    16. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Raven_Stark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just a wild ass guess but from someone who didn't RTFA...

      Most people who are new to cannabis have short term memory problems while high. My >cough friend would get halfway through some brilliant philosophical conversation and then forget what he was talking about, for instance. People who do a lot of cannabis seem to get over this problem. Perhaps the brain is compensating for the memory impairment while high by building strengthening itself.

      --
      http://www.marxist.com/
    17. Re:It is still in doubt actually by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Cannabinoids are not just resembling the active chemicals found in cannabis, they are the active chemicals found in cannabis. THC is one of the cannabinoids. When they are produced artificially rather than extracted from cannabis, they are usually referred to as synthetic cannabinoids.

      But yes, this experiment used a synthetic cannabinoid rather than a cannabis extract.

    18. Re:It is still in doubt actually by thisislee · · Score: 1

      I think the point people were making is that the cannibanoid they were using is 100 times stronger than THC, so even if the effect of that cannabanoid is great for you, the effect of THC might be minimal. But it may go a ways to debunking the theory that pot destroys your memory and kills your brain.

    19. Re:It is still in doubt actually by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Jesus dude, you really need to bump your humour detector up a notch. Yes, I know that they dissected the brains afterwards to verify the cell growth. The main experiment was detecting how willing the rats were to eat in new surroundings which is, as you point out, an accepted test for a change in anxiety. The research was not strictly about increasing cell growth per say, they are investigating the mood changes it produces to see if HU210 has a role as an antidepressent. Given the large effect that cannabis has on bi-polar patients it is a bit of a no-brainer that an artificial cannabinoid will have some effect. The research that they should be doing is seeing if the artificial version still induces psychosis or if they could make an antidepressent without the nasty side-effects that pot has for people medicating with it. OK, rant finished, it just struck me as odd that their method relied on something that is an accepted side-effect of cannabinoids. The change that they induce in the body affects the blood sugar levels causing hunger. Of course, that may not be the case with their artificial version.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    20. Re:It is still in doubt actually by mhearne · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Do you doubt that? Alcohol should not even be in this picture. This isn't about getting high.

      All the comments that I have seen posted so far have some connection with some sort of drug-war propaganda or some other typical shit.

      I'm going to compose a top level comment that has nothing to do with getting high or drug war filth.

      Michael

    21. Re:It is still in doubt actually by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      But similar results done with THC (Tetra Hydro Cannabinol), the main compound in hash and weed have found no evidence for this cellgrowth stimulation

      This is slightly misleading. You are suggesting that evidence of cannaboid stimulation of cell growth does not imply evidence of THC stimulation. If it has anything to do with neurotransmission, then it most definitely does imply this. It doesn't matter (with cannabinoids, at least -- cholinergic receptors are a different story) whether the transmitter is endogenous or not. The brain doesn't know.

      Besides, you can be sure that with such a hot subject and the way research is financed/politiced there will be more research 'debunking' this even if it turns out to be true after all.

      Yes, unfortunately more or less all research on Mary Jane is doomed to failure. Hell, the government still has it classified as a Schedule I narcotic, despite the continuous laughter from the academic community.

    22. Re:It is still in doubt actually by elohim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think it's such a bad analogy. There are plenty of antiestrogrens that are extremely close in structure to estrogen, and in vivo have effects on some types of estrogen receptors that are antiestrogen and proestrogen effects on other estrogen receptor subtypes.

    23. Re:It is still in doubt actually by nietsch · · Score: 1

      Yes indeed, I failed to detect your humor. Maybe I saw it too much as a valid concern.
      One might hope that the original article (not the NS summary) disproves that concern (probably by measuring what the increase in consumption is in non-stressed rats).

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    24. Re:It is still in doubt actually by cosmicaug · · Score: 1

      Nitpick: Cannabinoids are not alkaloids (cannabinoid molecules would have to include a nitrogen in their chemical structure to be classifiable as alkaloids). Apparently, they are classified as terpenoids.

    25. Re:It is still in doubt actually by syukton · · Score: 2, Informative

      I read this feed on forbes three days ago. It contains more information, including: "Autopsies revealed that by the end of the 10-day HU210 treatment regimen, new neurons had been generated and integrated into the circuitry of the hippocampus region of the rat's brains. This process, known as neurogenesis, was still in evidence a full month after treatment had been initiated."

      So you see, they're actually basing it on autopsies, which tend to involve cutting open dead creatures and poking around their insides looking at what's going on. I think they actually MEASURED the number of brain cells and found more in the treated rats. Pretty fancy huh, scientists measuring things?! heh.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    26. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but on the off chance this,THC, acually works for humans ... anyone got a light?

    27. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the ... you owe me 36 brain cells.

    28. Re:It is still in doubt actually by nietsch · · Score: 0, Troll

      How unfortunate you are not happy.

      Maybe you should do something that makes you happy insteasd of writing flaimbait posts. Go out, have some drinks, laught with your friends and maybe have some sex. Would that make you happy?

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    29. Re:It is still in doubt actually by nietsch · · Score: 1
      Ah I see, the linked article is not the article I am referring to...
      here is the New Scientist take on it.
      The relevant quote:
      In another study, Barry Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Princeton University, gave mice the natural cannabinoid found in marijuana, THC (D9-tetrahydrocannabinol)). But he says he detected no neurogenesis, no matter what dose he gave or the length of time he gave it for.


      And no, I do not know more about it than the scioentists involved.
      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    30. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Megahurts · · Score: 1

      the differing effects of methanol are fairly well understood. They are treated exactly the same by the body. They are processed by the same enzymes (in fact, the treatment for methanol poisoning is high doses of ethanol which will compete for the active sites of those enzymes) and both do have an intoxicating effect similar to each other. The difference is not inherent to the structure or biology surrounding the alcohols. What happens is that as they are broken down, the methanol is converted to formaldehyde which is what causes the blindness associated with wood alcohols. Ethanol is converted into ethyl aldehyde which readily forms an anhydride that is far less toxic to the body than the aldehydes.

    31. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Xabraxas · · Score: 2
      But it may go a ways to debunking the theory that pot destroys your memory and kills your brain.

      That theory has been debunked a long time ago. It's just popular myth that pot destroys brain cells. You'll hear all kinds of propoganda from anti-drug groups. What people don't understand (other than scientists who actually study marijuana) is that marijuana is very different from other drugs. In fact some scientists hesitate to call it a drug. Marijuana does not have a direct affect on dopamine levels like most other drugs do (cocaine, heroin, etc). Your brain was built to accept cannibanoids and it has been shown in studies that cannibanoids can have beneficial effects on different parts of the body. Unfortunately the drug is so stigmatised (especially in the US) that it is very difficult to study and when a study like this is revealed it is usually buried in the news and buried by anti-drug propoganda. I wish the government would just let scientists honestly evaluate the pros and cons of marijuana as medicine and even marijuana as a recreational "drug". The last time the governement funded a major study of marijuana (under Nixon) they didn't like the results that it produced so they just lied and covered it up. You have to wonder why.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    32. Re:It is still in doubt actually by itzfritz · · Score: 1

      'please click some ads here [linux-studie.nl]' OK; done. You're welcome.

    33. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but have we ascertained whether this brain-cell growth is actually a net positive? In other words, if I cut myself, there will be a huge boost in cell growth in that area (while it heals). But that doesn't help me, it only brings me back to stasis. So, perhaps the increased brain cell growth is actually due to the brain damage occurring due to this drug. This may be another instance of 'good observation, bad conclusion'.

    34. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linkie no workie

    35. Re:It is still in doubt actually by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      That's why ethanol is given as a cure for methanol poisoning

      So you have to stay buzzed until you're out of danger?

    36. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Zeph · · Score: 1

      You can be sure the mice are happy, at any rate...

    37. Re:It is still in doubt actually by zopf · · Score: 1

      Marijuana has certainly received some unfair press in the past, but that does not mean that we should glorify it to the other exreme: smoking marijuana is not harmless.

      Smoking anything is bad for your lungs, whether by carcinogens or just damaging chemicals. Marijuana smoke has been found to depress the local immune system (read: your lungs). Studies have been done correlating marijuana smoking with schizophrenia (example), although rarely is there any claim of causality.

      Admittedly, I am an occasional smoker, but while I appreciate the positive effects, I also recognize the negative ones. Ultimately, I believe that to smoke or not is simply a personal decision, like the rest of the human diet. It will be great to know more about the ways that the cannabinoid family of chemicals affect the brain, but it's unfair to portray them either as a villain or a hero. They're simply chemicals whose effects are still widely undetermined. I applaud the fact that people are researching the topic, however, and I too wish that research into such topics wasn't so tightly controlled. Perhaps when the political pendulum swings back towards the liberal (and hopefuly more research-and-science-oriented) end of the spectrum we will see more and less obstructed research on topics like this and many others.

      --
      Did you see the pool? They flipped the bitch!
    38. Re:It is still in doubt actually by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1

      This is just more evidence in support of my policy of keeping a constant supply of ethanol near to hand!

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    39. Re:It is still in doubt actually by dryeo · · Score: 2, Informative

      You do realize that there are other ways to ingest pot besides smoking it don't you?
      I've known a few people who won't smoke anything but they sure loved their marijuana cookies.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    40. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Zan+Zu+from+Eridu · · Score: 1

      I know, I read NS too. The point is they're referring to an unpublished paper, and "he says he detected no neurogenesis, no matter what dose he gave or the length of time he gave it for" doesn's sound like a very scientific claim to me (for how long did he run his tests and what was the maximum dose he administered?). This looks like NS is trying to keep out of the political crossfire on the marijuana debate by downplaying Zhangs claims with unverifyable statements.

      My post wasn't meant as a personal attack, its just that you can't refute research with unpublished papers.

    41. Re:It is still in doubt actually by nietsch · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's not too good of them not to include a real reference, but OTOH, who reads these references anyway?
      If I'd wish to, I'd have to go to the university library to find the journal. So in the end, I think mentioning his name and University is enough reference, my guess is you'd spend less time finding this guys email or number than you'd spend with a trip to the library.

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    42. Re:It is still in doubt actually by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Not that I want to debunk those results or anything, but saying that two similar substances of the same kind have the same effect would also imply that ethanol and methanol would have roughly the same effect.

      Interesting that you chose that analogy. Ethanol and methanol do have very similar effects on the nervous system. The fact is, methanol is not toxic any more than ethanol is toxic. The damage comes from the metabolic byproducts of methanol.

      Ethanol is metabolized into acetaldehyde, a relatively innocuous byproduct. Methanol, on the other hand, is metabolized into FORMALDEHYDE. It is the formaldehyde which wreaks havoc on your body, not the methanol.

    43. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The princeton mice require more expensive drugs.

    44. Re:It is still in doubt actually by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Hey, man, didn't you see who wrote it? It's Elohim. You owe him (them) all of YOUR brain cells!

    45. Re:It is still in doubt actually by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > you really need to bump your humour detector up a notch

      Are you sure the problem wasn't with your humo(u)r emitter? My detector is quite sensitive and found no indication that said post was intended to be humo(u)rous. You misrepresented the facts (evidently to create the humo(u)r, not to misinform), you did not put a humo(u)rous spin on them. Not that I really care, nor does it truly affect anyone. I just feel like I have to post this... because I'm here.

      Anyway, it's a good thing you included "artificial" in that sentence, because I know quite a few people who have conducted marijuana "expiriments" on their cats & dogs, and the answer is "yes," they do get munchies. :)

    46. Re:It is still in doubt actually by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > perhaps the increased brain cell growth is actually due to the brain damage occurring due to this drug

      I don't believe so, as they would have had a control group to compare, I would hope. Not only that, but these rats were probably not long-term marijuana abusers :) PROBABLY.

    47. Re:It is still in doubt actually by dclydew · · Score: 1

      And of course, distraction is also a factor. When I'm stoned, some new idea may pop in and blow away whatever was there before.

      Not that I get stoned... thats illegal

      *cough*

      --
      Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
    48. Re:It is still in doubt actually by dclydew · · Score: 1

      Dude,

      Don't smoke it! That's so Cheech and Chong! Try brownies, Honey Oil, or, if you have lots of Kif, stufdf a chicken with it...

      Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

      --
      Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
    49. Re:It is still in doubt actually by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > This looks like NS is trying to keep out of the political crossfire on the marijuana debate

      I don't think that is the case. New Scientist has had some articles that could be considered "pro-marijuana," or at least non-negative. (one example)

    50. Re:It is still in doubt actually by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > but on the off chance this [...] works for humans ... anyone got a light?

      But dude, I like... already gave it to you, man. You musta' forgot!

    51. Re:It is still in doubt actually by zopf · · Score: 1

      :)... i haven't smoked in a week or so... i guess my mind needs some expanding, huh?

      --
      Did you see the pool? They flipped the bitch!
    52. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just by knowing people who smoke regularly, I cannot tell if the hippocampus has increased it's size, but it is VERY clear to me, that it's not working properly. Smoking cannabis daily has such great effect on learning, that some (everybody?) will not even mature. And that not just something I've heard, it's what I see. Being a teenager older than 30 or 40 years is a very sad thing.

    53. Re:It is still in doubt actually by Tragamor · · Score: 1

      Not only cats and dogs, spiders have also been recipients of drugs. While not quite indicative of the munchies, the effects of the various drugs are fairly easy to see. Check out Spiders on drugs

      --
      To be is to do - Descartes. To do is to be - Sartre. Dooby dooby do - Frank Sinatra.
  27. the danks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice use of the word "chronic" :)

  28. Man... by Auraiken · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you're just going to talk, pass that over here.

    1. Re:Man... by MrByte420 · · Score: 1

      PUFF PUFF GIVE Maaaaaaan...

      --
      If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
  29. Re:Only a pothead could mistake a human for a rat by chinodelosmuertos · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you read TFA you'd have read that the original publication is due to be released in JCI, a peer reviwed journal that is quite high impact. Not Nature or Science, but not the Ulan Bator Journal of Basket Weaving Medicine either.

  30. In moderation, many things are good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A glass of wine daily promotes health. Same thing goes for a little beer and some coffee.

    This does not mean that 10 glasses of wine, 20 bottles of beer and 2 litres of coffee a day are healthy for you. In moderation, they aid health and your well-being, but in excess they don't.

    Pot is likewise good in moderation to relax and to be creative.

    The governments should allow adults access to any chemicals they choose to take. It should not be illegal to possess said chemicals, but it should instead be illegal to cause trouble for others if under the influence of a chemical. Common sense applied, it means you don't drive a car after smoking some pot, just as you don't drink and drive.

    1. Re:In moderation, many things are good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about getting fucked up the ass by a black guy? is it good to do that once a day?

    2. Re:In moderation, many things are good by Nightspirit · · Score: 1

      The only thing limited should be antimicrobials, as their abuse endangers society as a whole (for example, create super-bugs).

    3. Re:In moderation, many things are good by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      A glass of wine daily promotes health.

      That's largely a myth, promoted by the wine industry. Truth is, red wine can benefit a small proportion of the population that have a specific blood chemistry. I believe that the benefit is the thinning of the blood, but don't quote me on that.

    4. Re:In moderation, many things are good by Kuscheltier · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked there was no "Wine-Industry"

    5. Re:In moderation, many things are good by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Last time I checked there was no "Wine-Industry"

      Where did you "check"? There are numerous bodies representing wine makers. Google for "represent wine growers" and you'll see just a few on the first page. They are the ones funding these studies. Every large industry has it's own RIAA equivalent, it's essential in todays world.

    6. Re:In moderation, many things are good by mink · · Score: 1
      Actually the myth is that wine is the only way to get the benefit. You can drink a glass of grape juice (and other things according to this link and get the same benefit.

      It looks like there are at least two different specific things you find in red wine/grape juice that may have health uses that are not related.

      I chose the winepros link because it at least tries to summarize and link the different information as opposed to searching for numerous different study paper links.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  31. actual paper by geighaus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actual paper can be found here.

    1. Re:actual paper by rabel · · Score: 1

      Dude. Stop killing my buzz.

    2. Re:actual paper by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      Have a look at this then. The ending is really cool.

    3. Re:actual paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual papers can be found here

  32. Re:Only a pothead could mistake a human for a rat by lixee · · Score: 1

    It IS a scientific research to be published in next month's journal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4338634.stm/ Now, I agree that exprapolating this finding to human is kinda wild.

    --
    Res publica non dominetur
  33. Don't get your hopes up by CZA2006 · · Score: 0

    This stuff isn't in your average joint.

  34. I have my doubts... by mrselfdestrukt · · Score: 0

    If this was true.... Then I would've been a freakin rocket scientist and neuro surgeon now instead of a lowly 3G Unix Network Management Specialist.
    *scratches head* I must be doing something wrong. Maybe the dosage is not high enough? Maybe I'm not going to enough music festivals? Or maybe the alcohol is counter-acting the growth?
    Yeah. It must be the fucking alcohol. Evil man-made drugs.
    Well, I'm going back to the hotel to have a beer or 3 while I think about this.

    --
    "I used to have that really cool,funny sig ,but it got stolen."
  35. Re:Only a pothead could mistake a human for a rat by casemon · · Score: 1

    "only to die a death on investigation by their pears..."

    Dude you are so high, there is like nooo waay my fruit can investigate me, much less carry a license to kill.

  36. Works for me by vandan · · Score: 1

    It seems to slam short-term memory immediately after you've smoked it, but everything bounces back. I've maintained for years that my mind is more powerful thanks to the all the psychedelics I've had over the years. People will of course laugh at me, but I respectfully think I'm in the better position to be judging that. I've actually noticed a nice increase in performance, not to mention scope.

    1. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How old are you?

      The brain continues to be anatomically refined through the teens and potentially early twenties. As a consequence our ability to plan and process information improves dramatically.

      Further, if you are engaged in active learning (e.g., university student, recent graduate in a job requiring mental effort) your abilities willc continue to improve. You should notice greater capabilities in dealing with information. Overally, in any analyses involving a factor like pharmaceutical enhancements will be statistically confounded with time (and its elements).

    2. Re:Works for me by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      I've maintained for years that my mind is more powerful thanks to the all the psychedelics I've had over the years.

      When I was 19 I developed a siezure disorder and needed to have a CT scan. The radiologist connected me to an IV containing something which he claimed would make me feel slightly warm. What is did was convince me that my mind really was "more powerful" than anything in the known universe. For about three hours anyway.

      Looking back, I don't think the experience made me any smarter. That one experience with a mind altering drug was probably more likely to kill me than the seizures I had been having.

      Of course it is impossible for you to run your life twice - once with and once without drugs - so we don't really know if it has had any affect on you at all.

    3. Re:Works for me by vandan · · Score: 1
      I'm not really seeing the connection between your CT scan and my experience.

      Of course it is impossible for you to run your life twice - once with and once without drugs - so we don't really know if it has had any affect on you at all.


      That's pretty flawed logic. It's not necessary to live my life twice to judge the effects of one influence in my life. If it were, we'd never really learn anything, would we?

      I sense that what you're trying to say here is "Yeah but you're just drug-fucked and not capable of self analysis". I disagree. Try some pot or some acid. It will be better than your CT scan, trust me.
    4. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you ever wonder why statistical power is ultimately a critical component of research?

    5. Re:Works for me by vandan · · Score: 1
      How old are you?

      29. I'm a self-tought programmer. Perl, PHP, VB. Projects: http://entropy.homelinux.org/axis_not_evil/

      Overally, in any analyses involving a factor like pharmaceutical enhancements will be statistically confounded with time (and its elements).

      ?

      Maybe it's just because I'm mildly stoned at the moment ( coming down from a doof - a couple of trips, and plenty of pot ), but ... HUH?

      Never mind. Trust me, as a long-time explorer of my inner mind via psychedelics, I assure you that I know what's affecting what. You can tell when you're tripping that it's excercising parts of your mind that just don't usually get worked that hard. But for a brief couple of hours, they sure get work-out. And each time you return back to 'that place', your mind is noticable more nimble and powerful.
    6. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After say the teens or early twenties the brain is 'nimble' as you say. We are primed to acquire new information and adapt. By the time we are well into our thirties performance on memory related tasks begin to suffer relative to the peak but learning and the ability to contribute meaningfully continues. Obviously there are many factors that influence performance.

      I asked your age to assess your 'statistical' place in the above framework.

      The reference to time being a confound is exactly what is described in the first paragraph. A single point of data (you) is not sufficient to disentangle your use of pharmaceuticals for the expected effects of time/aging/learning.

    7. Re:Works for me by vandan · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      A single point of data (you) is not sufficient to disentangle your use of pharmaceuticals for the expected effects of time/aging/learning.

      What bull! You're completely invalidating my personal experience simply because it suits your worldview ( Christian right ... am I correct? ).

      I assert that what I say is correct. Who are you to say "Sorry Buddy. It's impossible for you to say that, because all experience is too 'entangled' for you to say what the fuck is going on, so therefore you must be mistaken, and I am right?"

      Thanks for your expert opinion. I respectfully reject it.
    8. Re:Works for me by vandan · · Score: 1

      Nope.

    9. Re:Works for me by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      What exactly is your basis for comparison? Do you have anything other than your opinion? I've noticed this trend in heavy drug users - seems like hubris of the worst kind to me. Then again, people also think creativity comes from substance abuse, so I'm not surprised.

      Before you accuse me of being christian right know that I am not even close. Hell, I'm not even judging you, just wondering what basis you have for your claims, other than "I said so."

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    10. Re:Works for me by kermyt · · Score: 1

      What bull! You're completely invalidating my personal experience simply because it suits your worldview ( Christian right ... am I correct? ).

      What the AC above is actually saying is that a single point of data is anecdotal. it is not possible to extrapolate (or intrerpolate) a trend without (at least) 2 points of data. The more data points you have the more accurately new data can be infered. The AC never said anything that you should have taken as "right wing", unless you consider empirical(sp?) evidence "Right Wing".

    11. Re:Works for me by bobcave · · Score: 1

      Dude, - if you're going to tell us that you're a programmer don't admit you use VB. WTF! I remember a VB friend of mine trying to write something in C++ with 'vi' and wondering why nothing shows up when they hit the '.' after their structure name. Dopes.


      --
      There is no such thing as 'chocohol' or 'workahol'.
    12. Re:Works for me by vandan · · Score: 1
      What exactly is your basis for comparison? Do you have anything other than your opinion?

      Not opinion. Experience. For someone who hasn't experiences what I've experienced, you're incredibly opinionated. I will not go into the details of my experience, because frankly, you would not accept it. If you are interested, I suggest finding yourself some acid and trying it yourself.

      I've noticed this trend in heavy drug users - seems like hubris of the worst kind to me.

      I've noticed this attitude in the Christian fundamentalists and neo-cons. I am certainly no heavy drug user. I'm a recreational drug user, with a steady ( 8-year ) job, my own startup software company, and 3 open-source projects. I'm not preaching from my deep-seated believe that I know about things I've never experienced. I'm talking from real-world experience. Get over yourself and accept it.

      Then again, people also think creativity comes from substance abuse, so I'm not surprised.

      I'm not talking about sustance abuse. I'm talking about substance b>use , but nice try. And yes, recreational drugs amplify creativity. I suppose you'll object to that too.

      ell, I'm not even judging you, just wondering what basis you have for your claims, other than "I said so."

      No, no. Of course you're not judging. As for what 'other' basis I have for my claims, no, I haven't initiated a research project that you would be satisfied with. There are many studies that you can look into yourself though. I believe Timothy Leary and Terrance McKenna have written a great deal on the topic.
    13. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I like about this is you went right off the deep end. I didn't disparage your claim, I was just curious as to the basis of it.

      I made no mention of my personal drug use, because I don't think it's relevant. Let's just say there's a long stretch of time where I wowed the people around me with my consumption, but I'm not doing that anymore.

      I think it's interesting you compared me to a Christian fundamentalist. I'm pretty far from that, although it doesn't fit with your expectation, I suppose.

      By the by, lots of people make the same mistake you make about drug use amplifying creativity. It really doesn't, even though it's hard to believe that while you're still leaning on the crutch.

      In truth, I really don't care how you live your life. I was wondering if you could explain your position better, but I guess you can't. Not really a problem, because in the end I've heard your story a thousand times before. It's not any more impressive coming from you.

    14. Re:Works for me by vandan · · Score: 1
      What I like about this is you went right off the deep end.

      Sure. Which deep end would that be?
      By the by, lots of people make the same mistake you make about drug use amplifying creativity. It really doesn't, even though it's hard to believe that while you're still leaning on the crutch.

      You really are a knob, aren't you? I don't lean on any crutch. I use psychedelics for enjoyment and for mental exploration. I also note that they amplify creativity. What's more, I acknowledge that there are fundamentalists such as yourself - Christian or otherwise - who seek to discredit recreational drug users and everything they report about their experience. You need to grow up. Get some real life experience. Open you mind slightly and listen to people. Don't just go around parroting what your local preacher told you. Think for yourself. Stop leaning on the crutch of your outdated worldview.
      In truth, I really don't care how you live your life.

      Exactly. You're a self-centred knob who has no interest in other people or their experiences.
      I was wondering if you could explain your position better, but I guess you can't.

      I have no interest in sitting at my computer typing for half an hour about my personal experiences when I know that the person I'm typing for will reject outright everything that I say. I gave you some authors to look up on. If you want to research in your own time, then do it.

      Not really a problem, because in the end I've heard your story a thousand times before. It's not any more impressive coming from you.

      So you openly admit that this is commonly reported by recreational drug users, of which you are not one, but you still reject it because it doesn't suit your worldview?

      You must be a pretty pathetic individual. You're always right, aren't you? I'm glad I don't know too many people like you. No wonder you post anonymously.
    15. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've started posting anonymously because this went way offtopic now. I just don't see any reason to have these posts starting at anything above 0. As far as me being always right, I'll just lay a PKD quote on you: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

      You are starting to fascinate me. It's somewhat poetic, the way you accuse me of doing in my posts what you are doing in yours. I've not once said you couldn't be right - all I ever asked was your basis. You've given me (and others) a really elaborate "I said so" with nothing else backing it. I don't necessarily disbelieve you, but my experience tells me you're deluding yourself. You've done nothing to this point to make me think otherwise - pointing me at a few books I've already read really doesn't make your case.

      Also, telling me to get some experience is, for lack of a better term, cute. You know nothing of me. It would be very difficult for you to judge my level of life experience through this medium.

      So you openly admit that this is commonly reported by recreational drug users, of which you are not one, but you still reject it because it doesn't suit your worldview?

      Here's the thing - lots of stuff is commonly reported by recreational drug users. Once, I 'reported' that the lucky charms leprechaun was preventing me from accelerating my car past 10 miles per hour on the highway. That doesn't necessarily make it so, but it sure seemed real at the time.

      Once again, I've not rejected your claim, but I am very dubious. Particularly since everyone I've known that claimed such a thing (and there have been many in my life) was so far off the mark as to be laughable. Of course, you're becoming immediately defensive even though I presented no attack doesn't help your cause.

      My worldview hasn't even come into play here. I know you think it has, but really, I've pretty much kept my opinions out of this. A lot of what you believe are my positions aren't even close. On the other hand, your obsession with 'fundamentalists' coinciding with your immediate defensive position reveals a lot about your personality and the way you think.

      Sorry I asked, I guess. I thought maybe you had some insight, but all you have is the same feelings millions of drug users have had before you. Enjoy it while it's enjoyable. Maybe you'll be lucky and it won't stop being so for you.

    16. Re:Works for me by vandan · · Score: 1
      You are starting to fascinate me. It's somewhat poetic, the way you accuse me of doing in my posts what you are doing in yours. I've not once said you couldn't be right - all I ever asked was your basis.

      I'm not rejecting what you say about your experience ... I'm rejecting what you said about things that were outside of your experience.
      I don't necessarily disbelieve you, but my experience tells me you're deluding yourself.

      Oh really? YOUR experience? I think we've ascertained by now that you don't have any experience with psychadelics. My experience tells me that you're deluding yourself. Now which one is right ... the person who is talking about his own experience, or the wiser-than-thou who passes judgement on other people's experience?

      Your position is quite precarious.

      Of course, you're becoming immediately defensive even though I presented no attack doesn't help your cause.


      Defensive or assertive? You see, being sure of my position, I choose not to throw in the towel and let others who I know are wrong 'win' the arguement. If I were unsure of my position, I wouldn't be so assertive, or 'defensive' as you like to call it.

      Particularly since everyone I've known that claimed such a thing (and there have been many in my life) was so far off the mark as to be laughable.

      As 'off the mark' as me? Maybe they were all right and you were wrong?

      Once, I 'reported' that the lucky charms leprechaun was preventing me from accelerating my car past 10 miles per hour on the highway. That doesn't necessarily make it so, but it sure seemed real at the time.

      Here's the problem:

      One incident reported by an idiot doesn't make that idiot's report a correct representation of what's happening. But when many people report the same thing, it gains some credibility. Your leprechaun story indicates to me that at the time you were taking acid, you had very little idea of the workings of your own mind, and the effect was pure hallucination. Hallucination, however, is not the only response to acid - it is at the bottom of the barrel. I haven't hallucinated for 8 years, and the reason is that I'm accustomed to the effects of acid, and my mind is able to correctly interpret the information I'm being fed, rather than having to make up some grand hallucination to try to account for the seemingly unfathomable information coming in. First-time trippers will therefore often hallucinate. That doesn't invalidate other people's experience who are adept at consciousness exploration - it just points to the first-time user's lack of understanding.

      My worldview hasn't even come into play here. I know you think it has, but really, I've pretty much kept my opinions out of this.

      Sure. So you're not talking about your experience, and you're not talking about my experience, and you're not talking about your world views. So what exactly is influencing what you say? It's coming directly from your arse, right?

      I thought maybe you had some insight, but all you have is the same feelings millions of drug users have had before you.

      Yes. Sorry to disappoint. I of course do have insight, but to learn from it, you'd really have to come tripping with us. Insights gained from psychedelics rarely transfer to non-trippers, especially those with such solid pre-conceived notions of how we're "all alike". You insinuate that you're 'looking for some insight', but reject my suggested reading and trash everything I say, while talking in a very condescending fashion. You need a good dose of acid. The question is: will you be able to integrate the experience this time, or will it bounce off your closely-guarded beliefs, creating more leprechauns?
    17. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So many assumptions, so many of them wrong. Glad to see that people are all the same, all over the world. Keep on believing you're special.

    18. Re:Works for me by mink · · Score: 1

      "Then again, people also think creativity comes from substance abuse, so I'm not surprised."

      With several thousand years of literature to look at, many quite creative works have been done by people who were heavy drug users of one type or another.

      I don't know if we can prove that drug use made them more creative, or if they would have created the same things never having touched drugs, but it did not seem to limit them in what they created.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  37. Good Grief by tehlinux · · Score: 1

    Let's just completely ignore any research that shows the negative effects of the "Chronic use of marijuana" and make a big deal about one single study that says it can improve learning memory. Sorry hippies, but the party is over.

    --
    Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
    1. Re:Good Grief by SilverspurG · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Let's just completely ignore any research that shows the negative effects
      I could if there were any.
      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    2. Re:Good Grief by eboot · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Its interesting that someone as obviously intelligent as yourself would site the previous studies about marijuana effects, compare them to this single study and then cut a withering remark about the end of the party for 'hippies', because of course they're the only people who smoke marijuana, but then you go and...

      Fuck it all up by leaving a sig that suggests you enjoy alcohol abuse but justify it as medication. I have a lot of friends who have had marijuana problems but by the later stages of their lives they've left it behind. But anyone Ive ever known with alcohol problems struggles with it their whole lives until their liver pickles itself.

      --
      Two tears in a bucket. Motherfuck it.
    3. Re:Good Grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, studies? There are no peer-reveiwed studies that have confirmed the political notions that regular use of marijuana has negative effects. You seem to have fallen into the trap of assuming the laws in this regard are based on a solid foundation of reasoning rather than pure politics. The latter is true. The former is not.

    4. Re:Good Grief by ifwm · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Let's just completely ignore any research that shows the negative effects of the Chronic use of marijuana"

      How about you post some of this research?

      I suggest that in the future, before you use "research" as your basis for forming your opinions, you'd better make sure the research exists in the first place.

      Fucking igmoramus

    5. Re:Good Grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like the OP removed the offending sig before anybody else called them on it.

    6. Re:Good Grief by tgv · · Score: 1

      There have been several studies linking THC to forms of depression and schizophrenia. The study on neurogenesis in rats is the one that has not been replicated...

    7. Re:Good Grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could if there were any.

      How about the fact that by smoking pot you're inhaling carbon monoxide, tar, cyanide, and a thousand other potentially carcinogenic byproducts? Just like those socially reprehensible nicotine smokers, except cigarettes at least have a filter.

      THC itself may well have benefits, but pot smoking is not without health risks.

    8. Re:Good Grief by xanadu113 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ever heard of a vaporizer?

      It heats the herbs of your choice, to a point that releases the medicinal compounds, without creating pyrolytic compounds.

      A very affordable Vaporizer can purchased here I have one and am VERY happy with it.

      --
      -Myke
    9. Re:Good Grief by hazah · · Score: 2, Informative
      Oh please, how about the fact you inhale most of those things everywhere you go? And you didn't just compare weed to tobacco, did you? Tobacco these days is loaded with unnatural chemicals so that you get that smooth continuous burn, preservatives that will not allow mold to form, and the fields are fertilized extensively with, what I suspect to be, the cheapest solution. What are you basing your opinion on? I don't get it. Maybe it's those bong hits I've been taking, eh?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the _effects_of_cannabis#Smoking/

    10. Re:Good Grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No where in the post you were responding to (or the OP it was responding to) is smoking mentioned.

      You seem to be arguing that because cigarette smoking has been shown to be harmful, marijuana smoking much necessarily be so. This does not logically follow.

      In point of fact, were a person so concerned with the smoking of marijuana, there is an alternative: You can eat it.

      Ever heard of pot brownies? Yum.

    11. Re:Good Grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Oh, right.. the one that says it's causing an epidemic of schizophrenia.. Of course, schizophrenia rates have not gone up with the increased cannabis use rates, but lets just ignore that.

      And of course, that study was about kids. Maybe we should actually protect children by regulating "controlled substances", instead of watching kids buy crack from other kids on the street.

    12. Re:Good Grief by fafalone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well let's start with Fried et. al., who concluded that ongoing heavy use of marijuana has a signficant negative impact on IQ.

      And then we can in fact see the short term memory impairment,
      Heyser, C.J.; Hampson, R.E.; and Deadwyler, S.A. Effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on delayed match to sample performance in rats: Alterations in short-term memory associated with changes in task-specific firing of hippocampal cells. Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics 264(1):294-307, 1993.

      And let's not pretend that smoking marijuana isn't going to have a negative effects on the lungs,
      Tashkin, D.P. Pulmonary complications of smoked substance abuse. West J Med 152:525-530, 1990., and
      Sarafian, T.A.; Magallanes, J.A.; Shau, H.; Tashkin, D.; and Roth, M.D. Oxidative stress produced by marijuana smoke. An adverse effect enhanced by cannabinoids. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 20(6):1286-1293, 1999.

      Or the immune system
      Srivastava, M.D.; Srivastava, B.I.; and Brouhard, B. Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol alter cytokine production by human immune cells. Immunopharmacology 40(3):179-185, 1998.

      Marijuana capable of producing psychotic symptoms? Yes.
      Fergusson, David M., John Horwood & Elizabeth M. Ridder, "Tests of Causal Linkages Between Cannabis Use and Psychotic Symptoms," Addiction, Vol. 100, No. 3, March 2005, p. 363.

      The original poster was talking about chronic use, implying ongoing, so let's also examine the effects of current intoxication: Learning and memory are in fact impaired by cannabis:
      Grant, Igor, et al.,(2003) "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. Cambridge University Press, 9, p. 685.

      Long term permanent damage? Absolutely, but only to the lungs.
      Negative impacts on the brain during ongoing use? Absolutely.
      Maybe you ought to be familiar with the research yourself before attacking other people? This is just a tiny fraction of all the research conducted. A simple 5 second google search would have turned up all you needed to know to not look like the jackass you do now.

    13. Re:Good Grief by anicca · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well let's start with Fried et. al. [www.cmaj.ca], who concluded that ongoing heavy use of marijuana has a signficant negative impact on IQ.

      (I think I can afford a few IQ points, better a little dimmer and a lot happier than a little brighter but a lot more misrable...)

      And then we can in fact see the short term memory impairment,
      Heyser, C.J.; Hampson, R.E.; and Deadwyler, S.A. Effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on delayed match to sample performance in rats: Alterations in short-term memory associated with changes in task-specific firing of hippocampal cells. Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics 264(1):294-307, 1993.

      (The research is not conclusive. We are not rats.)

      And let's not pretend that smoking marijuana isn't going to have a negative effects on the lungs,
      Tashkin, D.P. Pulmonary complications of smoked substance abuse. West J Med 152:525-530, 1990., and
      Sarafian, T.A.; Magallanes, J.A.; Shau, H.; Tashkin, D.; and Roth, M.D. Oxidative stress produced by marijuana smoke. An adverse effect enhanced by cannabinoids. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 20(6):1286-1293, 1999.

      (controlled vaporization reduces the carcinegens to nil. Smoking is bad for you, no question about that, no matter what you smoke.)

      Or the immune system
      Srivastava, M.D.; Srivastava, B.I.; and Brouhard, B. Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol alter cytokine production by human immune cells. Immunopharmacology 40(3):179-185, 1998.

      (The research is also not conclusive. Also just about all research sponsored by the USA federal government has to be bent toward proving cannabis harmful. SO just about any research from the USA is politically tainted by its ideological war...pawn that you are you parrot it.

      Marijuana capable of producing psychotic symptoms? Yes.
      Fergusson, David M., John Horwood & Elizabeth M. Ridder, "Tests of Causal Linkages Between Cannabis Use and Psychotic Symptoms," Addiction, Vol. 100, No. 3, March 2005, p. 363.

      (In already vulnerable persons. The threshold for 'psychosis' is very low... Evangelicals are a more psychotic sometimes...)

      The original poster was talking about chronic use, implying ongoing, so let's also examine the effects of current intoxication: Learning and memory are in fact impaired by cannabis:
      Grant, Igor, et al.,(2003) "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. Cambridge University Press, 9, p. 685.

      Long term permanent damage? Absolutely, but only to the lungs.

      (I support legalising cannabis and even I wouldnt make that sweeping generalization. It is likely you are correct however.)

      Negative impacts on the brain during ongoing use? Absolutely.

      (Define negative impact? Obviously millions feel its acceptable.)

      Maybe you ought to be familiar with the research yourself before attacking other people? This is just a tiny fraction of all the research conducted. A simple 5 second google search would have turned up all you needed to know to not look like the jackass you do now.

      (Maybe if the state arbitrarily named you a criminal for burning some plant matter, you would be defensive when people parrot the drug war lies?)

      --
      A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. Dwight D. Eisenhower
    14. Re:Good Grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the conclusion of your first article:

      Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. [emphasis added]

      As for the hyperbole of your other claims, let's dispose of them by referring to the most-widely used medical textbook in the world, The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy entry on marijuana:

      Critics of marijuana cite much scientific data regarding adverse effects, but most of the claims regarding severe biologic impact are unsubstantiated, even among relatively heavy users and in areas intensively investigated, such as immunologic and reproductive function. However, high-dose smokers of marijuana develop pulmonary symptoms (episodes of acute bronchitis, wheezing, coughing, and increased phlegm), and pulmonary function may be altered. This is manifested by large airway changes of unknown significance. Even daily smokers do not develop obstructive airway disease. Pulmonary carcinoma has not been reported in persons who smoke only marijuana, possibly because less smoke is inhaled than during cigarette smoking. However, biopsies of bronchial tissue sometimes show precancerous changes, so carcinoma may occur. In a few case-control studies, some tests detected diminished cognitive function in small samples of long-term high-dose users; this finding awaits confirmation. Studies in newborns have not found evidence of fetal harm due to maternal use of cannabis. Decreased fetal weight has been reported, but when all factors (eg, maternal alcohol and tobacco use) are accounted for, the effect on fetal weight disappears. delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol is secreted in breast milk. Although no harm to breastfed babies has been shown, breastfeeding mothers, like pregnant women, are advised to avoid using cannabis. [emphasis added]

      Btw, I am not sure why you have to call the poster you are responding to names. Seems like your arguments should be able to stand on their own.

    15. Re:Good Grief by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      Uh, I'm pretty sure the smoke still causes lung cancer. I used to smoke pot, but due to having better things to spend my money on(partly because I have less money), I don't anymore.

    16. Re:Good Grief by morganjharvey · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean:

      Marijuana Use and Depression, Brian E. Green; Christian Ritter, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 41, No. 1. (Mar., 2000), pp. 40-49.

      College Student Marijuana Use and Societal Alienation, R. C. Knight; J. P. Sheposh; J. B. Bryson, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 15, No. 1. (Mar., 1974), pp. 28-35.

      Marijuana ``Justifies Serious Concern'', Thomas H. Maugh, Science, New Series, Vol. 215, No. 4539. (Mar. 19, 1982), pp. 1488-1489.

      Marijuana: Harder Than Thought?, Ingrid Wickelgren, Science, New Series, Vol. 276, No. 5321. (Jun. 27, 1997), pp. 1967-1968.

      Phytohemagglutinin-Induced Lymphocyte Transformation in Humans Receiving 9 -Tetrahydrocannabinol, R. Jane Lau; David G. Tubergen; Mason Barr, Jr.; Edward F. Domino; N. Benowitz; Reese T. Jones, Science, New Series, Vol. 192, No. 4241. (May 21, 1976), pp. 805-807.

      Normal Skin Test Responses in Chronic Marijuana Users, Melvin J. Silverstein; Phyllis J. Lessin, Science, New Series, Vol. 186, No. 4165. (Nov. 22, 1974), pp. 740-741.

      I can go on if you'd like...

    17. Re:Good Grief by SilverspurG · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I can go on if you'd like...
      Yes, please do. I'm interested to see how many opinion pieces you're going to offer up as clinical proof. And "Phytohemagglutinin-Induced Lymphocyte Transformation in Humans Receiving ..."? That's no more conclusive about marijuana use than the topic article which works on rat brains.

      Please. Tout the FUD in a forum where there isn't a pharmaceutical scientist available to tell you you're full of horse-pooey.

      I'm willing to bet you couldn't even read that article about lymphocytes, much less note where the researchers are lacking in their data analysis.
      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    18. Re:Good Grief by zootread · · Score: 1

      Uh, I'm pretty sure the smoke still causes lung cancer.

      Why smoke when you can cook it (for example, in butter)? I find eating food made with marijuana butter to be a lot better than smoking it. You get more effects for the amount you use, and its much healthier.

      Also, as an alternative to smoking, vaporization is also much better and only produces a fraction of the tar that smoking does (and gives more of a high for the amount of weed). If you don't have a vaporizer handy I've found that applying a flame close to the weed (but not directly on it) works well, especially if you wet the weed with water so it doesn't start burning.

      Enjoying marijuana doesn't have to be harmful. I never smoke it anymore myself.

      A note on cooking with butter: the trick is to simmer it for a very long time (2 - 5 hours). Add water to the mix initial to prevent the butter from burning. If done right, you can make some surprisingly potent butter.

      Anything fat soluble should work. I've personally wondered how well it works with olive oil. Anyone have experiences cooking weed with olive oil?

      --
      Zoot!
    19. Re:Good Grief by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1
      Personally I've never known anyone who smoked pot that seemed very intelligent to me. They thought they were though.

      Also I thought they studied this cell growth before. Could it be that this cell growth is not good? I think they suspected that it interfered with left and right brain communication.

      Could this cell growth also cause brain tumors? Bob Marley died from one.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    20. Re:Good Grief by anicca · · Score: 1

      Did you mean people who smoke pot all the time? How about just those who've admitted it? There are lots of famous people who have used it...not all are rocket scientists but a few were :-). Personally I have found no correlation between cannabis use and intelligence... People who are stupid straight are invariably stupid stoned...drunk...asleep...upright...

      The brain cells that supposedly are stimulated are not those that increase intelligence but those associated with depression. Interesting research... Did Bob Marley have a tumor in his hippocampus?

      I don't know which 'they' you are referring to. US research has been held back by the war on some drugs. The rest of the world (and some parts of the USA) are doing more and more research.

      On July 21, 2004, MAPS, Prof. Craker and Valerie Corral filed lawsuits against DEA and also against HHS/NIH/NIDA for obstructing medical marijuana research, and on July 29, 2004, MAPS filed a motion to consolidate the lawsuit against the DEA and the lawsuit against HHS, NIH and NIDA. http://www.maps.org/mmj/vaporizer.html

      "I think they suspected that it interfered with left and right brain communication."

      Do you have a reference? Maybe in drug warriors. One side of their brain keeps saying "the law is the law and my job depends upon hating drugs and those associated with them" and the other side says "I love my children....even if they use drugs." at which point both sides say "Time for a beer.."

      --
      A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. Dwight D. Eisenhower
    21. Re:Good Grief by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
      Personally I've never known anyone who smoked pot that seemed very intelligent to me. They thought they were though.
      Personally I've never known anyone that seemed very intelligent to me. They thought they were though.

      Now you can accuse me of arrogance but I hope the point is clear that you made no point.
      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    22. Re:Good Grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've also heard extract of cannabis suggested as a good way to get THC into yourself smokelessly. You heat the leaves in alcohol for a while, then you can use it to add THC to pretty much anything. More specific recipes should be available in any pre-20s medical text--it was a common asthma treatment.

    23. Re:Good Grief by runderwo · · Score: 1

      Bob Marley had a melanoma on his big toe that metastatized and later spread, since his beliefs interfered with seeking treatment for it. How could a cancer on his toe possibly have anything to do with the spliffs he smoked?

  38. All for the Science by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

    So, there is some web site where I could enroll as a test subject??? In case the investigation center is too far from me, they can email my doses and the tests to perform, I'll get those back to them!

    --
    Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  39. Muddying the waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's terrible that kids use stuff like this to justify their habit. There's a lot of confusing stuff about pot out there but there are also mental wards filled with pot smokers, and I can personally vouch for the fact that pot worsens short term memory.

    I smoked lots of it from the age of 13 to 18 and I find it much harder to concentrate and have a much worse short term memory. Me and my friends all told each other that research had been done which proved it didn't affect your brain at all, now every one of them agrees that our short term memory is noticeably worse than before.
    I sought info on the web, and found out that lots of people who have smoked for a long time also feel like their memory has worsened, they say to live with it, and that it's "worth it". It's not.

    http://www.hempfiles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=205 6
    "Yeah Ive been smoking for 4 years and my short term memory is deffinatly not as good as it used to be. But hey what are yeah gonna do."
    "I started smoking at about your age.. actually I don't really remember

    but, I assure you that after a while these effects disapear, besides its not that bad to sacrifice a bit of your short term memory for happiness. I will probably be able to answer this a bit better tomorrow.. being drunk right now doesn't help me alot..."
    "im smoking weed 2-3+ times a week I have found my short term memory is pretty much deteriorate for what it used to be. when I haven't smoked for a while (2weeks+) I find it harder to concentrate on thing like test, reading etc. like now I haven't smoked weed in about 2 weeks and I have been finding it really hard to concentrate in class and on work."
    Bear in mind these aren't anti-pot activists, these are pot zealots who frequent forums on pot, and actually promote it!

    Yet all you (and more importantly, children) hear are the articles about how "Pot becomes a class C drug in the UK!" "THC may have cured cancer in a lab rat!" "Hemp stronger than steel!" "New evidence shows Jesus may have smoked pot!". Not to mention all the TV shows, everyone except barney the dinosaur has had an episode on pot smoking, or a pot smoking charecter.
    Even the leaflets which you get at school tell you that it only affects your short term memory in the short term, it's just not true.

    1. Re:Muddying the waters by Scarletdown · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Words of wisdom seen in someone's sig on another forum I frequent...

      "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    2. Re:Muddying the waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't saying 'don't do anything which harms your body', I'm saying that it's wrong to give children the impression that marijuana is harmless when it isn't. If I had only known that my short term memory and concentration would get affected in the way they have I wouldn't have touched pot. But if you understand what it will do to you, and still want to do it, then fine.

    3. Re:Muddying the waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the impression that marijuana is harmless when it isn't
      And those harms are what, supposedly?
      f I had only known that my short term memory and concentration would get affected in the way they have
      You're looking for something to blame.
    4. Re:Muddying the waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, buddy. But marijuana has been studied (for negative side-effects) extensively. The effects you seem to have found in your personal experience just aren't replicated by medical research. Now if you used a particular activity to justify skipping out on school or studying as much as others, then you would likely not have the benefits of memory conferred by what you chose to miss. That's your (and your friends') fault, not a substance that hasn't been shown to do what you say it does.

      Put differently: the plural of anecdote is not data.

      Also, drinking alcohol to excess does cause the problem you've mentioned. Now that is an actual fact. Alcohol really does kill brain cells. Pot does not.

    5. Re:Muddying the waters by Clent · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a Hunter Thompson quote: "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming - Wow! What a ride!"

    6. Re:Muddying the waters by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      Does cannabis have a benificial effect well i think this is a question best answered by people who made thier choices in thier teens early 20's and are now living with the concequences.

      smoking at 13 i feel sorry for your messed up childhood.

      I can only speak about the people I know or Knew and my own experience.

      habitual use of any drug is harmful. If you can't manage without using any recreational drug for lets say a month then you need to look at why this is. Change your life make choices try and have a benificial effect in your community.

      Try and do something positive that helps others. It'll raise your self worth at least you will be contributing something to society and giving your life a point.

      I think my personal experience, does support the studys findings. Thinking round problems, having an open mind thats something thats recognisable among smokers. The inability to effect a choice is also pretty recognisable too. creative thinking thats fairly easy to recognise in a smoker or ex smoker.

      Increased anxiety depression, if your going to move forward with your life and stop smoking thats something you will have to live with if you want to progress.

      being stoned doesn't help motivation at all letting life drift by is the biggest side effect of smoking dope.

      long term damage is the lost years where you could have been building a successful life. I don't think your intelligence is damaged by smoking I am studying now and my grades have never been so high but then I don't get high more than a handful of times a year and when I do I just feel more resolve to work harder. We all need some stress relief if its chemically induced make sure it is a minor part of your life.

      now the crunch point is would I make the same choices i made in my teens, if i could advise myself what would i say to try and convince me to make other choices.

      well I think i would tell myself to drink less, work harder on getting my grades party when its appropriate not every weekend. Make the best of any situation. I think one of the best resources out there that I wish I had discovered years ago is the open university

      www.open.ac.uk

      study in your own time the fee's are affordable if you don't earn enough they may even be free. I had 18 months
      of unemployment years of crappy jobs that just helped me drink at the weekends I could have had my degree years ago and without a huge debt.

      There are people studying with the OU from all over the world and its cheap and you can study as much or as little as you want.

      In short Try and make sure that there is something positive in your life and even if your a factory robot, no significant other living in a crap hole do something to help others and your self worth will rise and your life will improve. Drugs might help you get by but they are just prolonging the agony.

    7. Re:Muddying the waters by shotgunefx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't believe grass has any worse effect than any other freely available substance (cigarettes, alcohol).

      God forbid someone smoke a joint to take the edge off. A lot of people on Paxil and similar drugs would probably benefit from a little grass. The difference is that the long-term effects of grass are well understood. Who knows what they'll find out about other antidepressants and anxiety medications in 10 or 20 years, and take about dulling the brain.

      Around my way, it seems everyone is on one of them. I'm not talking about people who can't leave their house or want to kill themselves, I'm talking about people lacking a little direction or a tad bit too much angst.

      The fact that grass is in the same class as heroin is ridiculous.

      I'm going to rant here as this is something that really pisses me off.

      When my mother was dying of cancer, they were trying to keep weight on her. Instead of giving her grass which would have some other beneficial effects, they gave her some drug they give to AIDS patients. I can't recall it's name, but I do recall that it was $300USD for a small jug and that the warning on it stated that the method of action was not known and that long term use could cause cancer. What the fuck?

      My brother also got cancer around the same time. Diagnosed two weeks apart actually, no family history of it either, just one big kick in the balls from life, but I digress...

      My brother was on about as much pain medication as you could be on without it killing you. His cancer was everywhere and I mean everywhere. They misdiagnosed for a long time. They figure it was spreading for at least 5 years.

      He had a pump installed under his skin that constantly pumped painkillers into him, plus a heavy regimen of Oxycontin (100+mg) all day long and some other assorted painkillers. For him, the gave him a THC compound to keep his appetite up. It didn't' work.

      On the other hand, when he started smoking tons of grass, it helped him tremendously. It helped him keep fighting, made him feel better and helped keep the anxiety at bay.

      Horrible enough to be in constant agony, but imagine you're mother going through the same thing, watching her die and seeing your own horrible end.

      My point is to anyone who thinks that grass is evil, is that grass isn't anyworse than anything else that's legal . It's almost certainly better than anything manufactured to play with your brain chemistry and it has lot's of positive effects and the fact that it's illegal, particularry for medical use is a friggin crime.

      --

      -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
    8. Re:Muddying the waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again you're missing the point. I smoked pot because I thought it was doing no damage to my brain. Had I known that it was doing permeanent damage I wouldn't have smoked it, and articles like these sicken me because they make out like marijuana is harmless, if not beneficial(!), which is completely false.

      I don't live in a dumpster, I'm studying computer science next year, please don't speak so condescendingly.

      Let me put it this way; how would you react if an article got published all over the web and read by children everywhere with the headline "Recent study shows sniffing paint may help clear sinuses"?

    9. Re:Muddying the waters by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
      I smoked pot because I thought it was doing no damage to my brain. Had I known that it was doing permeanent damage
      I don't believe you have any brain damage at all. Any hard times you're experiencing in your life are due entirely to your own decisions in life and are in no way due to a plant. Many poor aspects of life may be exacerbated by the state if you were caught smoking marijuana. Do not blame on marijuana what is purely an artificial situation constructed by ignorant politicians.
      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    10. Re:Muddying the waters by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      Define damage.
      Your different through having spent any length of time smoking but damaged no.

      Your right when you say it's your choices which make your life difficult. however honestly can you say that getting stoned regularly doesn't cause a lot of people to put off making choices.

      No you can't blame the plant as its your choice to get stoned. drifting through life is a side effect of being regularly stoned.

      This is the real problem with cannabis use, not cannabis damaging your intellect.

    11. Re:Muddying the waters by SilverspurG · · Score: 2, Insightful
      honestly can you say that getting stoned regularly doesn't cause a lot of people to put off making choices
      I can honestly say that the decision making process becomes reprioritized. Many people try to make too many choices. In many ways smoking marijuana may help you decide what's really important. Some people spend their lives "drifting through life", as you put it, but that's probably what they always wanted to do anyway. Other people smoke marijuana and become enormously productive and creative.

      "Drifting through life" is not a sure effect of prolonged regular marijuana use. Maybe it was for you because that's what you wanted to do. Maybe you don't want to do that anymore. That's you. That's not enough to justify law or the enormous campaign of pure and utter crap that's come out of the (taxpayer funded) government and several organziations of questionable scientific rigor.
      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    12. Re:Muddying the waters by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      If I had only known that my short term memory and concentration would get affected in the way they have I wouldn't have touched pot.

      Are you saying that you have had long term impact? Pot doesn't affect these things outside of being stored, everyone should return to normal after. It's a similar mechanism to he way that getting blind drunk can include memory loss. No one credible has ever said pot has these long term effects.

      If you feel that you have these effects all the time from some experiences in your past, you are either imagining up anecdotal evidence, or you have some other medical issue that you are unaware of. It could be your geekish tendances (hey, its /.), as it's been obvesved that regular use of computers and email brings the things you have noticed. Does your usage of the internet correlate to your perceived memory loss?

    13. Re:Muddying the waters by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      . I smoked pot because I thought it was doing no damage to my brain. Had I known that it was doing permeanent damage I wouldn't have smoked it, and articles like these sicken me because they make out like marijuana is harmless, if not beneficial(!), which is completely false.

      It is your belief that is completely false, not the article. Pot causes no long term brain damage. It never been proven, not has any credible study even hinted at it.

      I bet you are one of the people walking around with the (false) belief that a glass of red wine per day is good for you. It's not, and the permanent damage of alcohol is well documented. By deffinition, 'getting drunk' involves brain damage. I bet you blame pot for a lot of things, but have no issue with going out for a drink. You are the one sickening us, going around spreading falsehoods.

    14. Re:Muddying the waters by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      you know we seem to pretty much agree, especially on the politics, and regulation.

      personally i am in favour of informed choice, which isn't achieved by the "authoritys" or by people saying its harmless either.

      When it comes down to it the balance does depend on the individual, I think it was a mistake I made in my life to smoke so much and for so long. I don't think It's harmed me physically intellectually or emotionally thou I just might be a bit further on in life if i hadnt got stoned so much.

      In hindsight I think i smoked a little too much for far too long. but i am positive about one thing you really are wasting your life if you can't bring yourself to do something positive for someone else and its pretty hard to do that sat on your arse stoned.

      and yes that is probably a conclusion i made while sitting on my arse getting stoned. Your right changed prioritys :)

    15. Re:Muddying the waters by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      An unrelated recent study (sorry, I don't have any links) found what we all know already: humans tend to go into auto-pilot when they are fairly happy and nothing is going wrong. This is why people drift through life, or have the same job for 30 years. People generally only make substantial improvements to their life when they are forced to by circumstances (eg. I got kicked out of a flat, so I bought a house), or they consciously embark on an improvement path.

      So this would tend to suggest that the guys "drifting through" life while smoking weed, is because it makes them happy with their life. Who are you to tell them that's no good and they should be joining the rat race instead?

      NB. I'm anti cannabis, but I am much more anti bad logic.

    16. Re:Muddying the waters by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      Actually getting stoned is pretty much self medicating things get stressful you get stoned.

      Do you think you make your best choices when drunk? generally thats conter balanced with periods of being sober
      but if it wasn't...

      so you think someone who is stoned is making the best choices in life for themselves? maybe they are but thinking about the long term is probably not something they are thinking about. Maybe if they read this they will be.

      who am I to say that getting stoned long term wasn't a good choice for me? someone who has done it. your mileage may vary.

  40. Say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I...I heard this recently...

    Oh. It was at the top of the page.

    Never mind.

  41. Uh Oh!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Seriously was I the only one who saw the headline and thought "cannibal androids had found a way to increase our brain sizes so they have more food!?!?!" before thinking "why would cannibal androids eat humans!?"

  42. Math+Cannabis by deplifer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Got this 2 weird dudes @ my university, they smoke weed(in high doses) all day long. They take Advanced Math and Graphics Programming and do it exeptionally well.

    So there sure is some truth in this article(research).

    1. Re:Math+Cannabis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or perhaps they're just very capable at those subjects?

      I've a family member who smokes weed and she barely remembers conversations she had yesterday. There's a reason it's called dope.

    2. Re:Math+Cannabis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps their starting capacity/IQ far exceeds yours, or the average, or the above average.

      The article addresses the potential effects on mood and neurogenesis. Simply having more neurons does not ensure increased performance. Wiring/synapses are governed by genetics and adaptation to the environment (i.e., learning). If need be the system prunes both neurons and synapses. For example, synaptic pruning is apparently critical through the teen age years...

  43. No wonder by vijaya_chandra · · Score: 1

    that i realise am God once in a while after ....

    so was the case with my predecessor mr.holmes

  44. Related discovery! by sonicattack · · Score: 1

    ...And in a related discovery, it was found that working on your forehead with a cheese grater induces skin cell growth.

    1. Re:Related discovery! by mrselfdestrukt · · Score: 0

      Ouch!!! Damn you. I'm starting to think you were just sarcastic. Damn my policy of trying everything once...
      My forehead hurts.

      --
      "I used to have that really cool,funny sig ,but it got stolen."
    2. Re:Related discovery! by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Sending me all your money and credit card info will make you richer.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  45. Free the herbal remedies, its our damn world. by davro · · Score: 1

    The Erb remains illegal while other "legal" taxable drugs run rampant.
    These "legal" drugs are prescribed, WE conform to the usage, procedure, or discipline; "in prescribed order"
    We are resources under management.

    Blaze and Learn, repeate and maintain state.

    1. Re:Free the herbal remedies, its our damn world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go back to ~.(smokedot.com) hippy

  46. RE: Can anyone draw a cartoon of this?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone can, indeed.

    I'll smoke this spliff and get right on it, if I remember...

  47. cell growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, Cell growth doesn't have to be a good thing. The hippocampus has an important role in the transition of short term memories into long term memories. (the thing that obviously goes wrong when you're stoned) Perhabs this reflects a compensation of the brain to malfunctioning memory.

  48. Lots of Research on Cannabinoids in Cannabis by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 5, Informative

    What a surprise to click on Slashdot and see news about cannabinoids - I feel like I'm reading my own site ...

    I operate CANNABIS.COM ... shortcut url http://cann.com/

    Some informative pages to check out:

    Lots of cannabis Research information *with sources listed*
    http://www.cannabis.com/research/

    TR-446 Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of 1-Trans-Delta9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (CAS No. 1972-08-3) in F344 Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Gavage Studies)
    http://www.cannabis.com/research/tr446study.shtml
    (mirror of the study published by the U.S. National Toxicity Program)

    Cannabis News
    http://www.cannabisnews.com/

    And finally, Erowid's Cannabis Vault...
    http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis.sht ml

    Ron Bennett

    1. Re:Lots of Research on Cannabinoids in Cannabis by megrims · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Why do you need a shortcut URL? Trouble concentrating?

    2. Re:Lots of Research on Cannabinoids in Cannabis by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 2, Funny
      I operate CANNABIS.COM
      I am intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    3. Re:Lots of Research on Cannabinoids in Cannabis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Lots of Research on Cannabinoids in Cannabis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fricking stoners.

      Sitting around all day publishing websites.

    5. Re:Lots of Research on Cannabinoids in Cannabis by serutan · · Score: 1

      I think my 11th level thief looted Erowid's Cannabis Vault and stole the Bong of Mordenkainen.

  49. Excellent by squoozer · · Score: 1

    Get doped up and more intelligent at the same time. Life couldn't be better.

    Lets fund more research like this. We all know that if enough people believe something is true then it is true.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    1. Re:Excellent by Jack+Earl · · Score: 1

      Well if you say it, it must be true!

    2. Re:Excellent by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      I volunteer to be one of the test subjects!

      Seriously though, I was diagnosed ADHD long ago, but for the hell of it, I took a test later on while buzzed. While I was slightly baked, my EEG showed a higher level of concentration.

      After doing a little research, I found that THC affected exactly the same portions of the brain, reducing seratonin levels in the brain, but unlike seratonin reuptake inhibitors, it doesn't trick the brain into producing additional seratonin. Seratonin can, in the wrong amounts, lead to everything from ADD through depression, which is why people can pay attention to literal crap if they're watching it "On weed".

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  50. Dude by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will you shut up and pass the twinkies?

  51. Re:Only a pothead could mistake a human for a rat by SMS_Design · · Score: 1

    As a fruit, I find that statement offensive!

  52. Not Tested on Humans by obender · · Score: 2, Funny
    They can cure diabetes in rats, they can grow organs in rats, now they can increase the rat brain. Still it does not mean much to us, none of these works in humans yet. Rats are similar but not identical.

    Yeah I know, in Soviet Russia communism was first tested on humans before being tested on rats.

    1. Re:Not Tested on Humans by Scarletdown · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do I dare say it?

      I, for one, welcome our new drugged-up hyperintelligent rodent overlords.

      Now, all this weed talk is giving me the munchies.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    2. Re:Not Tested on Humans by digismack · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our pot smoking rat overlords. (As long as they share.)

      --
      http://www.hollowdepth.com
    3. Re:Not Tested on Humans by aug24 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps there's some kind of world conspiracy led by a super-intelligent, yet badly hypochondriac, rat?

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  53. Almost got me there! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    University of Saskatchewan?
    Try getting a stoned person to pronounce it, there you have proof enough that the research is flawed.

  54. Easy by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

    they're getting free weed there!

    1. Re:Easy by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, I used to own several dozen pet rats. Due to the fact that you can't properly tell their sex until well after they're fertile, they ended up numbering in the hundreds. Never shared with 'em, though, the poor bastards :)

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  55. MOD PARENT DOWN: TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    See subject. And last sentence of parents post...

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN: TROLL by lord_rob+the+only+on · · Score: 1

      Parent is right, GP is a troll. Last sentance is :

      When asked whether his findings explain why CmdrTaco taked it up the ass, Dr. Sharkey paused and replied: "It does not explain the effects of smoked or inhaled or ingested substances."

  56. I think... by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 1

    I think that some of the moderators completly disprove this.

    --
    "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
  57. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by kjamez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i noticed the point of the alcohol-enduced-sig, and wanted to comment, but you beat me to it ... i've never known anyone to get high and oh, say, beat their wife, or wreck head-on at 90mph racing down roads, or even really do much of ANYTHING. the "party isn't over for hippies" ... but i do know a multiple-sclerosis patient or two that enjoy a good toke, and, and my-chemo-therapy-buddy, he likes it too ... not that i'm AGAINST alcohol in any real way/shape/form, but the evils associated therein are far more harmful to yourself, your family, your life, and everyone around you (especially when operating a motor vehicle) ... i'd rather there be 100 stoners driving 35mph in a 60, scared out of their minds, than a single red-neck drunk on jack daniels showing you exactly how manuverable his F-350 is.

    --
    you can't have everything, where would you put it?
  58. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Head Shop= Place that sells pipes, papers, vapes, and other hippy stuff.

    Coffee Shop= Pot bar.

  59. cannabinoids!=marijuana by lbbros · · Score: 1

    If they're really that useful, they should be extracted and put in a medical formulation. This perhaps will make people understand that even if cannabinoids have a positive effect, it doesn't automatically mean that smoking marijuana is.

    --
    A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
  60. Re:mirror ... for all you homeys too baked to clic by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

    They found that the rats treated regularly with a high dose of HU-210 -- twice a day for 10 days -- showed growth of neurons in the hippocampus.

    210? Twice a day? Hmmm..

  61. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While we're all thinking ... think of how many cannabis users could have done so much more if it wasn't for that pesky arrest record, jail time, etc.

    The penalties are what create much of the problems, not cannabis itself.

    Ron

  62. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

    My guess is that you tend to hang out around a lot of losers then. Your dataset is flawed.

  63. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ur living proof that there is no correlation between NOT smoking dope and increased brain activity.

  64. legalize it! by La+Fourmi+Nihiliste · · Score: 1

    this just proves why it's illegal most everywhere: it makes you think...

  65. My Grades at UNI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got my best grades at uni in the first year when I caned a fair bit of weed. It wasnt until i stopped smoking it that my grades went down.

  66. mind expansion by BushCheney08 · · Score: 1

    Kinda gives a new meaning to the term mind expanding.

    --
    Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
  67. Just because a drug hits the same receptor... by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

    Just because a drug hits the same receptor doesn't mean it will have the same effect.

    Until they have a test that shows that THC causes cell growth, I will assume that nothing of the sort has been shown.

    For instance, think of all of the drugs that bind seratonin receptors... LSD is one of them, but very few seratonin agonists are psychadelic.

    For another example a few years back, a drug that was believed to be just another GABA binding tranquilizer was taken off the market for causing memory loss. As far as anyone knew, it should have exactly the same effects as all of the other drugs in that class (valium, xanax etc.) - but actually it had worse side effects.

  68. Re:This looks like the original data (link enclose by BushCheney08 · · Score: 1

    Oh, brilliant! Link to a government site for info on a pot study...

    </paranoid>

    --
    Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
  69. Re:HU-210 100 times as potent by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1

    "I'm not surprised that injecting lab rats with a twice as potent THC like substance spurred neuron generation," Interesting to note that those who habitually smoke Marijuana misread "100 times" as "double".

    Yes, it would make more sense if they misread it as "4 times as potent" in binary. I think the problem is that with more brain cells receiving random or mistuned stimulation, you would learn "better" but a lot of what you would learn is crap.

    On the other hand, I heard that old people seem to die of suffocation very often because brain cells stop functioning, I think starting from a certain age a bong might do more good than bad.

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  70. Depends on the reward by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

    I bet your average college student when "exposed" to cannaboids will be ten times more likely to remember where the Fritos are.

  71. pshyco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So pot smoking leads to quick growth of neurons? And guess what, when they are forming the links or neural nets, your stoned, so they are warped. Perhaps that's why potheads sometimes turn out scitzo...

  72. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

    Well you probably don't have much experience with pot addicts. I have seen some friends of mine who started smoking when we were about 14 and kept doing it everyday for years. Now they suffer from very short attention span and sometimes go through very miserable times when they don't have immediate access to pot. Because it *does* give addiction: but it takes a lot of usage to reach such extremes. So, of course it's a whole different world compared to heroin, coke, etc., but saying that the "evil associated" with smoking pot are nothing is simply false. Alcohol can be dangerous, as well, I agree on this. But 100 stoners driving are *bound* to have accidents because their reflexes are so slow. So I say, do as you like with pot and everything else, but don't feel the need to justify yourself by bashing other stuff and pretending it has no effect. Because 1. you're lying, 2. you're implicitly admitting you feel guilty. Otherwise, why would you be justifying yourself?

    --
    Global warming is a cube.
  73. forgot again by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    Dued thatwas to fnnyy i hit the eplry butn butthen forgot wat i was gion to type hahaha

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  74. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, what's your excuse?

    "swam me", should be "swarm me". "imparment" should be "impairment", and you appear to have one of those rare keyboards that can't produce capitalized letters.

    Loser.

  75. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
    I have seen some friends of mine who started smoking ... Now they suffer from very short attention span
    Did you ever consider that perhaps their chosen path in life has anything to do with this, regardless of the marijuana usage? Some people are, just naturally, not going to make it very far in life. What they do or don't do in terms of drug usage makes little or no difference. That's like pointing to all the blue collar workers and saying,"See! They all live in the city and they're not CEOs! If they could just live in the country on big estates they could all be CEOs!" It just isn't so. If you grew up with underachievers or even achievers who had no financial backing to send them to college or put them in successful social situations then you'll always be surrounded by people who are down and out.
    and sometimes go through very miserable times when they don't have immediate access to pot
    Because it's a plant. There should be no shortage of supply. The shortage of supply is due, entirely, to the ignorance of people writing and enforcing silly prohibition laws.

    Yes. Every day above ground is a good day and God does still love you. Every day with herb is better and there's no good reason why it isn't readily available. I hope you can see the natural cycle of frustration here which is completely independent of your anti-marijuana crusade.
    So I say, do as you like with pot and everything else, but don't feel the need to justify yourself
    You'll have a valid point when it's deregulated. As long as people can be stuffed into a jail cell for merely smoking marijuana the state is creating a need for justification.
    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  76. That's not the only growth induced! by j0e_average · · Score: 1

    Heck, the only growth I experience with cannabinoids is growth around my waistline!

    Damn Ms. Smith, Ms. Fields, and that dastardly Betty Crocker.

  77. Okay, I know the truth! by oztiks · · Score: 1

    Whats obviously happened here is that scientists are trying to pass weed off as a beneficial learning tool to in turn introduce it into mainstream scientific practice so they sit in the laboratories and make the most sophisticated bongs known to mankind from bunson burners, test tubes, and beakers. Heck if they're smart enough they can set up their own hydroponics labs and grow it themselves inhouse..

  78. See, mom? by mordejai · · Score: 1

    I wasn't getting high!

    I was improving my brain! You don't understand!

  79. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
    Alcohol can be dangerous, as well, I agree on this. But 100 stoners driving are *bound* to have accidents because their reflexes are so slow.

    That would go counter to all of the studies into the subject. The 'drug free America' guys once funded a study on this, to try and promote this idea. The results didn't go their way and they quietly buried the study.

    Alcohol fucks your driving up because your risk assessment is broken. Pot does not have that issue, in fact its the opposite. People take less chances, which more than compensates for the slightly slower reactions some people have.

    Otherwise, why would you be justifying yourself?

    No one is justifying anything, just pointing out many commonly held myths. People believe that pot is bad for you for the same reasons that 60% believe Saddam was behind 9-11. The people promoting these myths know what they are doing. For example, want to stop teenage boys smoking? Why not lie and say it promotes tittie growth? Who wants to be 'girly'?

  80. I always knew that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always knew that was true, but I forgot.

  81. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is correct. Drug users are losers. You apparently are still in the denial stage. I suggest joining Losers Anonymous.

    Hi, my name is dreamchaser and I am a loser.

  82. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to look at WHY people, or in this case "cone heads" become users or abusers of any of these types of things.

    When your mind would rather put together source code, or go over schematics at 3am instead of driving you off to slumberville then you can get rather desperate. You could drink, and knowingly slaughter millions of brain cells and basically ensure an early death or you could smoke, and transition(assuming the bottle is already in your hand) to something that you can get away from. The "cone head" will pursue a more efficient solution and hopefully negate any dependances probably meta cognito style in the end.

    Others would try to make a life of nothingness and try to maintain that state.

    So, had these "cone heads" you speak of gone with the bottle or lost sleep then I would have to say that they pobably would have done a lot less in life.

  83. Organization, not quantity counts by hey! · · Score: 1

    One of the things that happens to brains is that they shed brain cells as they go from birth to maturity. No doubt there may be some loss of neural plasticity, but it's also correlated to increasing cognitive development.

    If I recall (this is very old stuff for me), my neuroscience teacher mentioned that young brains sometimes grow new neural connections in response to trauma. However, the results of this were not necessarily good -- it in itself might be a kind of damage.

    So -- while this is certainly a very interesting result, it is neither here nor there with respect to its value to the user, until quantitative performance tests in controlled studies are done.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Organization, not quantity counts by SilverspurG · · Score: 3, Insightful
      until quantitative performance tests in controlled studies are done
      I have a novel idea. How about we drop all the bullshit and political posturing and move directly to deregulation?

      Nearly every single large medical study of marijuana has had its funding denied, or its license for the controlled substance denied, or any of dozens of other reasons to keep the study mummied in red tape. If people are working so hard to hide something then the most logical answer is probably the opposite. In this case: marijuana has little or no effect on anything, all negative social perceptions are due to years of wrongful regulation, all ill effects are circumstantial correlations, and the only reason for the continued illegality is the complete inability to admit that the government has ever made a mistake. PR and ego--no different than telling your manager he's wrong.
      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    2. Re:Organization, not quantity counts by colmore · · Score: 1

      To the best of my knowledge the only long-term negative effect that has been lab-proven is that the smoke is pretty shitty on one's lungs.

      Brownies and vaporizers people: it's just responsible.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    3. Re:Organization, not quantity counts by RawrawrawR · · Score: 1

      Nice. :D

    4. Re:Organization, not quantity counts by Avast+Yee · · Score: 1

      If people are working so hard to hide something then the most logical answer is probably the opposite. In this case: marijuana has little or no effect on anything, all negative social perceptions are due to years of wrongful regulation, all ill effects are circumstantial correlations, and the only reason for the continued illegality is the complete inability to admit that the government has ever made a mistake. PR and ego--no different than telling your manager he's wrong.

      Exactly, although it seems that it's not so much the government failing to admit its mistakes as it is the (huge) tobacco industry campaigning against it. The politicians we elect are kept happily complacent by powerful lobbying groups who don't want to see marijuana legal. After all, who will smoke a cigarrette when they could have a joint (or marijuana in any form)? And more importantly, who would BUY marijuana if they could just grow it in their window? I think the tobacco industry realizes how devastating to their several century old deathgrip (heh) on America if marijuana were freely available.

    5. Re:Organization, not quantity counts by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      I agree completely. Some progress is being made: I live in MA, and the government just recently embraced the open source philosophy, so hopefully we've got many pot-smoking hippies elected to office. 1/2 ;-)

      Only 1/2, because a recent article in the Boston Globe gave the statistic that 17% of Boston residents responding to the survey were pot smokers. I would imagine that the actual figure is at least twice that, both based on the stigma of self-incrimination (especially for those with a lot to lose, like good jobs/houses/cars/etc.), and also based on my experiences with my peers in the industry (software development).

      And also there are at least two billboards on route 90 (the Mass Pike) promoting the legalization of pot: I believe one of them said $155 million in additional tax revenue if we were to legalize, and the other discussed other social and economic benefits (we would drastically reduce the prison population, and not send non-violent "criminals" into a violent prison environment, which ends up making the pot smokers worse for society than just leaving them alone would have been).

      And, while I have high hopes that those of us with brains might have some beneficial effect on the "throw everyone in jail and let God sort 'em out" crowd, I will not hold my breath (so ... they blew my hit?): as you said, it is extremely difficult for authority to admit that it made a mistake (look at Iraq); and also, having inappropriate laws on the books just makes it easier for them to pick you up at any time for any reason, which makes law enforcement's job much, much easier -- when they "know" the bad guy has done something but they don't have the proof.

      In other words, laws like that make for a great police state, and try reforming one of those without a revolution!

      The other scary fact is that making something simple into a felony is a great way of disenfranchising a segment of the voting public that you disagree with: smoke pot, get sent to jail a felon, and you lose the right to vote so you can't support those who would make the behavior not a crime. (I realize that not all marijuana infractions are felonies.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    6. Re:Organization, not quantity counts by Jambon · · Score: 1
      Brownies and vaporizers people: it's just responsible.

      Brownies take time. Stoners are lazy. Vaporizers require electricity, cost more money, and take too much time. Again, stoners are lazy. The only solution I could see working would be vaporizing the stuff and putting it in an asthma inhaler. Don't know if that would work, but it would sure as hell be convienient.

    7. Re:Organization, not quantity counts by jafac · · Score: 1

      What blows my mind is, you'd think the Dutch would do a study or something. I mean, if the world is waiting for America to do an unbiased study once and for all to prove Pot is safe, they're going to be waiting a long time.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    8. Re:Organization, not quantity counts by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd agree with you, if I only know what the political drive for arrant government interference in one aspect or another of people's private lives would latch onto in its place. From a selfish standpoint I can live with politicians getting bent out of shape over pot.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  84. Smoke two joints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before you smoke two joints
    And then smoke two more

  85. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

    1. Yes I did, some of them are visibly underachievers, but that doesn't account for attention span reduction and addiction. Especially when I have known them since we were children and they used to have the same attention span as me. These are physical effects.
    2. I understand your point that there would be no shortage if it were legal... even though this is not true. I was just pointing out that you can develop addiction; the fact that, i dunno, chocolate is freely available (just a scenario) doesn't mean you should be happy if you develop chocolate addiction, because it can and will make you miserable. Ok just a bit if it's chocolate :). Anyway in my country-that-I-shall-not-name weed used to be free until recently, but this didn't solve shortage problems, which are caused by its *price*. Ok it's cheap, but when you smoke 30+ joints a day... you do the math.
    3. Every day above ground is good even though there is no god to love me. And I don't understand how my post could come through like an anti-marijuana crusade, as I have not taken any position wrt to its (or alcohol) usage. I have *no* position, to be honest, given my political beliefs (that you should do whatever you like, as long as you don't mess with me). I was simply stating that the parent post was spreading FUD. I like truth, no matter in what liberal-vs-conservative-vs-whathaveyou sauce you wish to have it.

    --
    Global warming is a cube.
  86. Whoa man, if pot can do that ... imagine what... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Acid, LSD, Mescaline, Pyote, Magic Mushrooms, etc.. does for brain cell growth..

    But I'm confused a bit... Wasn't all the propoganda we were feed saying just the opposite?

    Hmmm, Oh wow, reverse psychology for teen age rebellion... cool.....

    Wow man, guess that means they were cool too.

    Wow Wow.... man what a bummer... if we are being told this now, it must mean its really now killing brain cells...

    My head hurts.. either I'm growing brain cells of I'm killing some... which is it? Hey dude, What would Bush or Gates want?

    On another note: considering the number of highly moderated "Funny" comments in this slashdot crowd.... It struck me that those without experience might not see the humor. Uh, but this is slashdot, is there anyone without some experience?

    Didn't somebody say something about the decline of science, technology and R&D in the US? Maybe its time to make pot legal.

  87. proof is in the pudding by icepick72 · · Score: 1

    Ya, but have you seen Cheech and Chong (a stereotype of course) or anybody that's done a lot of pot over the years. There's something definitely wrong with that study.

  88. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
    that doesn't account for attention span reduction
    There is no attention span reduction. They report an attention span reduction because their life sucks. It has nothing to do with marijuana.
    Especially when I have known them since we were children and they used to have the same attention span as me
    I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt and take them at their word. Really, though, there's nothing of substance here. How are you quantifying this?
    I was just pointing out that you can develop addiction
    That can happen with anything and everything. It's not related specifically to marijuana.
    Ok it's cheap, but when you smoke 30+ joints a day... you do the math
    Should we make gas illegal for people who drive 120+ miles/day? With recent price increases it's obviously creating an unstable financial condition for them. In a deregulated society they would figure it out. The habit would get cut back or they would learn to rebudget their money. People learn to set their own priorities in life. As long as those priorities are not directly harmful (for example, a habit of murdering people or shooting out windows) then the state has no business in it at all.

    The only FUD being spread is the usual FUD that marijuana will make you stupid, or decrease your attention span, or turn you into a hippy. Marijuana doesn't do anything. The people themselves are who they are quite often with a good amount of assistance from the repressive policies of the state. You can say, for example, that marijuana users tend to have lower salaries than their non-using counterparts. Considering that a marijuana conviction pretty much destroys any chance at a professional career this is obviously a situation created by the state and not inherent to marijuana use.
    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  89. The problem with natural drugs... by rubberbando · · Score: 1

    is that none of them are meant to be smoked.

    They are supposed to be ingested. Smoking them just alters their chemistry and turns them into a poison thus making any 'good' ingredients counter-productive.

    Its like trying to smoke an aspirin to rid yourself of that headache.

    --
    DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
    1. Re:The problem with natural drugs... by xanadu113 · · Score: 2, Informative

      What makes you think everyone who uses cannabis medically smokes it? Allow me to destroy some stereotypes here. Cannabis can be taken the following ways:

      Tincture
      Baked into foods (no pun intended)
      Vaporized (my method of ingestion, no pyrolytic compounds since it's not burning it.)

      Cannabis has also been made into various oils and lotions for putting directly on the skin. There is even discussion that it was used in the traditional hebrew annointing oil.

      --
      -Myke
    2. Re:The problem with natural drugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Smoking them just alters their chemistry..."

      Your only partially correct and misleading. Some plants/drugs must go under a process, such as combustion, to be injested. Some do not need to be. Burning a substance can and does alter some chemistry of the various ingredients in it. In fact, there are plenty of drugs that one takes by pill form that can very likely be smoked. Smoking can increase the effects, but also cut the duration time. It is also a much faster method, as opposed to eating/drinking, which may take anywhere from a few minutes to over an hour to bring about some effect.

      "... is that none of them are meant to be smoked."

      You need to think about that statement a while. It simply boggles my mind how one could write such a pointless statement. Smoking is a method of injesting a substance. Whether a plant or drug is meant or not meant to be injested that way all depends on the effects the user wishes to achieve. If I mean to smell burning hickory wood and also transfer that smokey flavor and smell to meat and then do it, then obviously that is what I meant to do.

      By the looks of your entire post, you have a lot to learn. So turn of that TV and read some books.

    3. Re:The problem with natural drugs... by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1

      problem with natural drugs....Its like trying to smoke an aspirin to rid yourself of that headache

      right. aspirin, the 'natural drug' that grows on the aspirinia tree.

      --
      We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
    4. Re:The problem with natural drugs... by pclminion · · Score: 1
      none of them are meant to be smoked. They are supposed to be ingested.

      Leaving aside the utterly ridiculous idea that anything in the natural world is "supposed" to be a particular way, how exactly do you think the intoxicating effects of pot were discovered?

      Do you think somebody one day stumbled on a cannabis plant, saw a big stinky cola bud and thought "Hey, I think I'll grind that up and throw it into my flatbread?" No. I can pretty much guarantee you that pot was discovered when people used some dried cannabis to kindle their campfire, and suddenly everybody was high.

      Have you ever eaten pot? It's not something you would do twice. And it doesn't even have any effect on you unless it's been cooked. So clearly it was discovered by smoking. Is this the best way to ingest it? Probably not. Is smoking it the "wrong way" to use it? Don't be insane.

    5. Re:The problem with natural drugs... by benna · · Score: 1

      Well, thats not quite accurate. It doesn't so much have to be cooked as the THC needs to be dissolved in some sort of oil.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  90. Smoking cannabis does not kill brain cells. by Khyber · · Score: 1

    It's the asphyxiation that usually makes this happen, as pot smoke tends to be held in the lungs (intentionally by the user) than those who smoke tobacco.

    Anyone remember the Nixon studies? They showed there were no detrimental effects of marijuana on the human body. Of course, the second that came to light, the study was buried under red tape, and was de-classified only recently.

    As a side note, cannabis' chemicals (THC, CBD, CBN, etc.,) are shown to also coat nerve cells, and provide some form of protection. I don't remember how or why (I can't find the paper/study I read about.)

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Smoking cannabis does not kill brain cells. by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      "It's the asphyxiation that usually makes this happen, as pot smoke tends to be held in the lungs (intentionally by the user) than those who smoke tobacco."

      My point exactly. You let me know if there are any pot smoker who doesn't hold breath until last THC gets absorbed by lung sack or until eye balls bulge out of socket.

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    2. Re:Smoking cannabis does not kill brain cells. by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if the stuff were legal (and therefore cheaper), you wouldn't NEED to inhale like that to milk every last bit of THC from each hit.

      Hell, you wouldn't need to SMOKE the stuff in the first place. Eating it gets you high, too. But you need to use a lot more of it than you would smoke. So economics tend to dictate the most harmful route of ingetsion...

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    3. Re:Smoking cannabis does not kill brain cells. by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      I don't remember how or why (I can't find the paper/study I read about.)

      (Insert joke here)

    4. Re:Smoking cannabis does not kill brain cells. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Actually, eating the equivalent amount that you smoke (THC is fat-soluble, so take a joint's worth and cook it in butter, spread butter on toast or bagel, eat, and watch just how high you get.) It just takes longer to kick in, the potency is still almost the same. This is why one ounce of pot made into special brownies will screw up an easy 20-30 people. That's about.. one gram of pot per person. About your average blunt or fat joint.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:Smoking cannabis does not kill brain cells. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      LOL holding your breath does not kill brain cells. Even if it did, THC is protective against the kind of toxicity caused by asphyxiation(excitotoxicity). If anything, it'll be byproducts of combustion that are toxic, so they should just legalize it so everyone can afford to eat it instead of smoking.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  91. weed increases my concentration and creativity by sumday · · Score: 2, Interesting

    currently at university, i have a project where i have to draw 60 pages worth of stuff in 10 days. i find that being stoned, i can draw much, much better from my imagination. i can concentrate harder, and understand the medium a lot better than when i am sober. My drawings suck when i'm sober, but on weed, they are usually somewhat good.

    The only problem with smoking weed for this project, is i tend to just space out and do other stuff instead. so i'm quite a bit behind, but the stuff i've done while stoned is far more interesting than the crap i've done while sober.

    i've also noticed that since i started smoking weed, i've gotten alot better at writing songs and playing guitar.

    tis a good drug.

    --
    sudo killall humans
    1. Re:weed increases my concentration and creativity by Zapdos · · Score: 1

      Like being more relaxed after a couple of alcoholic drinks make me a better driver? Everyone tends to think of themselves as the exception, that they are in control. In reality they are not, their judgment has diminished to the point, that they think they are actually better than before.

    2. Re:weed increases my concentration and creativity by SilverspurG · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Everyone tends to think of themselves as the exception, that they are in control. In reality they are not, their judgment has diminished to the point, that they think they are actually better than before.
      I think you can say this pretty much about anything. The person who needs their coffee because it helps them wake up, the person who needs their prozac because it helps them calm down, the kids who need their ADD medicine because it helps them concentrate.

      I've estimated that at least half, if not 3/4, of the people driving on the road are under the influence of some substance or situation (sleep) which has an effect on their ability to make quick decisions and pay attention. There are plenty more dangerous activities--cell phone use, for example--which are far more distracting and dangerous than smoking a marijuana cigarette.
      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    3. Re:weed increases my concentration and creativity by sumday · · Score: 1

      weed and alcohol are nothing alike. i rarely drink, and i've been drunk less than 10 times in my life. i try not to do it because of how it impairs my ability to think and function normally. weed impairs your ability to function normally, but pretty much everyone i know who smokes it agrees that it produces increased concentration skills. and the abnormal way in which it makes you function is nothing particularly dangerous.
      i can drive perfectly well when i'm stoned. i just have to remember to concentrate on driving, because if you concentrate on something while stoned, that's the only thing you concentrate on. you forget about everything else. i think that's why it's possible to concentrate better than you can while sober. but while driving, if i start thinking about something random like... bathroom fixtures... it's possible that i might forget that i'm driving and drift off into another universe that consists solely of bathroom fixtures and things that relate to bathroom fixtures. i guess that could be kind of dangerous. But it's never really happened to me. i can focus on the road.

      --
      sudo killall humans
    4. Re:weed increases my concentration and creativity by felis_panthera · · Score: 1

      Virtually everything I can do, I can do better while stoned... Hel, I even program better when I'm f***ed up... sure, I have no medical background and don't know the proper terms for what it does, but here's my layman's guess based on observation of myself and others...

      THC (and all her happy little friends) increase my hand-eye coordination, this has been noted through video gaming, I've always been a decent gamer, able to complete games that are able to hold my attention long enough.... but once I smoke a spliff, I turn into some sort of video game demi-god or somesuch.... this leads me to believe that THC increases communication within the brain, specifically in the corpus collosum (the LAN that connects the hemispheres of the brain)

      THC increases my concentration.... when I'm baked, if I'm focused on a task (be it gaming, cleaning, writing, screwing, etc.) then it takes a significant ammount of prodding to get me out of my hyper-focused state... this is especially poignant when I am also listening to music.... thusly I think weed makes the other parts of my brain, those not being used for the current task, easily distractable, allowing the parts needed for the task at hand full access to my physical and mental resources...

      And some things that seem to be universal.... pot allows for the free flow of ideas, just sit in on a joint session and listen to all the crazy notions that get bandied about.... pot increases interhuman connection, I haven't found a faster way to make friends with people that sitting in that green-tinged circle with some like-minded individuals...

      hmmm... maybe as LSD breaks down the barriers between the conscious mind and the subonscious, THC breaks down the barrier between the aenimus and Jung's proposed Uber-Aenimus which in contemporary times has been re-named the collective unconscious... woah... this is some pretty good stuff *cough, cough*

      --

      The chains are broken
      Loki is free
      Ragnarok is at hand...
    5. Re:weed increases my concentration and creativity by Zapdos · · Score: 1

      Missed the point? Zoom it flew by you! I guess you may be on something!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      The point is the person under the influence, is most likely to have poor judgement about its effects.

    6. Re:weed increases my concentration and creativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to echo this one, I remember in college a friend of mine had a party at his apartment.. his roommate "Dave" started drinking, oh I forget now, a liter of J.D., or some form of whiskey/scotch... we were all smoking a few bongs and drinking beer. I left around midnight, and stopped over the next day after my morning classes, walking up the street to see a door hanging on a rope out of the 2nd floor window. I go inside, the door to their apartment was gone (needless to say, hanging out the window), the bathroom door was hanging on one hinge, the toilet seat was torn off...

      I asked what happened, and I was told "Dave". I've seen drunk people get into fist fights in bars, pass out on the floor, puke all over themselves/others. In 20 years of smoking pot (and its been 10 years since now), I *never* saw anyone getting high on pot do any of those.

      I learned guitar smoking pot, and well, some people think I'm good (I'm self-critical, and I'm rusty now). I was far more creative in many ways when I was smoking pot, but yes, on the flip side.. I was lazy. Then again, I'm still lazy (one look at my lawn, unmowed for a month, and my messy house, you could guess that), so I'm not sure its the pot that I haven't smoked in 10 years (haha), and my old roommate smoked just as much, and he was a motivated cleaner/neatnick. And yes, I've driven high, and I've driven drunk in my younger years, I took out one of those twisted metal reflectors at the edge of someone's yard (and a nice dent in my hood, and busted headlight, and cracked windsheild where the reflector hit)... woke up thinking "something happened last night", and then looked at the car. I've driven high, never had an accident from being high, in fact it made me more paranoid. Or, lets say animals on the road.. in 20 years smoking pot, I killed one squirrel (ok, he jumped right in front of me). In 10 years since I quit, I've managed to hit 3 possums, two squirrels, and a deer last year. All when I was dead sober, just tired. I sure slept better when I was smoking pot...

      So, alcohol is legal, and people get drunk, sick, cihrossis (sp?), and yes, violent and beat up their wives & others. And pot is illegal, and I've never seen it cause any of those. Which is a greater health risk?

      You could argue smoking pot can cause lung cancer, sure, probably.. so do cigarettes, which are legal. Then again, I drank sugar-free soda for years, which I guess now might cause cancer. Yeah, I smoked in the morning before work, and then went to work and wrote multi-threaded applications on a minicomputer, in 'C' w/ Assembly language modules.. code thats still running *today* (although I hear they're retiring the machine soon), and then smoked a bowl at lunch, and smoked a few at night while relaxing and watching TV w/ my roommates. I could *focus* really well on a task while high, although to the detriment of being able to "multi-task". Now, 10 years later w/o Pot, the biggest piece of code I've written in years is an 800 line TCL script, and a few 100 line perl scripts. My job has me "multi-tasking" so much, that the 800-line TCL script was "on my list" for 2 months before I got a few days of quiet time to actually write it.

      Depends on your definition of what 'negative effect' is I guess. I quit because of my (now-ex) GF, who didn't like it "because its illegal". But I can tell you, in my eyes, it doesn't bother me if anyone smokes it. I'd rather be around mellow pot smokers than violent drunks, anyday.

    7. Re:weed increases my concentration and creativity by sumday · · Score: 1

      In my experience, your point is valid for the effects of alcohol, but not cannabis.
      i don't know if you've smoked much weed, but when i'm high, i know every way in which it's affecting me. I'm more aware of whats happening to me than somone in the same room is. the same isn't true of being drunk. You can be around completely sober people and just act really crazy without realising it or controlling yourself.

      --
      sudo killall humans
    8. Re:weed increases my concentration and creativity by Zapdos · · Score: 1

      No you do not.

  92. Woah, check the numbers man by PunkPig · · Score: 1

    210 is totaly half of 420. Think about it.

  93. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

    Alcohol fucks your driving up because your risk assessment is broken. Pot does not have that issue, in fact its the opposite. People take less chances, which more than compensates for the slightly slower reactions some people have.

    Pot does have this issue, you say it yourself: the reactions that *some* people have. I am one of those and many people I know are, too. Honestly I have never met anyone who is quicker under the influence of pot... but I don't know *that* many potheads, either. I certainly don't drive when I am stoned or drunk.
    The tittie-growth thing is pretty funny :). Commonly held myths are certainly hard to take down, but hey, as long as people find it hard to turn their brain on, they will find myths an easy, prepackaged reality that suits them just fine. But it's certainly a shame that both left and right are churning out myths like there's no tomorrow. Why do 60% of Americans believe what you say? Because they find this right-wing reality easy to accept (the fact that most can't locate middle east in a world map probably plays a role, too... I mean, those countries are all the same, aren't they). Why don't they listen to the left-wing reality? Because, guess what, the left wing has been doing the exact same thing over the last decades. So... the people promoting these myths are not really responsible for the misinformation because, sure, they spread it but by now it's just become a game. Right-sided gyus will listen to this and left-sided to that, no matter what. It is *these people's* responsibility to seek truth: you know a priori that parties spread FUD .

    --
    Global warming is a cube.
  94. Re:HU-210 100 times as potent by anotherzeb · · Score: 1

    I like a smoke now and again, but am aware of studies done on the strong weed available in Amsterdam (sorry, no links) that links the stuff that is 2 - 4 times as strong as the regular stuff with depressive symptoms. As I sometimes use the (regular strength) stuff to ease my symptoms, I'd be worried about 2 - 4 x stronger stuff making them worse, so 100 times as strong? I'll let someone else be the first to try that

    --
    Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
  95. George Bush should think upon this.... by Khyber · · Score: 4, Funny

    This one phrase out to put his mind into action.

    Man brewed alcohol, God created marijuana. Who're you going to trust, Mr. President?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:George Bush should think upon this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, no, you're just misunderstanding George. The truth is that he didn't pay enough attention in Sunday school. All he got out of it was that Jesus was a Jew, and Jesus was God. So naturally, whenever he talks about God, he just means "Jews".

      "God wants me to help Israel." "God wants me to invade Iraq." "I wasn't elected, I was appointed by God." "I have a meeting with God this afternoon." "God is a neocon." etc...

    2. Re:George Bush should think upon this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very stupid observation. Jesus himself made WINE from water as is first miracle.

    3. Re:George Bush should think upon this.... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      This is why you posted as AC?? How about the fact man was brewing alcohol before Jesus came to Earth, by as much as say.. 4,000 years ago? (That would be ~2,000 B.C.)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:George Bush should think upon this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, did you observe this?

    5. Re:George Bush should think upon this.... by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Men ingested plants long before they learned fermentation...

      I'm just sayin'. Ask Sid Meier. I bet he agrees.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    6. Re:George Bush should think upon this.... by rockinrobotix · · Score: 1

      You are aware of the difference between Jesus and God right?

      Some even say God was there before the earth, imagine that!

    7. Re:George Bush should think upon this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Man brewed alcohol, God created marijuana. Who're you going to trust, Mr. President?

      Bush has trusted both... quite a lot...

    8. Re:George Bush should think upon this.... by RealNecator · · Score: 1

      Bush will trust in the substance, which makes him moer powerful (at least he thinks) like ... hmm ... cocaine and if nothing else is there also alcohol.
      Who needs a god, if you can feel like one? harharhar

    9. Re:George Bush should think upon this.... by pclminion · · Score: 1
      I hate to turn a joke into something serious (actually, I don't really), but...

      Alcohol was probably discovered in its natural state, just as cannabis was. What came first -- wine or beer? Who knows for sure, but it was probably beer.

      It's not really a stretch. Somebody forgot about the bowl of barley that they'd left out in the rain. A few days later, the grain was germinated, sugars were being released, and a wild yeast took hold and began fermentation. Intrigued by the heady aroma, somebody tried to drink it... And was the first person on earth to become drunk.

      So, how to replicate the process? Well, just let some grain sit out in the rain. It took millenia for it to go beyond that point. But many anthropologists theorize that beer was a key factor in the formation of agrarian societies -- in order to make beer, you need a large quantity of barley, and this encouraged people to settle down and give up their nomadic ways, in order to enjoy alcohol. Alcohol essentially created modern civilization.

  96. Re:Whoa man, if pot can do that ... imagine what.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Acid and LSD are basically the same thing. besides, nowadays, it's practically impossible to get, since the two guys who made the bulk of the supply for North America and the rest of the world were busted by the DEA in 2003, if I remember correctly. So good luck on expanding your mind with that.

    Mescaline (often) comes from peyote and other cacti, but again supply is limited, and peyote has become an endangered species due to its popularity.

    With sufficient magic mushrooms though, you can talk to "God" or your own personal reasonable facsimile thereof. Availability varies, but the latest trend is to grow your own, with spores bought over the internet, since (apart from a couple of states) spores don't contain psychoactive compounds and are legal to purchase, for microscopy purposes.

  97. Nothing about memory or intelligence. by ivaldes3 · · Score: 1

    The original article says nothing about how these rats performed on tests of memory or intelligence as the headline seems to imply. I would conjecture that they do not do as well. The article only says that they seemed to be less anxious and less depressed. Big deal. You can get that with Prozac. It is not illegal, you know what you are getting from a trusted source, it is very well studied and does not usually impair cognition.

    -- IV

    --
    http://www.LinuxMedNews.com Revolutionizing Medical Education and Practice.
    1. Re:Nothing about memory or intelligence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're seriously advocating Prozac over cannabis?

      You poor, sad, deluded fuck.

    2. Re:Nothing about memory or intelligence. by ivaldes3 · · Score: 1

      That's 'Dr. Fuck' to you :-) -- IV

      --
      http://www.LinuxMedNews.com Revolutionizing Medical Education and Practice.
  98. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a pretty well-described amotivational syndrome associated with chronic use however. See:

    Performance of heavy marijuana-smoking adolescents on a laboratory measure of motivation
    Lane, SD et al, Addictive Behaviors. Vol 30(4), May 2005, pp. 815-828

    To say THC/marijuana is a completely harmless drug is foolish. To say it is less harmful than alcohol is entirely accurate.

  99. Makes sense to me by bunratty · · Score: 4, Funny

    When you have to struggle to remember what you and your bong bud have just been talking about, it makes sense that you'd have to exercise your brain's memory regions. Smoking pot is like walking with leg weights -- it's harder to do when you have them on, but when they come off you're stronger for the extra effort you exerted.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  100. Junk.... it's rats not humans. by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

    I believe genetics, excercise and diet would have way more positive effect on brain performance then carbinoids in human beings.

  101. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
    To quote the abstract of your cited article:
    In the present study, adolescents who smoked marijuana on a regular basis (near daily) were compared to a control group of adolescents on a two-option experimental task designed to measure motivation.
    After smoking a few joints, I tend not to care about someone else's silly experiment either.

    The marijuana using youth have obviously prioritized the research at its correct level: negligible.

    To further quote the abstract:
    initially produced greater rates of monetary reinforcement than an alternative option (non-work) that required no response output to earn money. Switching to the non-work option was interpreted as a measure of reduced motivation.
    They're performing a study comparing how easily the youth are motivated by money. This has nothing to do with marijuana. The marijuana using youth obviously decided that getting paid for doing nothing was better than getting paid to do whatever the task was.
    the marijuana-smoking participants switched earlier to the non-work option, and derived a greater percentage of their earnings from the non-work option
    My Lord! How does this crap get published???
    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  102. Who says the growth is good? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Cancer.

    Maybe the new cells rewire the brain, causing paranoia and hallucinations...

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

    --
    Deleted
  103. Question from an old guy by mlmurray · · Score: 1

    OK. So what do you call the place where you pop in to get a cup of Joe and a donut?

    1. Re:Question from an old guy by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Honeydip

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    2. Re:Question from an old guy by cbrocious · · Score: 1

      You know what they call a quarter-pounder with cheese?

      --
      Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
  104. That's why my head became smaller after college? by joelsanda · · Score: 1

    eom

    --
    The Luddites were ahead of their time.
  105. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by joto · · Score: 1
    My guess is that you tend to hang out around a lot of (dope-smoking or not) losers. Thus not seeing how much more intelligent us normal people behave.

    Seriously, if we define intelligence, as the mental ability to achieve the goals you have (such as inventing a new scientific theory, earning a shitload of money, becoming a dictator in some banana-republic, scoring a lot of babes, maintain a happy circle of family and friends, or write some great software), then "stoners" seems to have a long way to go, before reaching anything I would call intelligent.

    In fact, most drugs, not just cannabis, seems to reduce this ability. With perhaps a few exceptions. Caffeine seems to have positive effects for at least some people. Cocaine seems to have a short-time positive effect (but often ends badly after a few years). Nicotine seems to have a small detrimental effect, although most people seems to get by anyway.

  106. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    To quote yourself:
    The marijuana using youth obviously decided that getting paid LESS for doing nothing was better than getting paid MORE to do whatever the task was.


    bold words are mine, to make the statement congruent with the article's findings.

    Jesus! isn't that motivation? Getting paid LESS to do nothing, MORE to do something? What do you call people who study less in school, do the bare minimum to get by? could you call them, perhaps, less motivated? I realize that this part of the article does not imply causation, but a little further into the abstract they say that the amount of THC in the subject's bloodstream correlated (r=0.52) with the amount of (extra)work the participant was willing to perform.
  107. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by joto · · Score: 1

    Yeah, like smoking more dope...

  108. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by SilverspurG · · Score: 2, Insightful
    In fact, most drugs, not just cannabis, seems to reduce this ability
    Have you considered the effect of the social and legal stigma associated with the state's position on those substances? Really. Economic position is just as much, if not more, an effect of the state and not an effect inherent in any particular habit.
    then "stoners" seems to have a long way to go
    You're profiling stoners as those down and out people who are always having problems in life. 1) There are plenty of non-users who fit this social perception, 2) You don't see any good stoners because it's socially unacceptable to admit to using marijuana. Nearly 40% of people will admit in a closed study to using marijuana on a regular basis (at least once/month). I never admitted, even to a private study, to smoking cigarettes until I was 18.

    It could really be America's most ridiculous secret.
    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  109. Re:Whoa man, if pot can do that ... imagine what.. by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Wow, man... bummer .... and cool man...

  110. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
    isn't that motivation? Getting paid LESS to do nothing, MORE to do something?
    If you're a youth who has all the time in the world to attend a study then I don't think that the amount they were making made any real difference to them. It's no different than attending school or work: drug users or not, most people put in minimum effort to maximize the effort:profit ratio. If the additional profit for the task wasn't worth the effort, then there's no surprise they didn't go for it. The study is obviously not controlled for basic human behavior.

    If anything, the study shows that non-users are more susceptible to carrot-on-a-stick schemes.
    r=0.52
    0.52 is a really really really really really really really really crappy statistical correlation coefficient. It's got to be at least 0.8 to mean anything.
    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  111. University of Sask likes LSD by saskboy · · Score: 1

    Funny you should mention LSD. The UofSask is famous for being the first University in North America to work with the drug in an attempt to use it to treat psychosis. Too bad they probably ended up making the psychosis worse in those they tried to treat...

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    1. Re:University of Sask likes LSD by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

      They did a lot of harm in Sask. because they had no idea how much LSD to use and used HUGE doses. One of the doctors, and probably some of the patients became basket cases. They tested it on drunks, terminally ill people and prisoners. My mom was a doctor in Sask. She said that in general, LSD seemed to be helpful to some people, at first - then they deteriorated.

    2. Re:University of Sask likes LSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      She said that in general, LSD seemed to be helpful to some people, at first - then they deteriorated.
      I'm here to say that I've eaten more LSD than the total populations of most cities. The only thing which impedes someone who has taken LSD is the social stigma arising from the myriads of questions about drugs.

      Tip to those who have taken LSD: NEVER EVER EVER EVER admit to it to a person in a position of authority. Always smile gently, act like you haven't a care in the world, and say,"No". Society engineers failure for those who admit to having taken LSD. It's a cold hard fact.
    3. Re:University of Sask likes LSD by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

      Dude, don't assume that LSD has the same effect on everyone.

      There's a sort of Russian Roulette effect.

      Some people can take a moderately sized dose with few apparent after effects (probably some change in color perception is unavoidable) - other people find their lives ruined.

      I knew one kid in college who was failing engineering - he said that he couldn't think straight after trying LSD once.

      Actually LSD isn't the only drug with that sort of Russian Roulette effect - though it probably has it for a larger population than other drugs.

      It's clear that schizophrenics and people who are on biochemically the edge of schizophrenia can be badly and permanently hurt by trying even a few doses of many drugs, pot and amphetamines included. Read Mark Vonnogate's book, "The Eden Express" for the experience of someone with that sort of vulnerability.

      In any case, what the doctor observed is the most common response. Chronic use of LSD causes some deterioration over time. That one use - bad damage effect isn't the most common effect.

  112. extreem example by twitter · · Score: 1
    Organization, not quantity counts

    True. Consider brain cancer. New cells are not always helpful.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:extreem example by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Heh. I was also wondering about the behavior of the test rats. Were they happily getting fatter and chatting over tea or were they running around rabid biting each other to shreds?

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  113. No wonder... by Infonaut · · Score: 1
    Humboldt State is such an academic powerhouse! :-)

    Hey, it's a joke. Don't get bent out of shape if you went to Humbolt. I know not everyone who goes there smokes pot, and I know it's a good school.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  114. Actually that is more accurate than you realize by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Your brain learns both by creating connections and by deleting them. If you create to many new connections you can't thnk straight. Everything gets too connected and you can't resolve your thoughts. You have to prune nodes to be able to think effciently and to focus.

    Thus your comment is right on.

    Clearly the only solultion is to first smoke loads of weed to build up your brains connecitons, and then huff gasoline to prune them back to a useful level. Then you will be a super genius.

    Worked for me.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Actually that is more accurate than you realize by sveskemus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can tell by your sig.

  115. some interesting uses by SQLz · · Score: 1
    There are some interesting potential implications in regards to high doses of cannabinoids found in substances like marijuana.

    For exmaple, one potential use is getting stoned out of your mind.

  116. Interview with one of the scientists by dborod · · Score: 2, Informative

    There was an interview on Friday evening on the CBC show As it happens with Jamie Van Cleemput, one of the scientists on the team. There is a link on this page http://www.cbc.ca/insite/AS_IT_HAPPENS_TORONTO/200 5/10/14.html to an audio file that contains the interview http://cbc.ca/asithappens/media/dailyshow/2005-10- 14-aih1.ram

  117. Yeah, Because ... by Salis · · Score: 1

    Potheads are known throughout the world for their brilliance and intellect.

    Maybe the stuff induces brain growth..but it could be just a big fat cancerous tumor.
    That could explain a lot of things.

    --
    Favorite /. tagline: "On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN." And it was good.
  118. I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ffffffffffffffffffffffffff *cough* *cough* *cough* fffffffffffffffffff *cough*
    dude, I so knew that smoking was making me smarter, I mean, like , I've been smokin for years and every time I spark up I have great ideas that like, you know, are, like, cool, you know what I mean. Like that time I came up with that electronic voting system that worked with my television remote, that was like.. coool. Or the time that I figured out how to make breakfast burritos using the toaster. hehe, that was cool, too bad about the toaster though. Dude, quit hoggin the bong, I have to get to work, Steve wants me to come up with yet another version of the ipod. I think this time we will give it.. dude this is soo cool.. get this.. this time we will put a wider screen on it and call it the ipod cinema only get this dude, it won't actually play movies on the wide screen, it will dock with your new apple iTV, and get this.. it will only play back on your personal iTV... hehe, DRM is soo cool, definetly my best idea yet.. anyhow, save me some of that, I gotta come up with some other cool shit when I get home.

  119. To paraphrase Denis Leary by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    The reason I don't smoke pot, is because I didn't want to get into carpentry.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    1. Re:To paraphrase Denis Leary by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Actually that is roofing. All roofers that I have ever known smoke pot. I think that you need to be high to be willing to go that high.

      Carpenters tend to standard tobacco, though not as much as roofers to pot. I know several carpenters who don't smoke/chew (Seems like 1 in 4, while the general population is 3 in 4).

      Of course I can only speak for those I know. I have not done a real study. It is still interesting.

    2. Re:To paraphrase Denis Leary by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      Roofers on reefers? Who'dathunkit. Next it'll be crackers on crack, crankers on crank, and weeders on weed.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  120. Re:HU-210 100 times as potent by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

    you make an interesting point. everyone I know who has smoked strong smoke for long periods has had deep paranoid/depressive episodes. Like four dudes.... one of them my younger brother. He's at school at an esteemed institution a couple of hours from the canadian border and they get GREAT imports.

    Every one of them, my brother included, decided to stop after that. Those initial episodes continued for weeks on end. One of the aforementioned four asttempted suicide.

    My personal experience with the stuff is that I do notice cognitive benefit, but that cognitive benefit is not of value to my psyche.

    I'm a firm believer in the useful threshold of human intelligence. I think there is a band - a range of intelligence "values" that are of value to humans. below that threshold is insufficient to be a productive member of first world societies, and above a certain threshold is too much. I contend that too much intelligence is actually more harmful to the quality of life than not enough.

    There are studies making a direct correlation between intelligence and depression... intelligence and suicide. Look up the suicide crisis the japanese have.

    I've made a similar contention about artificial intelligence.

    The issue with mice is that we cannot determine the full nature of psychoactive benefits or detriments because we cannot measure, directly or peripherally, the qualitative nature of its effects on their consciousness (if it exists). I have no reason to believe that this is of benefit to healthy adults.

    I can see it being of benefit to the aged who've experience cognitive decline.

    --
    un burrito me trampeó.
  121. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most people put in minimum effort to maximize the effort:profit ratio.

    Then why is there a discrepacy between chronic users of marijuana and the baseline group?

    And, honestly, a correlation of 0.52 is certainly significant! that's 25% of the variance in a study without a strictly controlled independent variable! Give that 0.8 figure to any statistician and he will laugh you out of the building.

    Listen, I'm not trying to say that this study is perfect. I am trying to say that it, and other studies* show that chronic marijuana use has detrimental amotivational, attention-reducing, and cognitive consequences(1). Not that all of these effects are huge, or permanent(2) especially in relation to alcohol and just about every other psychoactive substance out there. But they are there!

    *See:
    (1)Neurocognitive insights into substance abuse: Garavan, Hugh; Stout, Julie C, Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Vol 9(4), Apr 2005, pp. 195-201
    (2)Neuropsychological consequences of regular marijuana use: A twin study
    Lyons, M.J. et al; Psychological Medicine. Vol 34(7), Oct 2004, pp. 1239-1250

  122. Lysergic acid is NOT LSD by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1, Informative

    Lysergic acid is an intermediate in the synthesis of LSD.

    LSD is lysergic acid diethylamide.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  123. The case against marijuana legalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Marijuana is not dissimilar to other drugs, except in that its users seem to be rather slow witted after heavy and extended use. You know the type. Tobacco and alcohol have their disadvantages too though, so really marijuana is not too different. Except that for some reason, marijuana users have been unable to make a convincing case in favour of marijuana. They haven't won the argument at all, and their lack of success can only be explained by the negative effects of marijuana on their ability to put forward convincing and sophisticated arguments with the charisma and social nous required to carry the day. This leads me to think that marijuana is perhaps not as innocent as its advocates claim. If it was it would be legal, wouldn't it? But the bumbling ineptitude and stupidity of the typical stoner campaigner is a damning indictment of the negative effects of marijuana.

    1. Re:The case against marijuana legalization by xanadu113 · · Score: 1

      Marijuana will remain a Schedule I narcotic as long as NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) have a monopoly on the entire marijuana supply which is to be used for scientific research.

      Read this article on Cannabisnews.com

      If you "know" so much then why are you posting anonymously?

      --
      -Myke
    2. Re:The case against marijuana legalization by thegnu · · Score: 2, Informative

      But the bumbling ineptitude and stupidity of the typical stoner campaigner is a damning indictment of the negative effects of marijuana.

      I think it has a lot to do with the fact that one side has high-powered rifles and amphetamines and is fighting a WAR AGAINST A PLANT by shooting the people who like the plant, and the other side just likes the stupid plant. Also, does it not seem weird to you that one might be put in a cage with murderers for smoking pot? It seems kind of harsh.

      If the government would stop shooting people for carrying plants around with them, then the druglords wouldn't be in business. And I could get my pot from someone who wasn't a criminal, and my life would be safer, but people would rather make money off the loss of liberty of the largely peaceful masses than have them be safe.

      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    3. Re:The case against marijuana legalization by benna · · Score: 1

      Sounds eerily familiar. Oh wait.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  124. Mary Jane will Always be DEMONIZED by TexVex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It doesn't matter whatever medicinal uses it has. If it were shown to regrow hair, prolong erections, and cure prostate cancer, it would still be treated as an evil drug. The pharmaceutical companies would find the key curative ingredients and find aritficial derivative that could be patented. Drug companies do not want people to have a wonderdrug they can grow in their own backyard. It's bad for business. Furthermore, from the conservative politician viewpoint, it would be especially bad for the War on Drugs if they were smaked in the face with all the lies about weed they have been perpetuating for decades.

    The road to decriminalization of marijuana requires a fundamental shift in the prevailing attitudes of society. Showing that it's mostly harmless won't do it. Showing that it actually has upsides won't do it. Millions of people peacably demonstrating won't do it. I doubt even a group of huge corporations forming political action committees could do it -- big tobacco is already on the run, so how the hell do you expect that people promoting another kind of smoke could get very far today?

    --
    Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    1. Re:Mary Jane will Always be DEMONIZED by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right ..

      It's difficult so lets not even try.

      *sigh*

    2. Re:Mary Jane will Always be DEMONIZED by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      On a personal level, I find marijuana smoke annoying, and am pretty sure taht the ashes of dead plants aren't going to have a positive effect on anyone's respiratory system, regardless of the drugs they carry. Not to mention that my whole apartment complex smells like singed death. This is why tabacco is only barely clinging to legality by virtue of a long history of supplying jobs and a huge amount of money, and it's why there will never probably be a great uprising of popular support for marijuana smokers.

      Maybe you fellows should switch to legalizing the eating of marijuana or something, that might go over better. Excuse me, i'm going to go defenestrate a bong now. I can only hope that three stories is enough to break it irreparably.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  125. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by joto · · Score: 1
    Have you considered the effect of the social and legal stigma associated with the state's position on those substances?

    Yes I have. But no, while it might have an effect, this effect can't be very big, since even you claim that "Nearly 40% of people will admit in a closed study to using marijuana on a regular basis", it can't be that big.

    The fact is: most people I've come across that smoke mariuhana on a regular or semiregular basis: (a) isn't someone I would characterize as "smart" or "clever", (b) tends to focus a lot of their attention to it (as opposed to more productive things, like work, studies, or family).

    This leaves us with two options: (a) Marihuana makes you stupid, or (b) Marihuana attracts stupid people. I don't know which one is most important, but I guess they both contribute to the picture.

  126. Re:This looks like the original data (link enclose by Mastadex · · Score: 0

    This same article was mentioned on the (canadian) discovery channel. they interviewed one of the scientists that developed this study and one thing that the article forgot to mention is that the cannabinoid that was used is NOT marijuana. It is a synthetic version of the addictive substance inside marijuana which has been modified so that it is over 100 times more potent then just smoking up.

    Therefore, its NOT marijuana.

    --
    A morning without coffee is like something without something else.
  127. If HU-210 is 100 times stronger than THC...... by thisislee · · Score: 1

    does that mean that you can get 100 times more stoned if you get your hands on some HU-210? New drug to abuse?

  128. Weird by thegnu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find it weird that people think that pot is bad. No, really. Because people don't seem to have a problem with alcohol, which is more destructive to your body and more likely to cause depression and/or physical aggression.

    Many of the same people don't have a problem with pharmaceutical antidepressants, when they increase the incidence of suicide. Oh, and homicide. And if you try and quit them, you might have seizures. But it's OK, because the people we're paying to kill people so we can drive our H2s tell us it's OK.

    Many of the same people think there's no problem with coffee, which I would say is about as destructive as pot. Coffee also has many positive effects, as does marijuana.

    Marijuana has a tendency to make me give in to what my body is asking for, I've noticed. Sometimes that means I overeat, but then again, I used to overeat all the time before I started smoking. Usually it means after I've been running around all week stressing out, I relax, with no excuses. If I'm repressing energy, when I smoke I start expressing it, with no excuses.

    It's illegal for no good reason, and the only reason prohibition of marijuana works where prohibition of alcohol didn't is that potheads aren't violent like alcoholics.

    Oh, and what's the deal with those people torturing their kids--crushing their fingers, beating them, etc.--who are only getting like 10 years? Carrying one hit of acid in GA gets you 15 years firm. Hmmm.... I'll take the drug user over the child torture artist. Really. Why don't all you start your own tribe somewhere?

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
  129. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by schon · · Score: 1

    all the dopers you will ever meet are boring, no good losers who think of nothing but scoring more dope to make them even bigger losers [...] sure some people were cone heads and did great things

    Why would I need to point out an obvious fallacy with examples, when you contradict yourself in your own post?

  130. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by thegnu · · Score: 1

    The fact is: most people I've come across that smoke mariuhana on a regular or semiregular basis: (a) isn't someone I would characterize as "smart" or "clever", (b) tends to focus a lot of their attention to it (as opposed to more productive things, like work, studies, or family).

    Um, ok. So like video games are an analogy, right? And computer programmers? They don't have lives, right? Unhappy and all that?
    Here's a list:
    http://www.slatts.fsworld.co.uk/famous.htm

    This leaves us with two options: (a) Marihuana makes you stupid, or (b) Marihuana attracts stupid people. I don't know which one is most important, but I guess they both contribute to the picture.

    Marijuana, like all potentially fun experiences, attracts "stupid people." Stupid people have a right to live, too. Much like it attracts smart people. Without "stupid people," you wouldn't have many of the commodities you so very much enjoy today. Also, stupid people are worse at hiding that they do illegal things. So maybe that's a factor.

    Here's my question. Should I use Xanax instead?

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
  131. I think you meant... by LaTechTech · · Score: 1
    --
    I want my! I want my! I want my Eee PC!
  132. I just read my list.... by thegnu · · Score: 1

    And boy, that Bill Shakespeare must have been stupid.

    Newt Gingrich, who you don't have to like, is on there. THE FOUNDERS OF OUR COUNTRY, for example, are on there.

    Does that mean we're more of a marijuana nation than a Christian nation? BAH! MORE QUOTES!
    http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
  133. Personal Responsibility by RawrawrawR · · Score: 1

    Smoking marijuana is an issue of personal responsiblity. Thirteen-year-old kids are stupid for smoking it at all because of course it's going to affect their brain chemistry in the long run, mainly in the area of language and verbal skills. Pardon me for refusing to cite my millions of sources on this; do all the reading you want, but it's still up to you in the end to accept my claim or not. Once someone's brain has stopped developing, around 18 or so, then yeah, they can toke up like a mad fiend and probably not suffer any negative consequences. Sure, pot may be a carcinogen, but today, everything gives you cancer. /cheap shot, it's in your best interest to laugh and not be snarky :\ Marijuana is only a problem if you make it a problem. It doesn't cause anyone to skip work or school because they had to get high. People make a conscious choice to get high, every single time. It's not as if this is some demon drug that wraps its talons around your brain stem and commands you to feed its hunger. Pot smokers do not devolve into freaks waiting for their next "fix" (*cough* that's much more evident at a Starbucks at six in the morning), nor do they flip out and get irrational like tweakers--methheads--if they don't smoke. That said, I don't even care if little teenagers want to smoke pot. I don't care who smokes pot. If it ruins your life for whatever reason, you're a moron, it's your fault, and you knew what you were getting yourself into. If you didn't know, then you're an even bigger moron, and it's still your fault. The drug doubtfully impacts crime rates, aside from shady deals leading to murder (though people killing one another is hardly exclusive to drug users, especially in the USA). It's not as if we have huge marijuana conglomerates akin to Philip Morris running ads about how you can live the good life if you do something as simple as smoke bongs. You cannot overdose--you would have to smoke a hay bale of pot to even get close, and you'd be too high and lazy after a few dozen hits to keep going, if you even made it that far. Its effects on driving ability are negligible unless you smoke massive amounts, in which case you should not drive. Obviously. Of course, this varies from person to person. As with alcohol, you have to know your limit with pot. Whether the drug is addictive or not will forever remain up in the air. I think the claim is only there to justify outlawing the drug. Like I said, this is all about personal responsibility. It is up to you, the intrepid drug user, to figure out these answers for yourself. Don't just smoke pot to get "fucked up" the way getting drunk makes you, because that only makes you a tool. "If you want to be a successful drug user, you have to be well informed." - Groove

    1. Re:Personal Responsibility by syukton · · Score: 1

      Much more than a hay bale's worth, actually, is required...

      UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
      Drug Enforcement Administration
      In The Matter Of
      MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION
      Docket No. 86-22
      OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF
      FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF
      ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
      FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge
      DATED: SEPTEMBER 6, 1988

      Page 56/57:
      Findings of Fact

      1. Richard J. Gralla, M.D., an oncologist and Professor of
      Medicine who was an Agency witness, accepts that in treating cancer
      patients oncologists can use the cannabinoids with safety
      despite their
      side effects.

      2. Andrew T. Weil, M.D., who now practices medicine in Tucson,
      Arizona and is on the faculty of the College of Medicine, University of
      Arizona, was a member of the first team of researchers to perform a
      Federal Government authorized study into the effects of marijuana on
      human subjects. This team made its study in 1968. These researchers
      determined that marijuana could be safely used
      under medical supervision.
      In the 20 years since then Dr. Weil has seen no information that would
      cause him to reconsider that conclusion
      . There is no question in his
      mind but that marijuana is safe for use under appropriate medical
      supervision.

      3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is
      the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death?

      4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal
      effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in
      the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented
      cannabis-induced fatality.


      - 56 -

      5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on
      marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana
      is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world.
      Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans
      routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of
      direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and
      the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no
      credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a
      single death
      .

      6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter
      medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

      7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called
      an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of
      test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced
      toxicity
      . A number of researchers have attempted to determine
      marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply
      stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to
      induce death
      .

      8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around
      1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce
      death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as
      much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette
      . NIDA-supplied
      marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    2. Re:Personal Responsibility by RawrawrawR · · Score: 1

      Sweet, thanks for that information. :)

  134. Re:Only a pothead could mistake a human for a rat by doppe1 · · Score: 1

    Well it did get picked up in Nature news. http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051010/full/051010 -12.html

  135. anouther fark repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    posted on fark 3 days ago.... move along, nothing to see here

  136. 1 negative effect of marijuana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    being too stoned to answer the phone when a client is calling, because he'll know you smoke pot.

  137. 5mg of pwnage twice daily by Dachannien · · Score: 1
    1. Re:5mg of pwnage twice daily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Note that the first two hits from the link given above are to papers that support the hypothesis that smoking moderate amounts of marijuana is medically OK. The first study finds improvement in brain function on one test for moderate chronic marijuana users; heavy users had some impairment. (This study has some obvious issues with causality: matching subject by pre-use intelligence scores is probably not a sufficient control.) The second study finds no difference in hormone levels between even heavy chronic marijuana users and non-users.

      My understanding of the medical literature on marijuana is that it is mostly about effects subtle enough to be difficult to detect, punctuated by the occasional study with obvious (usually anti-drug) bias.

  138. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by xanadu113 · · Score: 1

    My medical marijuana message board had the same problem recently, we had people on there saying anyone who smokes pot is stupid but they couldn't spell either. And I even installed a SpellCheck function!

    BTW, it's spelled impairment. And I'm not quite sure what "swam me" means but I assume you meant "swarm me"?

    Wasn't Progessive Auto Insurance (a billion dollar company) run by a "functioning pot head"?

    For those interested, my medical marijuana site is located here, click News & Discussions from the front page to go to our forums.

    --
    -Myke
  139. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by joto · · Score: 1
    Um, ok. So like video games are an analogy, right?

    Yes, certainly. Playing video games isn't exactly what I would call "productive". It's an unproductive asocial waste of time. The only positive side is that it will bring you a little bit of fun. If playing computer games start becoming an important part of your life, it's time to stop. If you are doing it as harmless recreation, who cares?

    And computer programmers? They don't have lives, right? Unhappy and all that?

    The difference with computer programmers and gamers/dope-heads is that computer programmers actually produce something useful for society. This in turn, could bring them some benefit, typically money. Thus it's not a "just waste of time", although if computer programming becomes addictive, and you find yourself programming late-nighters all the time without giving sufficient time for other tasks, it could be harmful to other goals you have.

    Marijuana, like all potentially fun experiences, attracts "stupid people." Stupid people have a right to live, too.

    Stupid people certainly have a right to live. Now, if someone was stupid, and they asked for advice for how to get the most out of life, my answer would not be "marihuana". Would yours?

    Much like it attracts smart people.

    I seriously doubt that. Just because you can produce a list of smart people who used marihuana, doesn't mean that smart people generally use marihuana. Nor that it "attracts smart people". Smart people generally stay away from mariuhana because (a) it's illegal (b) they think dopers are annoying.

    Also, stupid people are worse at hiding that they do illegal things. So maybe that's a factor.

    Most likely.

    Here's my question. Should I use Xanax instead?

    If your doctor prescribed it to you to cure an anxiety disorder, then most likely: yes. If you are talking about recreational purposes, I would prefer you to use marihuana.

  140. How about a non-snide, scientific response? by mhearne · · Score: 1

    As we all know, a brain cell is a type of nerve cell. The reason that persons with spinal cord injuries remain paralized, is that nerve cells do not regenerate. The fact that THC has been shown to regenerate brain cells in rats is indeed big news.

    The response? Typical drug war stupidity. As Americans, we must all realize by now, that we are being ruled by neo-puritans who believe that hooved and horned demons reside in the bushes in front of their houses. And if you don't believe it too, then you will be dealt with, accordingly.

    Never mind that they have defecated on our Constitution, they have also outlawed all research concerning Marijuana, and they intend to keep it that way. They seem to have some idealistic view that the country should be taken "back" to some unknown period of nirvana, in which we are all happy servants of God, and that we shouldn't generally "think".

    It always amazes me, that a drunk will portray a pot smoker as an out of control, retarded person. I've never heard of a pot smoker who smoked a joint and crashed his car into a tree. The people behind the drug war are criminals, and should themselve be arrested, and made to answer for their crimes, especially since 1981.

    May we please have a little research here, please, and a little less drug war bull piss? The Attorney General has no business dealing with it in the first place. All control of drugs and the direction of drug laws should have been placed in the hands of the Surgeon General long ago.

    For God's sake, get this country out of the hands of the ignorant neo-puritans, who don't even believe in germs! Have you noticed, that you are told to proclaim that you are free, or else? I think that a majority of Americans are sick and tired of the "Freedom" that we have been "Enjoying" since 1981.

    Register and vote. How many other natural drugs are being kept from us? I will quit here because I am too (*) to continue in a qualified manner. Every other post had some reference to drug war propaganda, and I had to interject. Are any of you capable of independent thought???

    Michael

    1. Re:How about a non-snide, scientific response? by thegnu · · Score: 1

      I've never heard of a pot smoker who smoked a joint and crashed his car into a tree.

      Or a child, for that matter. Did any of the scifi nerds ever read Piers Anthony's Letters to Jenny? It gives a good, real-world example of what a girl's life can become because of one irresponsible Alcohol-head.

      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    2. Re:How about a non-snide, scientific response? by mhearne · · Score: 1

      Well, since you mentioned him, here's a page with a fairly complete listing of his works.

      http://www.randomhouse.com/delrey/authors/results. pperl?authorid=718

      His real name is not Piers Anthony, and as a matter of fact, I dated his daughter in the late '60's.

      This has nothing to do with the question of the day however. If you will take a look at Henriette's site:

      http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/

      You will notice that there are more than a few natural remedies, which are forbidden by the FDA because of finacial conflicts with the current drug and chemical lords.

      One notable instance is Stevia Leaf, a natural sweetener which has apparently been banned in the United States, because it's use interferes with Monsanto's market share of nutra-sweet(r).

      Personally, I would prefer to replace as many chemical drugs with natural ones as possible. I am speaking as someone who spent 76 weeks on interferon, and would prefer to drink tea now.

      Michael

    3. Re:How about a non-snide, scientific response? by mink · · Score: 1
      I've been able to legally get Stevia for over ten years here in the US. This site has some more information.

      The U.S. Food and Drug Administration since the mid-1980s has labeled stevia an "unsafe food additive" and gone to extensive lengths to keep it off the U.S. market -- including initiating a search-and-seizure campaign and full-fledged "import alert."

      To judge from the extensive measures the FDA has employed to keep Americans in the dark about stevia, one might assume it was some type of dangerous narcotic. But, in fact, no ill effects have ever been attributed to it, although it has been used by millions of people around the world, in some locales for hundreds of years.

      So adamant has the FDA remained on the subject, that even though stevia can now be legally marketed as a dietary supplement under legislation enacted in 1994, any mention of its possible use as a sweetener or tea is still strictly prohibited.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  141. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by joto · · Score: 1

    Ever heard of the "exception that confirms the rule"?

  142. METAMODERS by WindBourne · · Score: 0
    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:METAMODERS by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      Contributes nothihng? Where? To slashdot, or to society, or to...what? I would assume you don't actually know the person, so you can't really comment on his or her actual contributions to society at large. So that leaves slashdot, explicitly. Does being a thoughtful contributor to slashdot truly mark an individual as being exemplary or as generally good? I would argue that conduct on a large niche internet discussion board has absolutely no bearing on ones actual worth as a human being.

      I found the person in question's post actually quite good. It's parent post raised a point without qualifying it, simply stating it as fact - that we are holding one study on marijunana use above all others that claim negative effects. Your parent poster simply asked for a particular study that might show that. While there are, indeed, quite a few studies that show marijuana to be harmful in large doses, many of those focus around physiological effects (the lungs, usually), and less on biochemical effects. This one focused exclusively on biochemistry. They also almost universally come out of the united states, which has a government that is extremely anti-marijuana. This study comes out of canada, a country that regulates the use of marijuana without banning it. The culture has a different bias, and perhaps that has tainted the study, or perhaps it just shed light on the issue from a different direction. Additionally, there are also many studys that come out of the US on marijuana that paint it in a positive light. These studys back the current positive side of the medical marijuana debate in the US. The parent post of the poster in question clearly has blown the negative studies far out of proportion. This study is not the only one, as he implied.

      What I think needs to really be addressed here is the absolute distain you have shown towards your parent poster, assuming all that was said in his post was not worth modding up simply because:

      1) The guy can't spell.
      2) The guy didn't do his own research.
      3) He has a history of pissing people off on slashdot
      4) He is nasty and contributes nothing

      These are all bullshit reasons. Spelling has no bearing over the validity of an argument's content. If you feel the opposite is true, I pitty you. Spelling is a conveyance of ideas and indicates nothing more than the ability to adhere to a social standard. There may be an argument for sentence structure as an indicator of intelligence (as it indicates the ability to use a tool effectively), but spelling is definitely just the ability to memorize and utilize convention. Spelling doesn't matter. Period. Get over yourself.

      The fact that the poster did not use google could point to a few things. First, maybe he is indeed a dullard. But, probably not. Maybe he's lazy. Could be true, but has no bearing on the validity of his argument. Maybe he was in a hurry...which again says nothing about the validity of his argument. There are so many possibilities (beyond those mentioned) as to why the poster didn't go to google first, that using it as a basis to deny him or her mod points (or question the validity of his or her argument) is ridiculus.

      The fact that he pisses people of only shows that his opinions are controversial. Nothing more, nothing less. That does not make them valid nor does it make them invalid. He just likes to piss people off. So?

      This last point is the most laughable, "You shouldn't mod him up because I don't like him!" Well, Mr WindBourne, your post in itself was quite nasty and contributed nothing to slashdot. You're no better than him/her.

      To be short, if you're going to try and show someone is a moron, attack their premise(s), not their character.

  143. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by thegnu · · Score: 1

    If your doctor prescribed it to you to cure an anxiety disorder, then most likely: yes. If you are talking about recreational purposes, I would prefer you to use marihuana.

    Xanax is a nasty drug. All I'm saying about marijuana is that it's not nearly as bad for you as most of the things we in society would have people stuffing in their various orifices.

    If someone asked me how to get the most out of life, I would give an answer very different from yours, I'm sure. It wouldn't be "smoke marijuana," but I would prefer people smoke marijuana rather than use other drugs, including alcohol.

    My point about marijuana attracting smart people is that recreation attracts people, period. And when you call all people who smoke marijuana stoners, or potheads, you're discounting all the people who smoke pot the way many others drink a glass of wine at night. There's such a thing as overindulgence, but that doesn't mean food should be illegal or that it's bad for you.

    Everyone I've ever known that has taken antidepressants has a)gotten more depressed, and b)had a hard time coming off the antidepressants. Please, please don't take antidepressants. They're poorly manufactured chemicals in the vein of dextromethorphan, MDMA, 2-ci, and crack that are designed to create a codependency.

    One of my favorite pharmaceuticals is Depro Provera (sp?): A single shot renders a woman so barren she doesn't have a period for 6 months. Hurrah for federal food and drug safety bodies, no? There's also the acne medication that you HAVE to be on birth control to take due to the birth defects it causes.

    I think people who would rather pump toxic chemicals into their body than try and figure out an actual problem to their acne should be getting stoned rather than walking the streets and rubbing their personalities off on my children.

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
  144. I took the SAT's in 12th grade... by xx01dk · · Score: 1

    and scored an 1190. Then I "discovered" the Mary Jane, and happily "donated" lots of time toward "studying" this interesting plant over the next two years. Then I took the SAT's again and scored a 1380.

    It kinda made me wonder...

    --
    There is simply too much glass..
  145. Hmmm... by thegnu · · Score: 1

    For exmaple, one potential use is getting stoned out of your mind.
    I hadn't thought of that one. Get this man a box of Fig Newtons!

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
  146. no suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The study is looking at one of the chemicals leeds to muscular and mental sedation, not the psychoactive chemical(s). Plus some of the plant(s) that have cananoids in them also contain stimulants (Mate for instance has trace amounts). I would be interested if there have been studies done on the people in places where some of the plants containing higher concentrations are used for food. Also before the knee jerk- weed is good for you blah blah blah starts this is just one study and untill a follow up studies are done I doubt Super Brain 5 million Now With Extra Strong Cannoboids will be avalable over the counter. However- Aloe Juce that does some of the simillar types of effects (ie help promote brain cell generation) is avalable at Trader Joes. It does taste like metal

  147. Obvious! by crhylove · · Score: 1

    I mean, weed leads to munchies and munchies provides nutrients, right? What was I talking about?

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  148. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking for studies in major, peer-reviewed journals. Not sideline, easily-politically influenced minor tracts.

    If either of those articles you cite really showed what you say (your prior one didn't), it would be a tide shift in medical science's understanding of how marijuana really affects its users.

    Nevertheless, it wouldn't be a problem for occassional users.

    Nor an argument against legalization.


    To make a general statement of truth: the problems with marijuana are political, not medical.

  149. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition by kallistiblue · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems that all the intelligent people I've met understand the the War on Drugs is a total snipe hunt.

    As long as their is demand, there will be a market.

    The fundemental question seems to be:
    Is the government trying to punish marijuana smokers or educate them?

    More than 60% of all drug incarcerations are for non-violent possesion of marijuana.

    As a rational individual, it seems obvioius that their current tactics only succeed in punishing marijuana smokers. Actual use of marijuana is at the same levels or higher than it has ever been so as a preventive, prohibition has most definitely failed. The supply of marijuana is greater than ever and the potency is higher too. The DEA says this to scare the uninformed. They attempt to create the analogy that stronger means greater threat. In reality, stronger means that pot heads have to consume less marijuana to get high. So in reality, higher potency means healthier pot smokers. Who do you believe the DEA with their vested interest in maintaining the status quo or an independent organization of scientists and medical researchers, the esteemed World Health Organization. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/w ho-index.htm

    If anything prohibition has made the problem worse. Prohibition tends to create a black market which opens the door for large scale criminal organizations. Examples of these are the Mafia ( very small organization until their massive growth thanks to alcohol prohibition), the Latin & South American drug cartels in the '80's, and of course the DEA.
    http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

    In fact the only voices that seem to be raised against the legalization of marijuana are those of the DEA and the penal system. That's only natural, without them maintaining their lies, their free ride is over. Even the politicians are afraid of the power of the DEA. Apparently the DEA thinks they don't have to obey the Constitution.
    http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2003 /jan/16/514528463.html?Marijuana%20Group:%20Feds%2 0Broke%20Law

    http://www.leap.cc/ is a really interesting website put together by former Law Enforcement Officers that have seen that the Drug Laws cause more harm than good.

    My more people that know the truth, the better our society becomes.

    Just because you like being sober doesn't mean you have to hate those that want to smoke pot.

    The United States is still a free country, right?

    --
    Laugh at my ignorance while I learn Rails - a Real ne
  150. Re:This looks like the original data (link enclose by syukton · · Score: 1

    100 times more potent you say? Potent like hash/honey oil is?

    --
    Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  151. Barbituric acid buffer by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 1

    Government red tape on drugs seems pretty bizarre, not that I've been involved myself. But barbituric acid (as in barbituates) used to be a common buffer agent (pKa 3.98) in biochemical research. I found a 100 mg bottle of the stuff when an emeritus professor's lab was being cleaned out. Not being interested in anything past a little pot myself and the bottle was probably at least 10 years old, I got our lab tech to call environmental health and safety to dispose of it. The university campus is in an old hippie town, so I give it a 10% chance of actually being destroyed instead of used.

  152. NewScientist.com article contradicts TFA by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

    I read this article on NewScientist.com a few hours ago. Marijuana DOES NOT INDUCE BRAIN CELL GROWTH. When they tried using THC from pot, it did not induce new cell growth regardless of dose or duration.

  153. cannaboid induced violence by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    i've never known anyone to get high and oh, say, beat their wife, or wreck head-on at 90mph racing down roads, or even really do much of ANYTHING

    Violence induced by cannaboid use was one of the "reasons" hemp, marijuana, was made illegel. Take a look at the movie "Reefer Madness". Yet, it has actually been shown to have the opposite effects. Instead of making people violent it makes people sedate, tranquil, or laid back. It's such a shame lies were made to made hemp illegal, especially when it's one of the most industrially useful plants there is.

    Falcon
  154. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Exactly. We wouldn't have Jazz without pot.

    And, is our world really that much better, societally, than the late 1800s? Back then, cocaine was in Coca-Cola, pot was legal, heroin was used medically, and nobody was in jail for altering their own mind.

    Sure, you could say that today is much more dangerous because we have cars all over the place, but that doesn't mean that I am any more a danger sitting in my apartment getting stoned and watching the Matrix (or just sufferring from glaucoma). Sure, if I get behind the wheel and am impaired in any shape or form, stop me from killing someone (this includes being sleepy, distracted thinking about a fight with the spouse, talking on the cell phone (for that matter, talking to other passengers!), reading billboards, singing along with the radio, etc.).

    The key is that there is a scale of impairment, and it should be testable; there exist video games that test impairment which should be used in dangerous work environments, because "drug testing" just shows that I had a great weekend, 3 weeks ago; it doesn't show whether I am currently able to perform the tasks I am responsible for. Pilots and drivers (bus/taxi, etc.) should be impairment tested every time they show up to work.

    But even this is going to end fairly soon: I remember reading an article on here a week or so ago which said that self-driving cars are about 10 years off.

    As you said, eliminate the penalties and the bulk of the problem goes away. The tax money that was being spent on apprehension and incarceration can be much better spent on treatment and medical attention. And it will certainly help the economy, because a multi-billion dollar industry will spring up literally overnight, and start paying taxes.

    I can see Frito-Lay giving out pot coupons: "buy 2 bags of chips, get a mariajuana cigarette for free!"

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  155. hippocampus definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n. A college campus populated with fatties.

  156. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Nor that it "attracts smart people". Smart people generally stay away from mariuhana because (a) it's illegal (b) they think dopers are annoying.


    This bothers me. I am, to put humility to an aside for the moment, a VERY smart person. I scored a 1600 on my SATs. I got 99% in nearly every catagory every year on the standardized STAR tests. I had a 4.12 GPA in High School, so obviously I was a valedictorian. I am currently working on my Masters in Theology at UC Berkeley, after graduating from my B.S. program on top of my class. I've written a book already, it's yet to be published, but I only submitted it 3 weeks ago.


    This whole time, I smoked marijuana. A lot. I also smoked it with several friends with similar educational and intellectual backgrounds. We are all, no offense intended, probably smarter than you. Does this mean Pot use makes you smarter? Not necessarily, but it does mean that your argument needs a more substansial backing before other objective, intelligent people and I drink your Kool-Aid.


    It's funny, my CAPTCHA is "Unfair"

  157. i did a medical trial involving cannaboids by adetorre · · Score: 1

    In jan 2003 i did a 10 day on site medical trial. the basis was they were tesing a drug using cannaboids to be used in serious head traumas - the idea was that the drug helped stop inflammation of "something/insert medical term" and healing of the cells around the injury (something like that) when they said i'd be paid 60quid a day, with all food, sat tv, pool table (able to smoke) and about 6 guys having a laugh with the nurses, and to do with cannaboids helping medicine i could hardly say no!.

  158. So... by winphreak · · Score: 1

    When are they testing it on humans?

    --
    "I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
  159. hemp and the tobacco industry by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I think the tobacco industry realizes how devastating to their several century old deathgrip (heh) on America if marijuana were freely available.

    I don't as the tobacco industry would be for keeping hemp illegal as they can just as easily grow hemp themselves for one, and growing hemp is cheaper than tobacco. Hemp doesn't require any external chemical inbputs whereas tobacco uses a lot of herbicides and pesticides. Sure people could grow their own to smoke but hemp has many more uses than just smoking it. Hemp seeds are an excellent source of proteins or amino acids and much of the plant can used for food. Seeds are also a good source of oil. The oil can be used to make biodiesel, and the plant can be used to make methanol. Both of these are net carbon neutral sources of fuel for vehicles. The cellulose from hemp can be used for making plastic as well. For all of these uses hemp would have to be farmed and tobacco farmers wouldn't have a problem switching. Actually at one tyme farmers grew both hemp and tobacco, as did Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson once wrote that he thought there should be a law requiring farmers to grow hemp, but he could never propose such a law himself because he knew this would be an abridgement of farmers rights. During WWII the federal government made the movie "Hemp For Victory" to encourage farmers to grow hemp.

    Quite simply hemp is a vary versatile plant and was made illegal because powerful industrialists thought it could possibly threaten them.

    Falcon
    1. Re:hemp and the tobacco industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Quite simply hemp is a vary versatile plant and was made illegal because powerful industrialists thought it could possibly threaten them.

      Like the nylon manufacturers, for instance? That was the one my mother told me years ago... We both have a thing for hemp clothing so the theory appeals.

      SirPavlova

  160. In other news.. by Sauron79 · · Score: 1

    Ricky Williams ans Snoop Dogg have been declared to be the smartest beings in the universe...

  161. A glimmer of hope by lordvalrole · · Score: 2, Informative

    I work in the video game industry (for a big company I shall not name...its not EA) and something about our industry is extremely great. The fact that a huge percentage of us (people who create the games, and well the people who play the games) smoke pot. I don't understand why it's such a big deal. Smoking was one of the things that kept me sane working 70-80 hour work weeks and 15 hour days during crunch. I smoked before work and drove through LA traffic (anyone who lives near or around LA knows how crappy it is). I did this for about 7 months straight of just smoking 4 to 10 to 15 times a day and it didnt have an affect on me. Infact I am in my home town right now with out any and I havent had a withdrawl once. No cravings or anything like that. The thing about pot is that is not physically addicting to people is physiologically addicting to people. People love it so much they want more of it, just like sex or anything else. Smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol is far worse for your health and your stability than smoking cheeba. I really really want to make a "Truth" ad about smoking marijuana. I want it to be posted all over the internet and all over tv. The truth that marijuana isnt as bad as eating at McDonalds or KFC. Too bad pot isn't legalized because it would be safer and free up some jail space. That wont happen because a lot of pharmaceutical companies would prolly be out of business. What needs to change is the overall view that marijuana is bad. The media has those anti-drug ads against marijuana. I think we need pro-marijuana ads. America believes what they see and hear on TV (its sad). Just about everything we see and here stems from about 10 major corporations. Sony, AOL/Timewarner, news corp, Disney, the list goes on. If anything is going to change here, we actually need to start doing crap about it, imho.

  162. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by joto · · Score: 1
    but it does mean that your argument needs a more substansial backing before other objective, intelligent people and I drink your Kool-Aid.

    Actually, it was not an argument. It was an observation. And it's an observation I stand by, untill someone can come up with substantial good arguments the other way. Such arguments would include statistics that show that people who smoke pot regularly, have similar income, education, etc.. as non-pot smokers.

    There will always be exceptions to the rule, so anecdotes are not acceptible "evidence". Alcohol doesn't make you smarter either, but lot's of clever people were alcoholics.

    As to you having a book published, congratulations. But it doesn't necessarily mean you're smart. This guy has gotten plenty of books published, but..., well you get my point...

  163. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He speaks the truth. Potatoes are great.

  164. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by RedCard · · Score: 1
    The marijuana using youth obviously decided that getting paid LESS for doing nothing was better than getting paid MORE to do whatever the task was.

    isn't that motivation? Getting paid LESS to do nothing, MORE to do something?

    Actually, it appears that the smartest thing to do would be to get paid less to do nothing, and then get a part-time job on the side. With two avenues of income, the net payoff would likely be higher.
  165. pot in the union by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1

    in Soviet Russia, pot smokes you!

    (sorry, i couldn't resist..)

    --
    We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
  166. Antidepressants do this too... by SiMac · · Score: 1

    It's also been shown that antidepressants induce neurogenesis. I don't remember the exact studies, but it appears that if you block neurogenesis the antidepressants lose their effects.

    Of course, there are also a few studies suggesting antidepressants are little more effective than placebo to begin with, so who knows.

  167. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by jd_esguerra · · Score: 1

    i've never known anyone to get high and oh, say, beat their wife, or wreck head-on at 90mph racing down roads, or even really do much of ANYTHING

    Is that not one of the problems?

  168. Acomplia/Rimonabant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The use of cannibinoids for appetite suppression is dicussed here

    http://www.acompliareport.com/
    and
    http://rimonabant.blogspot.com/

    The first such drug may be available next year

  169. Study was flawed anyway.. by UnkyHerb · · Score: 1

    The truth of Ricaurte's study was that they, "accidentally" used methamphetamine(Meth) instead of methylenedioxymethamphetamine(MDMA). Oops, wonder how that slip-up occured?! Disgusting to the face of science.

    --
    Your Momma's so fat she makes emacs look like nano!
  170. Let's take a critical assessment of the risks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Although you don't mention it, the first link shows only a minor 4.1 pt decrease and only for heavy current users. Moderate and former users showed an increase greater than non-users - 5.8 and 3.5 vs 2.6 pts, respectively.

    Inhaling smoke of any kind is, of course, not good for your lungs. There are other admittedly less popular means of administration.

    It does appear that marijuana may cause immune system depression, but the extent and ways in which it does so is still being researched. This article explores the counter-viewpoints. Another study has shown a decrease in tumor resistance with injected THC in rats, but I'm not sure of the doses. It should be noted as well that in some people, like MS patients, a supressed immune system can be a good thing.

    Although psychotic symptoms can be produced by Cannabis consumption, it's certainly not typical. Just as some people have severe reactions to peanuts, some may have psychotic reactions to Cannabis. However, due mainly to heavy restrictions on studies, we still don't know much about endocannabinoids' role in the nervous system and the actions of various cannabinoids. This study suggests that endocannabinoids may actually prevent psychosis; since smoking Cannabis would cause stimulation of endocannabinoid receptors, cannabinoids may be useful in preventing psychosis. Or, it might further reduce your body's production of endocannabinoids and lead to greater psychotic effects when you quit smoking. Or something else, it's hard to say at this point. Research is still being done, however, and I certainly wouldn't suggest getting high to get rid of psychotic symptoms - in fact, I would actively advise against it.

    I can't read your memory and learning study, so I can't really comment on it. Cannabinoids certainly have been shown to impair memory and learning in various degrees under different circumstances, but their role - believed to be effected in the hippocampus - may, as this article (the one the post is on) may have positive effects as well.

    Conclusion: Cannabis is not a panacea. It should come as no surprise to anyone that there are both good and bad sides to Cannabis - as with all medicine, as with everything. It's absurd to pretend that there are no negative effects, but it's also absurd to pretend like we have all the answers. We have to keep researching, and we have to make sure the government allows needed research. That being said, overall, cannabis has relatively few and insubstantial side effects compared to other drugs, and it's ridiculous beyond comprehension that it's a Class I substance.

  171. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    The key is that there is a scale of impairment, and it should be testable; there exist video games that test impairment which should be used in dangerous work environments, because "drug testing" just shows that

    Reminds me of when I was in therapy after an accident. The therapists had me play this video game, brakeout or some such thing. One of them told me I'd have to get a certain score or higher before I was able to get a new drivers license, the one I had when I was hit disappeared.

    As you said, eliminate the penalties and the bulk of the problem goes away. The tax money that was being spent on apprehension and incarceration can be much better spent on treatment and medical attention. And it will certainly help the economy, because a multi-billion dollar industry will spring up literally overnight, and start paying taxes.

    Hemp, marijuana, needs to be relegalized and taxed. The revenue raised from the tax can then be used for treatment, let anyone who's addicted get the therapy they need to kick the habit. As far as injuries to others or other's property damage, do the same as with drunken drivers, which needs to be changed. Put them on trial and have a minimuim sentencing, say at least a few months in gaol, a few thousand dollars fine, and the loss of driving priviledges for a few year. Then to get a new license, make it hard to get one.

    Falcon
  172. Mr. Mackey speaks! by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1
    Um, you boys need to listen up, mmmmkay.

    Mari-joo-wana's bad, mmmmmkay?

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  173. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
    And, honestly, a correlation of 0.52 is certainly significant!
    Um. No. It's not. It's like saying "according to our statistical model, there's a 50% chance that a nuclear bomb could drop on your home NOW. Okay, NOW. Okay, NOW. Okay, NOW. Okay, NOW." I hope you get the point.
    Give that 0.8 figure to any statistician and he will laugh you out of the building.
    Any good statistician will demand at least 0.9. The ones who are laughing at 0.8 are laughing because you're actually believing it.
    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  174. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    The fact is: most people I've come across that smoke mariuhana on a regular or semiregular basis: (a) isn't someone I would characterize as "smart" or "clever", (b) tends to focus a lot of their attention to it (as opposed to more productive things, like work, studies, or family).

    I don't know about you but I've known quite a few casual drug users and just as many of them are productive membes of society as those who don't use any drugs. Actually I was one of the small number of people that grew up in my neighberhood that didn't use drugs or that only used them occassionally. And with a few exceptions most are productive members of society. One person I know who occasionally smoked marijuana got their masters degree and now owns their own business. Being a lower class neighberhood this wasn't one that many went to college though some did. In college I met others who were casual users as well. I was surprised to learn that one student who was a friend smoked because she had a high gpa, was a high achiever, and was constantly busy. It almost seemed as though she didn't have enough tyme but smoking helped her to relax. There was only one person I knew who had a problem and was addicted to drugs. I met her when I started tutoring her in chemistry or algebra, I tutored both back then, and when I met with her for a session she was always drunk. She even kept a cooler with beer in it in her car and she'd run out to the car between classes to get a drink. I tried to work with her for a few weeks before I had to stop as I couldn't handle her drinking. As far as I was concerned her parents were waisting their money on paying her tuition, it would of been much better spent putting her in rehab.

    Falcon
  175. POTHEADS ARE MORONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They think they are soooo smart and creative and yet all they do is sit around on their asses and watch tv, munching on junk food, never getting anything done or doing anything with their lives. A good friend of mine used to have all sorts of dreams and aspirations until he became a pothead. Now all he does is work a $6/hour job, 10 hours/day, 6 days/week, and then come home and smoke weed. He has no motivation to do anything but sit there mindlessly watching tv, playing video games, and munching. This guy WAS a freakin genius, could build anything he wanted. Now he can't focus on crap. His brain is too fried. All thanks to smoking weed. So bullshit propaganda articles like this from the weed lovin' groups make me sick. All potheads out there can goto hell and die.

  176. Motivation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amotivational... what a joke. I had serious, serious motivational problems in school. I dropped out of college, twice, both times because I was beginning to feel incapable of making myself put forth enough effort.

    So, during my second break from school, I discover cannabis. When I go back to school, it's cake. A toke in the morning and I'm alert and interested by the time I get to class. A toke in the afternoon and I can just sit down and pound off all my homework. No stress, no anxiety. There are still vague worries about large projects, but it just doesn't rattle me.

    FWIW, I graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. in Computer Science. I can say without a doubt that I would not have made it without marijuana's motivational effects. It gave me the power to will myself to do what I had to do (and even enjoy it). Even more important, it gives me the will do to what I truly want to do (e.g., personal projects), instead of just copping out and playing video games. You can call me weak-willed to begin with, lazy, apathetic, only using a drug to hide it, and I'd basically say you were correct. I've been a compulsively lazy bastard my entire life, but pot helps me overcome it.

  177. illegal != bad for you by sammie78 · · Score: 1

    Marijuana was never illegal because it was demonstrably bad for you, it was made illegal because it was perceived to be the drug of choice of poor Mexicans. Cocaine was made illegal because of the popular perception that it caused white women to enjoy the "company" of black men. Now that it is untennable to support drug laws through their original motivations, I hope truths like these will persuade America to treat drug addiction like a disease and reserve jails for people we are afraid of, not people we are mad at.

  178. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by multiplexo · · Score: 1
    Well you probably don't have much experience with pot addicts. I have seen some friends of mine who started smoking when we were about 14 and kept doing it everyday for years. Now they suffer from very short attention span and sometimes go through very miserable times when they don't have immediate access to pot.

    Maybe these guys are such a bunch of drugged out losers because they're your friends. Have you ever considered that disturbing hypothesis? Or maybe they've always been losers and you just hang out with losers. Anyways let me clue you in on something, your anecdotes are not data, they're anecdotes. Your argument against marijuana is fundamentally retarded, it's would be like me arguing against beer and wine because I know a bunch of guys who started drinking in their teens and did it every day for the last 20 years or so and who have fucked up their lives. That's them, not me or most other people who know when to stop drinking. You have a bunch of loser, doper friends. Big fucking deal.

    Because it *does* give addiction: but it takes a lot of usage to reach such extremes. So, of course it's a whole different world compared to heroin, coke, etc., but saying that the "evil associated" with smoking pot are nothing is simply false.

    No one was saying that the evils associated with pot don't exist. However if you're trying to sell the War on Some Drugs as a societal policy designed to reduce the costs to society of drug usage and addiction then spending a lot of time and money trying to get people to stop smoking dope is a waste because it is far less harmful, psychologically and physiologically than alcohol, which is legal, widely available and advertised or heroin, cocaine or crystal meth or tobacco.

    Alcohol can be dangerous, as well, I agree on this. But 100 stoners driving are *bound* to have accidents because their reflexes are so slow. So I say, do as you like with pot and everything else, but don't feel the need to justify yourself by bashing other stuff and pretending it has no effect. Because 1. you're lying, 2. you're implicitly admitting you feel guilty. Otherwise, why would you be justifying yourself?

    Why the fuck do you get your panties in such a bunch about people who are smoking marijuana and who are not harming anyone but themselves (and not harming themselves all that much at that)? What exactly is your problem Mr. Buzzkill? Personally I agree with the first poster, a 100 stoned hippies driving at 35 MPH is a lot less dangerous than my old boss who used to drink a couple of pints of malt liquor while driving home from work. Or the hordes of idiots who take legally prescribed painkillers such as Oxycontin or Percoset and then get behind the wheel of a car, or all of the people who take Benadryl for their allergies and then drive (here's an interesting fact that I know from personal experience. What drug do they like to use in hospitals to knock patients out when they can't sleep? It's not an opiate, or a benzodiazepene, nope, it's a 50mg dose of Benadryl.

    I don't think anyone here feels guilty about their use of marijuana, it's just that they like to beat down assholes like you who post WoSD bullshit and stories about how you have a bunch of lame, dickhead friends who smoke a lot of dope and have wasted their lives.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  179. Welcome, Slashdotter, To Last Week by thelizman · · Score: 1

    I dug this on friday. www.digg.com.

  180. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by bbc · · Score: 1

    "What do you call people who study less in school, do the bare minimum to get by? could you call them, perhaps, less motivated?"

    No, because motivation requires a stimulus; just stating that people study less in school is leaving the stimulus out of the equation. Undoubtedly, there is a reason why group A does things different from group B, and if you were a functional psychologist, you would talk in terms of reward and punishment, but that still doesn't prove anything. You still need to prove cause and effect.

    So, what your study has proven is that there can be more than one type of stimulus, and that some stimuli are more effective than others. I could have told you that beforehand.

  181. Great, But Why Is It Important? by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 1
    Any benefits of cannibinoid substances are, of course, going to be of benefit to the pro-legalization camp. As far as I'm concerned, it has been and always will be legal to smoke whatever you want as long as you harm no one while doing so.

    Socialists, communists, fascists and neocons take note: It's noone's business if you want to ingest steak, vitamins, peach pits, bird droppings or THC. Everyone was born free. The degree to which you let others control your lives is the degree to which you abandon that freedom.

    As far as I can tell from reading at least the US Constitution, smoking hemp, and making paper and canvas out of it has always been and will always be legal. The US has been occupied by either a delusion or a foreign power since at least 1938 as far as I can tell. There never has been any power in the US Constitution to tell people they can't grow Hemp and do whatever they want with it.

    How is this possible? The power of the Federal US Govt was supposedly increased circa 1938 under the "welfare clause" of the constitution, however this is simply an auxillary clause and confers no power on the Federal government. The actual and enumerated powers of the US Federal Government are clearly ennumerated and stated as such. Don't believe me? Ask no greater Constitutional authorities than than James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

    "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison, regarding an appropriations bill for French refugees, 1794
    "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172
    "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
    Of course, excercising your freedom might upset the tools of the Central Occupying Powers (COPs), but *hey* sometimes the blood of patriots and tyrants must water the tree of liberty.
  182. No Simpsons reference yet??? by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Whaaa? Several hundred comments, and still no comments welcoming our pot-smoking ultra-intelligent rat overlords?

    Where's the real /. and what have you done to it?

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  183. Re:not grounded in any kind of reality by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
    my answer would not be "marihuana"
    The first tactic used by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about is to begin misspelling even the most remotely arguable term as if in an effort to assert their own authority.

    This is English. It's "marijuana". Cope.
    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  184. If your house was raided.. would you go to jail?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ron Bennett... Very easy to look you up and make a call to the authorities. When they are knocking on your door at 4am, are they going to find anything incriminating? I want to ruin you Mr. Bennett.

  185. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by jafac · · Score: 1

    I've seen both pot "addiction" and alcohol addiction up close and personal.

    Really, there's no comparison between how alcohol can totally destroy your life, and pot's comparatively mild effects. And frankly, breaking pot "addiction" is easier than caffeine.

    True, my pot-addict friend owns a business, and he's pretty much run it into the ground because he's not willing to put the hours into it that he should. But at least he functions. Hell, we hike and play basketball together. The only thing really wrong with him is that he's a Republican. The alcoholic lady across the street lost her husband, and is about to lose her house, when we go over to check up on her, she rarely knows whether it's day or night, she derives her entire nutritional intake from booze, and has numerous physical ailments from the drinking.

    And I've seen my freind stop cold, for months or so at a time. Drunk lady can't stop for 18 freakin hours.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  186. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by jafac · · Score: 1

    When they finally legalize it, I'm going to walk the countryside planting seeds.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  187. Mod me "informative" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MacGyver

    I don't think Richard Dean Anderson is gay.

  188. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by Xtravar · · Score: 1

    My last year of college, I took a Drug and Alcohol Abuse class. It pretty much told us that pot is no worse than alcohol, etc. HOWEVER, an interesting statistic was that most car accidents involve THC in some way (whether combined with other substances or not).

    Obviously, more of the USA is toking than we are lead to believe.

    --
    Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
  189. 4:20 - origin unclear by weighn · · Score: 1

    "The number 420 is a euphemism for cannabis and its associated culture. The exact origin of the term is unknown, although there is much speculation and many urban legends about its origin. Smoking marijuana at 4:20 or on April 20 has special meaning to some." -- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4:20

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  190. Anything Peer-Reviewed in Print? by hussness · · Score: 1

    I have to do a journal article summary for my bio class and I was just wondering if any of this has showed up in a peer reviewed journal yet.

    1. Re:Anything Peer-Reviewed in Print? by benna · · Score: 1

      Here.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  191. The researchers by blakeh · · Score: 1

    were obviously stoned when they produced this paper. I mean really, we all know how deeply a stoner contemplates his navel but never really made anything of it. Those new brain cells are being made as fast as the stoner kills off other ones. Its a zero sum game!

    1. Re:The researchers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey man... it's survival of the fittest!

  192. well go ahead - eat it... by weighn · · Score: 1

    Your digestive tract will show you a good reason why hemp fibre is used in rope and sails. You will have a very bad belly ache that no amount of munchies will fix.

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    1. Re:well go ahead - eat it... by splatter · · Score: 1

      Survey says.....

      Wrong!! Sorry bud, but you don't eat the fiberious leaf. Another person talking out there ass and spreading FUD when they have no idea.

      Try the proper method of ingestion which is to lighty fry the leaf matter in oil before making your Cann. cookies, cakes, brownies, etc....

      If your eating buds, your not doing it right.

      --
      "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
    2. Re:well go ahead - eat it... by weighn · · Score: 1
      Sorry bud...

      nice pun :) I wont snap back at your arrogance - enjoy it this way :
      the best cake/cookies I have made are when you grab the stuff you would otherwise throw out (stems, leaf, etc), place it in the biggest cauldron you can find, cover with water and gently boil. After several hours remove the vegetation, turn off the heat, add butter and let it cool overnight.
      The butter and oil will mix - scoop it off, discard the water and start cooking.

      This way you wont find yourself picking shit out of your teeth at your next picnic.

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  193. Marijuana helps brain function. no joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being a dedicated pot-head and loving it, I have long known that marijuana allowed me to improve my brain function dispite what all the propaganda said. Why? Because I needed to think clearer because I was always stoned. When you first smoke pot you don't have this effect. But if you do it for a while, for a year or more, and you do complex math or science problems while you are high, you are then much better able to do them when you are not stoned.

    This is not a joke.

    But if you take someone who never smokes and then you get them baked, they will be stupid and stoned and possibly paranoid.

  194. Re:Great... (Hide your stash) by xanadu113 · · Score: 1

    Just hide your stash a little better.. not in the sock or underwear drawer, they already know about that one...

    --
    -Myke
  195. Yeaaaaah, dude... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    If you'll just turn your attention to the whiteboard, we'll explain the findings in...

    Woah... Donuts! Sweet, dude!

    What was I saying, man? Ah, fuck it. Zzzz....

    </Chong>

  196. Re:Good Grief Mod parent up! by darilon · · Score: 1

    Nice dissection of the very poor quality articles the grandparent poster uses as 'proof' of his argument. Mostly opinion pieces. There have been no definitive studies done on marijuana that give solid evidence that it causes cancer despite the 'common sense' conclusions one might make by comparing it to tobacco products. There have been some credible studies done indicating that a loss of short term memory can occur with chronic use. That said, a good friend of mine had the highest marks in the biology department during his undergrad work and his method of preparing for exams included hotknifing hashish and drinking espresso while studying. In the end he got his PhD from MIT.

  197. I think... by Brantano · · Score: 1

    I think alot of people have a problem with putting intelligence in the wrong situations. Someone who smokes pot might not want to go to school or may seem 'lazy', but this could just be something that he would of done normally, learning about math is boring to some people. Now, while this same person skipped class after class, he could probably build you a computer or fix that nasty oil leak in your car. Intelligence is not mathematics and reading. Intelligence is being able to put your brain to good use, weather it be at repairing a car, creating that little tray that folds up under the sofa, or creating a law of science. There are MANY degree's of intelligence, you cant just call someone stupid because they misspelled a word, or didnt know how to solve some complex math problem.

    Alot of you are also stereotyping people in the worst ways, cheech and chong are a stereotype, they are not the most common form of marijuana smoker. They were -made- for comedy, to laugh at -while- high.

  198. Re:Good Grief Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Respect the hotknife. :)

    A couple of natives up in BC demonstrated the technique. I traded a phoenix t-shirt for the knowledge.

  199. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
    True, my pot-addict friend owns a business, and he's pretty much run it into the ground because he's not willing to put the hours into it that he should
    I've seen self-absorbed managers run their employees into the ground because they're too busy playing golf.

    What's the difference? Completely completely nonspecific attacks. There is no case against marijuana.
    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  200. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

    Maybe these guys are such a bunch of drugged out losers because they're your friends.

    Mmmhhh, yeah, maybe.

    Your argument against marijuana... if you're trying to sell the War on Some Drugs... you get your panties in such a bunch about people who are smoking marijuana... assholes like you...

    It's always interesting to notice how people who are, hm, let's say "passionate" about something will attack you blindly, spitting insults and spreading bullshit. Unfounded and unmotivated bullshit, at that. Now if you can stop the name-calling for just one second and turn your brain on, will you please: 1, realize that I already made clear I smoke pot occasionally, 2. provide evidence of my alledged "war on drug". Here's a hint, you'll find it in another post of mine: "I have *no* position, to be honest", "I certainly don't drive when I am stoned or drunk", and a series of "do what you like 'cause I don't care"-lookalikes spread around in my posts.
    Besides, your argument smells like the old "but they" trick. Sorry pal, nobody's buying that anymore. In your opinion *they* are wrong (hospitals, alcohol drinkers - uh oh, look who's the prohibitionist here...)? Fair enough, do you think that makes YOU any better? Do you think that what they do is of whatsoever relevance to the matter we're discussing? You know how saying goes... the one about lenses and mirrors...

    --
    Global warming is a cube.
  201. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    The reason here is that unlike alcohol or most other drugs, THC and its metabolites are fat soluble, and linger in the body for a LONG time after the high wears off. A heavy pot smoker might still test positive for a month or more after his last joint.

    Just about everyone who smokes pot with any regularity will show traces of THC in their system if tested. Unlike alcohol, there is no "legal limit" for THC metabolites, so anyone who tests positive after an accident will be treated as being "stoned at the wheel", even if they haven't smoked in a week or more.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  202. Re:If your house was raided.. would you go to jail by splatter · · Score: 1

    such an ass... making threats against a persons family and welfair because they don't agree with your point of view.

    Not trying to make the old worn old "H" alanogy but is that really what you want. For him to lost his house, lose his family, go to jail, and made into a criminal over a slashdot post...

    God I hate AC's that can't even stand behind there own comments, very well go making threats against people.

    --
    "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  203. That's why ..! by Mr+Europe · · Score: 1

    That's why the cannabis users seem so bright and clever...

  204. Elohim? That's a plural! by jonskerr · · Score: 1

    Elohim _is_ a plural. This is offtopic, but important, as this one sentence has had so much impact on our society. "Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets." is the first line of Genesis. 'In the beginning Gods created Heaven and Earth.' Elohim connotes unmitigated justice; after this verse they stop using elohim and switch to 'adonai elohim' which promptly genders it male and connotes 'mercy".

    So remember you bible-whumpers out there, your god is only one of many, according to your own Book.

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
  205. Holy shit, fucking brilliance! by jonskerr · · Score: 1

    This can be taken in at least two ways: MOD parent up! Get it? Huh? Huh? And of course just from the content of the post, we could assume you weren't an american. Not most of 'em anyways.
    Well done.

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
  206. Re:This looks like the original data (link enclose by benna · · Score: 1

    The addictive substance? You must be high.

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  207. The Only Argument Against I Have by eonlabs · · Score: 1

    I honestly can say I don't care if pot smokers smoke pot. They can do it all they want to. I have friends who do it and family who did it. So what. The ONLY thing that I can't deal with, is the smell.

    I am sure it affects mental growth, and I'm sure the government is hiding something about it... They like to do that with everything, right. But cancer is when a piece of tissue starts to grow uncontrollably too, and if you cut yourself, your scar tissue may grow bigger than the original. It doesn't mean it functions any better. If you leave vegetables on the plant longer, they get bigger, but harder to eat. People really like to imagine bigger immediatly means better.

    And once they figure out how to stop people who do it from smelling like that for a month afterward, they can go ahead and do it as much as they like.

    --
    I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
  208. black market? by Danzigism · · Score: 0
    it also makes me wonder why the make something so harmless, illegal.. i think its true purpose to be illegal, is to literally generate crime.. it gives us more a reason to arrest people cops and authoritive figures don't like.. anything you make illegal, will create a black market, and it will still get distributed.. except, now our tax dollars can be spent on the employment of people that fight in the war against drugs..

    the popular science article printed in 1938 regarding the extreme energy related benefits of hemp and marijuana was unbelievable.. and its just so weird, how that soon after that article was published, and how the article stated henry ford's car was able to run off the hemp oil, the ban on marijuana took place.. just sounds a little fishy.. let people do what they want for christs sakes.. you can't honestly think we can allow things like pot to be illegal, yet drinking be illegal.. there's nothing you can justify against that simple fact.. there's obviously another reason behind it all.. its just a matter of figuring out the truth..

    --
    *plays the Apogee theme song music*
  209. cannabanoids & brain growth by BungWrench · · Score: 1

    Carl Sagan's wife if VP at NORML - she and other claim Mr. Sagan did his most brilliant work while high. I got Ds, Fs, and a few Cs until I started smoking pot. I smoked pot every day, especially before tests. I graduated college with a 3.87 GPA (4.0 system) in computer science. I work as a senior systems engineer and am the lead developer on some very complex projects. I still do my best work high! I am convinced pot helps the creative process. Sure, I could smoke pot and vedge-out. But I can also not be a lazy ass and focus on the task at hand . I think anyone can, you just need to focus. I'm not saying pot can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, if you're stupid, you're stupid; if you're lazy, then your lazy. We spend billions of dollars a year to fight the war on drugs, and 90% of that goes to catch pot smokers/dealers. End the WoD Peace out y'all

  210. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by mink · · Score: 1

    Just watch out for Sheriff John Brown.

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  211. Re:Good Grief [MOD PARENT UP] by mink · · Score: 1

    Not really, it is mostly a myth. Take a look at the one federaly supported legal medical pot users. He is a sucessfull stock broker, IMO not a lay back and coast type job. He somkes 3 joints per day as I remember. I dislike that he says he lights up on the way home and before going to work, but seeing as how he has somehow managed not to kill a million people and himself over the years, I guess at least he seems to know what to do to be safe doing those things.

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  212. Re:Whoa man, if pot can do that ... imagine what.. by mink · · Score: 1

    Certain types of cacti can yield quite a bit of magic juice.
    The San Pedro variety seems rather popular.

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.