Slashdot Mirror
Link Between Marijuana and Psychosis Goes Both Ways
An anonymous reader writes with news of a study out of the Netherlands (abstract) about the link between psychosis and marijuana use. The researchers wanted to examine what caused the relationship — was marijuana use leading to psychosis, or did those suffering from psychosis have a higher tendency to seek out marijuana? As it turns out, they found evidence for both. From the article:
"... using pot at 16 years old was linked to psychotic symptoms three years later, and psychotic symptoms at age 16 were linked to pot use at age 19.
This was true even when the researchers accounted for mental illness in the kids' families, alcohol use and tobacco use. Griffith-Lendering said she could not say how much more likely young pot users were to exhibit psychotic symptoms later on. Also, the new study cannot prove one causes the other. Genetics may also explain the link between pot use and psychosis, said Griffith-Lendering."
So, we learned nothing of value except that studies like this have inconclusive results. Oh, and teenagers can experience psychosis before, during and after using drugs.
2) Drugs cause the problems - but no one ever noticed before.
3) Some idiot won't even consider option #1 and go right option #2 - without any evidence at all, let alone proof.
Note, I have kidney disease - and as such do not take pot, drink alcohol or do any other drug without my doctor's express advice. My body can't handle it - but I'm not stupid enough to think other people have the same problem I do.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
So the only clear conclusion is that we need further study. Which will be made more difficult by the criminalization of the substance in so many jurisdictions where that research could be performed.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
....bi-psyecksual?
"The researchers wanted to examine what caused the relationship — was marijuana use leading to psychosis, or did those suffering from psychosis have a higher tendency to seek out marijuana?"
Just because one event happens after the other doesn't prove ANY causation in this case - even the summary lifted from the article clearly points this out, and in fact the author of the article makes no claims as to cause.
And calling it a "bidirectional link" is mostly pointless, it's only "bidirectional" in temporal sequence. It's still completely possible that it is totally unidirectional in cause and effect, ie. as one of the quotes at the end states, increased usage may just be a risk factor for existing (possibly undiagnosed) psychosis with genetic basis.
Given humans have been using weed for millennia and it's used recreationally all over the world, surely this means something? Even anecdotally, most people would know of several cases of hospitalization/institutionalization due to cannabis use if this drug was a real threat.
Hey, go troll somewhere else.
It's not exactly related to TFA, but my girlfriend has been diagnosed with post-partum psychosis a year ago.
She's been treated with many different medications that didn't work that well.
The end result is that she's been in a clinic for 9 months out of 12, and I've been a solo dad meanwhile.
She often looks like a zombie, and still hear voices even though she's under heavy medication.
Any advice from a fellow geek?
Any happy-ending related story?
So, does that mean that there is a positive feedback loop? Sounds like a rather disconcerting notion for any person concerned.
Ezekiel 23:20
I think it is safe to say that there are probably a number of health consequences related to marijuana consumption that are not known or well understood at this point. Undoubtedly, some of them will be negative. Unfortunately, the laws today make it impossible for us to truly learn what those consequences might be.
As long simple posession can result in incarceration, possible loss of job, possible loss of driver's license, etc. you will never get a quality sample for epidemiological studies. As long as marijuana remains on Schedule 1, it will be incredibly difficult to perform modern physiological research where people consume marijuana under controlled laboratory conditions. If we want to honestly advise the public of the real consequences of marijuana consumption, the only solution is to remove the barriers to scientific research.
..... where weed IS decriminalized.
n/t
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
So you're saying Psychosis causes marijuana to grow? This is going to do wonders for the grow op I have in my basement.
I personally find studies out of Amsterdam to be the most unbiased in the world. Remember that it's tolerated there, not promoted, like cigarettes in America, for instance, by the tobacco lobby.
If the drug does cause psychosis, then society as a whole can react to it accordingly. Conversely, if people with psychosis are attracted to the drug, then there must be an underlying reason for that.
I look forward to seeing what else comes of this.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
I think the only result that you can derive from that is that people like try marijuana around ages 16 to 19..
If the drug does cause psychosis, then society as a whole can react to it accordingly.
The reaction would probably be along the lines of banning people from putting it inside their own bodies entirely. Safety is always a nice excuse for getting rid of freedom to many people, it seems.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I'm not erroneous, and you're definitely APK. You just never label your flat out trolling posts. Still, you're pretty psychotic. Smoke some weed and mellow out, the article suggests you're prone to it anyway.
Wonder if they corrected for SES (socio-economic status). The common causative link may just be chronic unemployment, and growing up in a neighborhood where there is a lot of chronic unemployment and drug use.
Wonder if they corrected for IQ. In my experience, people are often labeled 'psychotic', 'schizophrenic', 'schizoaffective' or whatnot when their main problem is borderline mental retardation. (Mild MR leads to a lot of things that are almost indistinguishable from "schizophrenia". That gives you an idea of the sorry state of our diagnostic system.)
Wonder how well they corrected for concurrent use of other drugs (especially alcohol and cocaine), both in the subjects and in their biological mothers.
Point is, the devil's in the details here. Those details will only be in the journal article (NOT in the article Slashdot posted). I'm too lazy to look it up. Has anyone in this thread looked at it?
Well as a long time user, I can confirm it gives me bad paranoia & shitty social interaction. I'm socially retarded when I'm stoned, unless it's with people I've known for years. I hadn't even touched another person in years until I started drinking beer again. Beer makes you way more social but ultra stupid too.
I don't get it, after blazing I feel much more relaxed but I can't concentrate on talking to people at all. My mind freezes up and I draw a complete blank. Really shitty relationships but still, if more people smoked herb, there would be a lot less anger in the world.
I don't know what kind of expansion you are talking about. After years of watching pot smokers I can't actually say their minds have expanded at all. Some of them seem to have lost a bit of functionality, actually.
Disingenuous. This is a study of cannabis and psychosis. Tobacco has other harmful effects but nothing I'm aware of that can harm mental health. Alcohol on moderation has been proven time and time again to be safe, or even beneficial. You might as well advocate banning aspirin. I've heard that if it's not used in moderation it's a stone cold killer.
Ironically your sarcasm just makes his point stronger.
His argument not only applies to but is based on the comparison to alcohol and tobacco, which have many well-proven side effects and long term medical issues. As he pointed out, Marijuana on the other hand does not have such clearly proven effects, and certainly none as serious as liver disease or lung cancer.
The strains of weed being sold today are very different than what was used even 50 years ago.
yet none of them has found any serious and life threatening illnesses caused by weed smoking/eating compared to alcohol, alcohol mixed with Tylenol, pharma drugs, side effects of chemical leeching out of every day plastics or even walking down the road and breaking a leg. YET they try and try and try and....
How about some food allergies http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db10.htm Peanuts can be deadly too..
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
You'd think that, but 'hard on crime' and 'good (Christian) morals' have been pretty influential there lately. The current thing is that weed sold in the infamous coffee shops may only be sold to residents of the country (although enforcement is left to the cities):
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/10/30/dutch-amsterdam-weed-marijuana/1668761/
Disinformation combined with demagoguery is a powerful tool in any country with very capable profit-oriented media organizations. Apparently, science is becoming more and more corrupted in the necessary quest for money as well.
The researchers here do not deserve their titles. From the *abstract*:
"Conclusions: Cannabis use predicts psychosis vulnerability in adolescents, and vice versa which suggests that there is a bi-directional causal association between the two."
Please tell me nobody here on Slashdot gives any credibility to that 'suggestion'. If you do, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#Third_factor_C_.28the_common-causal_variable.29_causes_both_A_and_B
That people with issues seek out ways to numb themselves from them and not even know it?
Kidding aside, i'm impressed that they were not just doing a 'study' to push an agenda. that is far too common these days.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Sorry for the double post, but I just thought of another important (to me, anyway) objection.
All the pot smokers in the study have one major attribute in common: They started their *regular* drug use *early*-- many of them at age 16 or before. Which frankly, is probably not the best thing for a developing brain. It's also a socioeconomic red flag that suggests a lot of confounders: these kids came from the wrong side of the tracks, they've had crappy and neglectful parenting, they've dropped out of school or are on the verge of doing so.
So it's not especially surprising or interesting to see correlations between early onset of drug use with 'psychosis' and other vague terms of mental disability. You'd expect to see a similar correlation between 'psychosis' and teenage onset of regular beer-drinking.
the data was inconclusive; which means exactly that.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
well, there's plenty of cases where people blame weed for stupid shit they've done - so you'd have no trouble finding institutionalized people who would claim their cannabis use caused them to become institutionalized and well, you'll find plenty of people who were institutionalized to jail for it of course too - though strictly speaking in those cases it's the law and other people who have caused them to be institutionalized and isolated(again compounding possible mental locks and general unhappiness with life).
just as there's plenty of cases where people blame alcohol for the stupid shit they've done. AA is full of them.
still, if an alcie goes to doctor because of anger issues/unstability(that they blame on drinking) around here it's quite usual they're given diazepam. which would be all good if they weren't unstable alcoholics and the pams just enhance that. giving them a bag of weed would be much better, at least if someone is going too deep with weed they're not 99.99% of time going to hurt anyone, themselves or others, except through inactivity. someone with anger issues gets alcohol+diazepam psychosis and someone is going to get hurt - via physical assault.
this study doesn't really surprise me at all though, it's even on the "no shit sherlock" level, it's so blatantly obvious. still, it's nice that they bothered to make a real study about that unhappy people seek a fix.
I don't drink anymore due to health issues(pancreatitis is a bitch that wont let her eye off you) and would be very glad if they legalized weed around here. Sure, it might make you spend a lot of time thinking with yourself and laughing at stupid shit along the way but quite frankly what's so bad about that?
Psychosis as a term is so fucking all over the place that it's almost useless as a word too, since it can mean fucking anything - even me wanting to emphasize things with "fucking" is a form of psychosis if you ask the right idiot. basically most weedsters use psychosis as a word for being bored nowadays(they're out of weed it's "psychosis", they got some good weed but nothing fun to do while smoking it and it's psychosis again! they smoke enough that they're practically sleeping and that too then is psychosis.) - it's so fucked up thanks to the prohibitionists. hell, even being drunk is "psychosis" nowadays, fucking pansies.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
News just out - being normal leads to smoking weed, and some users who smoked weed turned out to be pretty normal people.
This is science. They've looked for a link and found evidence there might well be one. Interesting to see genuine science on something US law considers a highly dangerous substance. This helps one decide whether to consider something good or bad.
A childhood friend of mine came to visit, and travelled by plane to get there.
We smoked a very mild joint and he got absolutely mental.
* God complex,
* death threats
* kunalini syndrome - spiritual emergency type thing (wikipedia it)
Marihuana is not safe for people who are proned for mental illness (and you can't know until the shit hits the fan)
The police had to come and get him, he got that aggressive and totally disconnected to reality.
Just to be on the safe side, I'm only using kettles from here on out.
What if being a teenager causes marijuana use. Or maybe marijuana use causes being a teenager. Mmm no, given all the aging hippies in Boulder, I think we can rule out the latter...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
this proved nothing, the only thing pot leads to is orange fingers from the cheetos
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3341775&cid=42399493
Myth.
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/stronger-weed.htm
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If people who were psychotic at 16 sought out pot at 19 then clearly pot causes the brain to release tachyons and cause psychotic breaks in the past. Its the only plausible explaination.
"humans have been using weed for millennia and it's used recreationally all over the world, surely this means something?"
Yes, it means that so far, marijuana hasn't caused humanity's extinction.
The purpose of drug criminalization is to create an oppressable minority. As humans we seem to not be able to do without one. It is not an accident that drugs were criminalized just as the prisons were being emptied of rum runners, moonshiners and bartenders. Don't worry, though: it turns out we still have the poor to oppress and it seems it's their turn again.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music? - Rob Gordon in High Fidelity (2000)
I'm about half-baked already but I am going to find some citations to dispute you. I think... ohhh man, cupcakes! They are like a whole little world with frosting on top of it...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
It is the same plant with the same genetics and the same active constituents (THC and friends). While there are different strains, it's like smoking a Camel vs. smoking a Marlboro - one might be a bit stronger, taste a little different, but the health concerns are identical between the two varietes.
Now, the *average* potency has probably increased in the last 50 years, due to advances in growing technique and pressure from the drug war. Higher potencies mean a lesser amount of material to smuggle for a given profit.
If you're going to split hairs on what constitutes Slashdot-worthy science, then how about we post about all the newest Botox technologies while we're at it?
Amongst other things.
Recently it has been discovered that receptors for many neurotransmitters form dimers, where two receptors form a unit that allows different neurotransmitter systems to interact. One common component in these dimers is the Canabanoid receptor CB1 which forms dimers with Dopamine, opioid, adenosine and many other types of receptor.
One of the sites of these dimers is the pineal gland where the balance of Epinephrine to dopamine influences production of melatonin at nighttime, could this be related to the ability of Cannabis to massively increase production of melatonin during the day or night? this might be related to the well known ability of Cannabis to boost stamina. The production of other tryptamines, including DMT which can be formed endogenously by the INMT enzyme present in the pineal
some interesting hypotheses can be suggested. one is that pineal hyperfunction could be related to psychosis, and that THC may have a direct causal link.
Drugs don't expand your mind, they delude you into thinking that they do though. Any "creative" idea that a stoned person can come up with is usually pretty fucking stupid when viewed with a sharp, sober mind.
So many lies, for so long, for all the wrong reasons, what is the truth?
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
How is that a myth? Your own link shows plain as day that the THC levels in Marijuana have been rising steadily. From 1.5% in 1972 to around 5 percent in 2008.
I have know people on mj or other drugs and is not my business of what you do with your body. The consequences that has on the lives around you is far more damaging. Frankly I wish all drugs will be legal so all with addictive personalities just parish and do not bother the ones that just do not want to super the collateral damage.
The league of nations signed an international treaty adding canabis to the controlled substances list in 1925, at the behest of Egypt.
It always amuses me to hear american-centric views. It reminds me of blinkered horses somewhat..
Ah, yes, the infamous S word strikes again.
What mightier weapon could you have for disinformation and propaganda?
You could fork over money to an " independent" research facility to get "findings" spun to order or you could just wait for the avalanche of college studies to spill a particularly inept one that supports your agenda before review demolishes it next month. No matter who you are, no matter what your agenda is, there is a study out there for you. The public mistake these for scientific fact and actual hard research on a minute to minute basis. What is there to lose? Everyone knows actual science was obscured by politicians and nutballs years ago. Welcome to the digital dark ages!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
But from the headline, I'm excited to see that psychosis causes marijuana. Groovy!
Sorry for the cliche, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
As far as i know the active ingredient is the same as it has always been. You have modern strains of weed that might produce more of it, but so what. We have always had the ability to concentrate high levels of THC into things like hashish and pot oil. The dose you ingest has always depended on what you smoke and how much. Three fat stogies of 1978 Columbian gold or one medium sized J of 2012 Northern Lights and you are in exactly the same place.
Its like arguing that wine is twice as bad for you as beer because it contains twice the percent of alcohol.
Well, personally, after 35 years of regular marijuana smoking , I'm still not in Mensa, but neither was Einstein, we both sit in only the top 4%.
I don't find marijuana so much expanding as I find it a quiet place to study, a land of engineering fully loaded, and a gift directly from God himself, who makes no mention of regulation.Right there in the first book of Genesis. "All the seed bearing plants"
Sounds like you just run the same tape you heard, out your mouth like all the rest of the sheeple who can't think for themselves but were told it was BAAad, BAAad, BAAad.
I attribute mind expansion to Psychedelic drugs and pay little attention to agenda funded research.
Life is far too short to let others decide it for you, let alone do any other thinking for you.
If you haven't paid attention, evolution takes care of those who can care for themselves, the rest we just let nature weed out.
When nature starts weeding out potheads, then we will see whose is the superior mind.
Citations? I mean besides your mother...
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I think we're playing far too loose with the term "psychosis" here. It means a complete loss of connection to external reality, which in and of itself is subjective since our worlds are as we perceive them based on our conditioning. But it's very clear here these "scientists" are filling in massive gaps of causation in order to fulfill someone's desire to plant disinformation into the mainstream consciousness through these ridiculous allegations, fully knowing most will just see the word "marijuana" and something negative in the same context and immediately conclude it's true without any further research simply because they are predisposed to do so.
Follow the money for the study, I bet it tracks back to a lobbyist for big pharma or the DEA itself.
and this sort of shit cracks me up.
I looked up the meaning of psychosis: Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality that usually includes: False beliefs about what is taking place or who one is (delusions); Seeing or hearing things that aren't there (hallucinations).
That describes religious people, not stoners.
I've known people that smoke weed for over 40 years, and none of them see shit that isn't there. None of them believe in false stuff, except the religious ones. Most the others have businesses, jobs, responsibilities they take care of.
I've known druggies that lost reality after ODing on coke or heroin, but I have NEVER seen anyone do that on weed.
What I gained from the article was kids that have psychosis are more likely to use drugs, which doesn't surprise me. I was diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia when I was in my mid 30's. Growing up I had no idea why people heard me say different things then I was saying, why people always took what i said or did at it's worse instead of how it was intended and why I had a hard time functioning socially with people. During my 20's I did a shit ton of drugs. I gave up, I didn't understand why I had problems with people. Drugs (heroin) made me feel better, or made me not care for a bit, made life a bit more bearable (so i thought). After I found out about my dyslexia and ADHD and got help for that, I understood finally what the problem had been. I had no problem quitting my heroin addiction after that. In fact, in almost 10 years since I found out, I've been clean. (I don't count weed as a drug like heroin, coke, benzo's, etc).
Funny how people have been smoking weed since it's been around and in over 100 years of recorded medical history we still get stories like this, that really have nothing to do with anything.
Be seeing you...
Alcohol was already illegal then in Egypt, and they didn't lack for a local population to oppress either. And then there's the "League of Nations" business, which makes the UN's ability to write a stern letter an overwhelming show of force.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
When is the US government going to grow up and realize that pot is no worse than alcohol?
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
I'll just leave this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia_and_smoking
in other news, alcohol use has been linked with bad behavior. Granted it's the alcohol that leads to the bad behavior...oh wait,.....blanket illegality solves nothing.
Can't be APK. The posts are spammy enough, but they are less than 10 kb in size.
The myth would be the claim that it is very different.
If you look at the charts two things stand out - that the most potent commonly consumed cannabis, sensimilla, has not changed in potency since 1990, that is more than twenty years. So this product is exactly the same as it has been for a couple of decades or more.
The second is that the generic "marijuana" has over the same time inched up by 80% over the same time, less than a single doubling, and is still half that of sensimilla of 20+ years ago.
Let me put this question to you: is a Sam Adams Boston Lager very different in its health and drug abuse risks than a Sam Adams Double Bock? The latter has 80% more alcohol than the former. You will not find anyone in the alcohol abuse treatment community claiming that alcoholic proof has the slightest bit of difference in the risk and harm of alcohol consumption.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Except medically and scientifically that's an inane and inaccurate cliche.
Medically, absence of evidence (those being said side effects and long term issues/diseases) is just data in a massively complex multivariable system. If (taking into account other factors) there is no increase in a disease in a population using a drug, it statistically doesn't cause an increase in risk. With risk being a statistic assessment, the POINT is to use statistical analysis, and absence of a result can be just as significant.
Anyway, you can go back to your beliefs in creationism, the tooth fairy, and Santa Claus, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say the absence of any evidence of their proof is scientifically significant enough for me.
Just read the comments of this article by the slashdotters that smoke pot, and test how many show traces of psychosis and/or paranoia.
I'm a pretty heavy pot smoker myself and know potheads of all types. Smart, stupid, lazy, motivated etc. Just like the rest of the population. But, anecdotally I have always thought smoking pot (or doing any drug) at a young age was bad. I noticed that most people I know who used to smoke when they were young can't now because it makes them way too paranoid or zone out and shut down. People I know who started smoking when they were older don't see to have this issue. Myself included.
Watch out for the coming hailstorm of sprinkles!
I'm going to assume you've never taken a statistical methods course. The conclusion says they key phrase: "suggests".
Ever wondered how much less shitty the world might be if people like yourself just minded their own business?
Potheads want to smoke? What does it cost you, exactly? Put a price on what it actually costs you, for potheads to light up. No, you can't count the exorbitant costs of maintaining the DEA, the narc squad at your local police department, or the drug interdiction teams at the state level. You can't count all the costs involved in smuggling drugs. Those costs are created by nosy bastards who can't stand the idea that potheads might want to get high.
Pot can be grown in backyards for little to nothing. The pothead grows his own, dries it, rolls it, and smokes it at almost no cost to society, but people like yourself want to get involved. Why? Let the dopehead do his thing. That mellowed out bastard poses NO THREAT to you and yours.
So, just maybe you're partly right. Maybe if he spent all that energy and resources on bettering himself, or helping the community, the world just might be a little better.
Then again - I've met a lot of dopeheads who were veterans. They've already given to the communities across America. Leave them the hell alone!
Whatever their reasons for smoking pot, that's THEIR problem, not yours.
Shut up, sit down, and learn some tolerance. Maybe the potheads will allow you to sit with them, eat some munchies, and sing 'Kumbayah'. Think about it. Free munchies and some comaraderie. You don't even have to light up, they aren't as prejudiced as you are.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Just like the study, ignorance goes both ways as well.
Weed isn't about to expand people's brains, but to say that a single study is even remotely relevant without research and validation from those who can analyze the study is questionable at best. Add this to the mix of "people just don't like that other people smoke weed", as opposed to anything based on facts.
Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with you. Where is there scientific evidence to support the original claim that "drugs expand your mind"?
Also, my mother was obviously a much better parent than your mother.
Heh - I never gave a thought to the timing of criminalization of Mary J, that way.
I think the more important timing is, nylon rope became commercially available right about then. You know, the then new technology developed by DuPont. All that cordage that the Navy required prior to nylon rope was replaced by Nylon, which the DuPont companies had a monopoly on. Prior to uhhhh - was it 1942? farmers were actually REQUIRED to produce so much hemp each year. Hemp was a vital resource, and Uncle had plenty of regulations in place to ensure that he would never run out of that resource.
But, yes, I'm sure that your observation had some influence on passage of the criminalization laws. DuPont won, the prison industries won, and only dopeheads lost. That almost certainly swayed some undecided representatives who hadn't been bribed enough.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with you.
The burden of proof is on those who make positive claims. In this case, it's on both the person who said they don't and the person who said they do.
Coward
They spelled different in the 40's. It should read
DuPont won, the prison industries won, and only black males lost. That almost certainly swayed some undecided representatives who hadn't been bribed enough.
Heh - I never gave a thought to the timing of criminalization of Mary J, that way.
I think the more important timing is, nylon rope became commercially available right about then. You know, the then new technology developed by DuPont. All that cordage that the Navy required prior to nylon rope was replaced by Nylon, which the DuPont companies had a monopoly on. Prior to uhhhh - was it 1942? farmers were actually REQUIRED to produce so much hemp each year. Hemp was a vital resource, and Uncle had plenty of regulations in place to ensure that he would never run out of that resource.
But, yes, I'm sure that your observation had some influence on passage of the criminalization laws. DuPont won, the prison industries won, and only dopeheads lost. That almost certainly swayed some undecided representatives who hadn't been bribed enough.
Thanks. Agree about the commercial interests. You glossed "the prison industries" too quick. You want to linger on that one for a while. There is a reason we call them "prison industries". Employees of the court, lawyers and "prison industries" are the self-centered "law and order" contingent that needs a legally oppressed legally criminal minority to maintain their quality of life. They have a profit motive. It falls down when they sentence a killer to 9 Months, and a weed dealer that never hurt anybody to five years.
A dispassionate economist would say that with surplus productivity the imprisoned minority help to serve the purpose of depleting the surplus productivity. We find arbitrary reasons to imprison otherwise productive folk to make jobs for courts, lawyers and jailers. But I haven't got the gut to be an economist.
Agree that the textile issue is important. Disagree that it is the prime motive. We humans have been using some method of depleting surplus productivity through oppressing a minority for a million years and more. It's literaly in our genes. It seems to be a part of what we are.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Drug users claim that they use drugs because they supposedly expand their minds. That is squarely where the burden of proof lies for that claim lies.
The article does bring up alcohol, however it doesn't tell you if the question was asked of the people taking the study. It mentions they looked into their family history as far as alcohol and tobacco. If they didn't ask the needed questions during their psychosis sensitivity test, about their alcohol use, then I would throw the whole study out. Everyone has heard of alcohol induced psychosis.
All I am saying if the psychosis sensitivity test doesn't put all drug use under the microscope how are you going to hone in on marijuana as the silver bullet? So far the study sounds half assed, hopefully more will be released soon.
There have been other studies of cannabis and psychoses prior to this study too.
Epigenetic Mediation of Environmental Influences in Major Psychotic Disorders (From the Netherlands and UK)
Over recent years, evidence from epidemiological studies and meta-analyses has established cannabis as a clear risk factor for later psychotic symptoms or psychotic disorder. Interestingly, the age (or developmental stage) at which individuals start using cannabis influences this association. Further evidence suggests that cannabis use is also associated with a decreased age of onset of psychotic disorder and that gene-environment interactions are likely implicated in the association between cannabis and psychosis. For example, a longitudinal study by Caspi et al showed that cannabis use increased the risk for developing psychotic symptoms and schizophreniform disorder only in carriers with the valine158 allele in the gene encoding COMT. The primary psychoactive component of cannabis is 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is thought to exert its psychological effects via the disruption of normal cannabis-1 receptor–mediated signaling in the brain. Administration of THC or cannabis elicits long-term molecular and cellular changes in the brains of mice and humans. In animals, cannabis had prolonged impact on electrophysiological and biochemical measures of neuronal signaling in brain structures such as the nucleus accumbens and hippocampus, with differential effects depending upon duration of exposure and timing during development. The underlying mechanisms mediating these prolonged effects have, however, remained elusive. It is tempting to suggest a role for epigenetic factors herein, especially given the recent observation that THC induces expression of histone deacetylase 3.
Speaking of big Pharma, I wonder how many of the recent modern spree killers were prescribed and taking psychotropic drugs around the time of their killing sprees?
Somebody has already done this research for you.
Might also want to read the front page of this website too.
Where can I find the pot that causes psychotic symptoms, 3 years before I even smoke it! Must be truly amazing!
Did I miss something? =)
-Myke
Whenever I see the word "link" used instead of correlation or causation I instantly think, "retard alert".
Only thing worse than looking at pot stories every week is seeing people getting rated as a troll for complaining about it.
What this study boils down to is that any two groups of people will have some correlation. X number of people do thing 1. Y number of people do thing 2. The intersection of those two groups can be correlated. In San Francisco, this same logic was used to outlaw Hostess Twinkies.
Take any two people in the study and you will find that there are vast differences in physiology, personality, childhoods, etc. Al Franken did a great parody during a past election, before he became a senator, breaking down the statistics of people who answered "I don't know" to a survey
question. One of the follow up questions was "Why don't you know" and there was a percentage of people who answered "Because I'm high".
The current and prior President of the United States smoked pot. The one before them didn't inhale, wink wink. I'd bet dollars to dougnuts that all three did coke at some point. To me, it is one of the greatest injustices in US history that 4 terms of PotUSes in the White House and cancer patients still can't eat a brownie.
How the random anecdotal evidence of a poster gets modded up I have no idea.
http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-and-the-brain-a-user-s-guide
Perhaps he is referring to the fact that smoking cannabis and then stopping causes neurogenesis and thus an literal increase in mental capacity?
Ah but wait. That is NORML the hippy pot smoker site (nevermind the couple dozen independent sources cited correctly) so maybe we should see what the NIH says about it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253627/. Yup, turns out the moron burnout you knew growing up was a moron to begin with and avoiding reality by staying baked out of his mind because Cannabis actually increases brainpower rather than decreasing it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253627/
I cite the NIH who says that in the case of Cannabis you are mistaken. It causes neurogenesis. You literally are less intelligent for not having used it.
Maybe teens who have some psychosis are self medicating with cannabis. I guess it is much better to drink until you pass out like other teens!Great $2.99 e-book on medical marijuana: MARIJUANA - Guide to Buying, Growing, Harvesting, and Making Medical Marijuana Oil and Delicious Candies to Treat Pain and Ailments by Mary Bendis, Second Edition. This book has great recipes for easy marijuana oil, delicious Cannabis Chocolates, and tasty Dragon Teeth Mints. goo.gl/iYjPn goo.gl/Jfs61
Here in the US we tend to do as we like without regard to any treaties we may or may not have been a party to. Cannabis was outlawed in the US mostly because it was incorrectly equated to heroin and opium use and grouped in with these substances. These substances were in turn negatively associated with the Chinese and Mexican immigrants. At least these were the justifications, the ones who pushed them were those with financial interests served by the outlawing of cannabis which had quite a few potential industrial uses that conflicted with those of the oil industry.
Henry Ford had developed a car body that combined corn plastic and hemp fiber to make a very strong composite. There is an old video of him smacking a car with such a body with a sledge hammer. This was a serious threat to the oil and plastics industry.
In the cases of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus there is not only no supporting evidence, there is verifiable and reproducible counter-evidence.
In the case of marijuana, to my knowledge there's little clinical data to support any interesting medical or scientific conclusions one way or the other. Hence the absence of evidence, which tells us nothing.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
I cite NIDA who says that marijuana users suffer from severe memory problems, social problems, lowered IQ and much higher risk of heart attack. You literally are deluded for using it.
They statistically have factored out all other known causes and then compared to a "natural" percentage of both marijuana by itself, and at psychosis by itself. It turns out that there still is a statistical association between the two. Since there indeed is no clear causation, they say "suggests that there is a bi directioal association". I may not be a native English speaker, but even I can see rather clearly that they aren't saying that one causes the other. They have merely statistically proven that there is a common factor
Now, if I had to guess, I'd say that getting high up to a certain rate would stop the mind raging on of those that have psychosis. However, smoking too much would cause anyones mind to start going places that would be a cause for psychosis in itself. In medical terms: "self medicating" THC tends to give unwanted side effects if you get the dosage or timing wrong. The proper dosage varies from individual to individual and can differ depending on the circumstances and time and can sometimes be zero. That doesn't make it any different from any other psycho-active substance, whether it being administered through medical care or by personal experimentation.
People that are either high or in a psychosis usually aren't the best judge of what's good for them, so resorting to more THC, since it's "what makes them feel better". is usually the option they choose. That would be a likely explanation for these results, but again, it's just a guess; no scientific research was done to come to this conclusion.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Adam Lanza AKA the Connecticut Shooter, was on Anti-Psychotic Drugs and was 20.
This Article is about Correlating Psychotic Behavior in post-teenage years (20+) to marijuana use during teenage years.
Several high-profile mainstream newspapers are hammering about the fact there's a pattern forming; all of the school shooters over the last few years were on prescription Anti-Psychotic drugs before they snapped. Now their use is being questioned, and people are looking for alternatives, specifically alternatives that have a proven history of being safe.
A few years ago Israel legalized pot for treating PSTD and ever since then, it's gained some level of legitimacy. Heaven Forbid People started using Pot for treating Depression and Stress related illnesses; it's only been in use for a few hundred years.
This article reads like a paid advertisement and the timing on this article and what it contains just smells bad.
My father has been on anti-depressants and anti-psychotics for nearly 30 years. During my childhood he was an unemotional, distant, cruel and manipulative bastard and I no longer talk to him; it isn't a long-shot to say the reason I've vehemently refused to take any such drugs and have dealt with my depression, anger, and psychological problems directly is a result of realizing that there is no pill that can make those problems go away. It isn't a path that you walk overnight; it takes years of hard work, personal investment, perseverance, and the results are not guaranteed and by the time you figure it all out, you could be in your 40's.
Drugs are bad, deal with your problems directly.
Why the fuck I get this same bullshit link every time someone shows there is likely causation? Do you really think those researchers do not know your "link"?
Deal with it, cannabis is bad for you. Maybe less so than alcohol, but it is bad.
In that case, I'd like to cite the film "Superhigh Me". (Don't laugh... yet)
During this film, a guy spends a month not smoking pot does a bunch of tests, then spends a month smoking pot 24/7 and retakes them. In a basic SATS test, his score and psychic ability (I wish I was kidding about that soooo much) go up after spending a month high and his ability to do mental arithmetic goes down, along with taking away his ability to drive.
Discuss.
A study in 2005 confirmed the previously discovered link between increased rates of psychosis-related mental disorders and cannabis use in the general population, but went on to show through statistical analysis of data from The Netherlands that this link was greatly increased by a genetic pre-disposition to suffering from those same mental disorders, and that the actual increase in mental disorders that could be attributed to cannabis use was much lower than previously feared, 1.5-2.5% overall IIRC*.
Link to study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539839/
It was briefly talked about in the UK on Radio 4 (gotta love the BBC) but it was greatly under-reported compared to the previous news there was a link between psychosis and cannabis use. There was also some criticism of the study from both sides of the argument - in my experience that's pretty cast-iron proof that it was a truely neutral study, a pretty rare and precious thing given how devisive this issue is.
(*There was an article comparing the 2005 study with the previous study that came up with the cannabis-psychosis link on the BBC website, it went into quite a lot of depth on the numbers and used the conclusions from the 2005 study to analyse the UK's mental illness numbers to debunk the idea that there was about to be a big jump in the psychosis numbers because of very strong "super-skunk" strains hitting the streets. Instead it showed that the rise in figures had already happened and that rates had flattened off a year previously, the same as The Netherlands. Unfortunately, I can't find that ****ing page now!)
I did my own survey of crazies and pot heads and came to these startling conclusions.
100% of both on occassion liked drinking water
100% of both used bathrooms
93% of both on a regular basis breathed air. The other 7% thought that was a bad idea and are no longer with us
nearly 100% of both groups went to grade school and high school
all of both groups had mothers and 72% had 1 or more grandparents still alive
Very disturbing if you ask me. We should do something about it!!
Or both the so called scientists and pot heads fuck off and get a real job.
Nonsense. The recent election brought the Christian parties to an all-time low (21/150, not in coalition government). Also, looking at Amsterdam specifically, they've been cracking down on prostitution far harder, despite the fact that _that_ is actually legal and there's no relevant Christian political party there (~3% electorate). The more stringent Dutch approach vis a vis weed is in fact because of the cross-border trade which harmed the relationships with their neighbors.
As for the suggestion that the politics are captive to the media, facts speak against you again. This theory originates in countries with a two-party system and doesn't effectively work in multi-party systems. The chances of backing "the wrong party" are too big, and therefore the mass media befriend all parties. Also, the larger amount of parties causes a far larger amount of political brokering. The scoop will go to a friendly media organization.
Finally, your scientific argument fails too. WP notes a number of possible explanations, and a common causal variable indeed is one of them. But besides that failing Occam's razor, even the presence of a common causal variable would not disprove bidirectional causation.
LOL, I'll cite Dr. Timothy Leary who conducted research at Harvard as well as many other facilities for years and years.
Did you really think I was just running my mouth? Why do you think the government put ANY money into it at all? Military applications? Don't make me laugh! Except for the obvious use, it didn't need much research for the Military.
Now quit playing back the garbage you hear in lieu of thought you honestly generated yourself.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Correct, alcohol was already illegal there. It was not done with the intent of oppressing people, the intent was to ensure society followed a bunch of dumb beliefs (you can argue that it still oppresses people, as most religious ideologies do, but that was not the purpose or intent).
Whether or not people were already oppressed there has no relevance to the reason behind drug criminalisation.
Your opinion of the UN or league of nations is also completely meaningless in this regard. You made a sweeping statement that the purpose of drug criminalisation is to create an oppressable minority - maybe in your little corner of the world but this is clearly not the reason most countries control narcotics.
Take your blinkers off.
What are anon cow and why we keep getting post from it?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I would talk about your being paranoid, but you might consider it another attack on your beloved plants (anxiety attacks and paranoia having occurred some times after consuming marihuana -perhaps not directly related-), so I will let you have your fun with them and keep waiting for evidence of mind expansion.
While we are at it, the NIH study talks about neurogenesis in the hippocampus, which can be a good thing, but I don't remember the hippocampus being related to the neocortex besides its memory function. But the study doesn't research memory effects, but anxiolitic and anti-depressive ones. Since there is no mention of marihuana's effects on memory and the neo-cortex I can only conclude that this study doesn't show anything about mind expansion.
As I answered before, that study only shows ansiolytic and anti-depressive effects related to the hippocampal neurogenesis induced by marihuana consumption. No evidence of effects on memory or the neocortex is shown. Sorry, but that study, while interesting, has almost nothing to do with "mind expansion".
That's an interesting point. The people I talk about started smoking pot quite soon.
Pot has absolutely nothing to do with psychosis. The voices say so, too.
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
I was in Amsterdam this summer. They had no issues selling to me although I am not a citizen. Some coffee shops even had signs saying "no wietpass, tourists welcome". I have a feeling it's only enforced in the border regions. Amsterdam would take too big a hit to tourist revenue if it was actually enforced there.
On the whole I agree with the principle, but at the point where someone is making a boatload of money selling something that might be dangerous, it deserves some medical attention to determine what the risks actually are. I don't care if it's marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco. Companies and individuals shouldn't be able to sell this stuff without the users of the product being made well-aware of what the hazards are. Why should the rest of society bear those costs without some kind of strong obligation on the part of the producers to inform users? Yeah, it's the user's problem, not mine ... right up until I get into a head-on crash with some pot-head who thinks DUI only applies to alcohol, or until Joe shows up at my work and cuts his own hand off with the band saw because he's having a rare psychotic episode after having a little weed break over lunchtime.
Furthermore, if the users are youth who A) might not yet be equipped to make a responsible and informed decision, or B) who might be particularly prone to have long-term negative side effects because of the differences in their biology compared to adults, then you damn well better believe I'm going to step in and interfere with how that business conducts itself. Same if people are growing the stuff in their backyard and not knowing or caring what the health effects of consuming it might be for their kids. It doesn't have to be a commercial situation.
For informed adults and responsible companies, yeah, who cares? It's their business. But for youth and irresponsible businesses, the rest of us do have some obligation to care about what is going on. Same for tobacco and alcohol, same for weed. That's why more study is needed, and even if legal it should be strictly regulated. Deal with it.
You would think that the stoners in AMS would have enough stoner lore to know that there are particular strains of cannabis that are more likely to trigger latent psychosis and there are strains that soothe the latent psychosis.
I think they DO know and that their blatant avoidance of the issue of strain is indicative of a blatant bias. Probably due to their DEA masters. You think that the DEA has been leaving NL alone since they allowed open cannabis?
Tell that to Carl Sagan you fucking biased prick.
And yeah, that whole jazz thing was pretty fucking stupid eh? I bet a dick like you doesn't like jazz.
I would like to see an exact link to support your claim that marijuana expands mental capability. The fact that you are trying to cite a crackpot like Timothy Leary isn't helping your argument.
'Predict' has a very clear and specific meaning.
And you appear to have missed it. Probably because you never took a research class.
In the context of of regressions and correlational studies, "x predicts y" means "x has a strong enough correlation to y that one can use the value of x to estimate y"
Actually since a DOCTOR gave me a RECOMMENDATION for my chronic pain, I've been wondering as of late is this not my health care plan.
Cause if I got to buy obamacare on top of this, there's going to be a problem. I've seen a doctor, there is no cure. The cure is to kill the pain with cannabis. Do you really want my ass on welfare sucking off the system's teet and taking up another doctor (wasting time) that could be better spent sewing up drunk driver victim heads?
Part of the fiscal problems right now are DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE MEDICAL Industry's Over priced shit.
Add in the fact that the FREE SHIT ARMY is demanding it as well.
The Beatles' use of drugs is epic and is regarded by the band members and others as a huge contributing factor to their work.
There seems to be a lot of evidence that the brain's ability to be logical and to be creative are actually competing functions. You can have both, but an expansion of one is often a contraction of the other. That drugs seem to diminish rational thinking and promote creativity is not exactly controversial.
For jobs that require a lot of both creativity and rational thought (e.g. software development) people report getting a bit stoned during the creative aspects, then doing the rational thought parts sober.
Smoking or vaporizing is the most "efficient" method of ingestion, in that it gives the maximum effect (and fastest onset) from the minimum amount of marijuana. This is important for most smokers considering the price of an ounce of good grass these days.
If the stuff were priced more in line with what it is (a dried herb), rather than an illegal black market commodity, users could afford to use it is less harmful ways. But spending a couple hundred dollars to make a batch of brownies is kind of prohibitive for a lot of people...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
The humorous bit here is, someone wasted mod points to mod your original post down to zero. It's not really funny that you were modded down, the real humor is in wondering who it was, and why they wasted a mod point on something that should at least be "interesting".
Of course, maybe you and I are just cynical SOB's, and the moderator dude isn't really a brainwashed dupe. Let me do a quick reality check here . . . . . . . .
"reality.sys is corrupt - reboot universe?"
Damn, we can't be sure with those results!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
so basically, FUD.
Ever wonder why youths have no idea and think weed is harmless? Because they are not actually educated about it in any meaningful way, and then when they try it for the first time they realize one joint is no more potent than two Robaxacet.
Weed's dangers are VERY WELL understood. We have been consuming it for millenia as a people. They are simply not talked about honestly. Especially by the likes of AC on /.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
We tried to link pot and psychosis but failed to do so,.
So the question is.... why is this a news story?
What the fuck, bro.
Potheads are the most strongly opinionated people ever. They defend their sacred weed like it is God himself.
They are assholes who get violently aggressive if they think somebody is taking their precious drug away.
The idea that weed addicts are nice people is a TOTAL FUCKING LIE. They are DICKS.
I can trace most of the serious problems that have occurred in my life to the use of alcohol, I can never recall any problems occurring due to my use of weed. In fact from time to time I suffer from depression and anxiety and the weed helps a lot for this. You know that feeling you get in your belly area when you are suffering anxiety? Well for me the weed takes this completely away (just like the prescribed drugs) - no I don't use it just for this, I like to be high lol, but at times when it feels like my world is falling apart the weed has and will continue to put me back on the tracks :)
People here are saying that weed is better than 'big pharma' drugs. TFA says that weed may cause psychoses. Three quarters of the celebs in Hollywood seem to have 'substance abuse' problems. What no one ever seems to say, though, is 'why do psychoactive drugs...ANY of them?' The chemistry of your brain is complex...incredibly so. Deliberately putting chemical substances in your body to artificially stimulate your nerve endings is nuts. It makes no difference if it is an artificial sweetener, glutamate, weed, meth, acid, coke, heroin, adderall, ritalin, doctor-prescribed psychoactive crap, whatever...it's all the 21st century equivalent of doing brain surgery with a stone knife. Okay, maybe there are a relatively tiny handful of people who have neurological conditions or chronic pain sufficiently-serious enough to justify using some sort of brain crap from their doc. For the rest of you, though, stop putting junk in your body, suck up your physical and psychic 'pain', and start using your brain and body for something useful during the short life that God has given to you on this earth.
Not myth. In fact proven by your link. http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/stronger-weed.htm
The charts show show an increase in THC content from 1-2% to 5-6% in marijuana sold with seeds (low quality) and an increase from around 6% to around 11% for marijuana seized without seeds (higher quality). At the same time the percentage of the higher quality seedless mj seized increased from almost a negligible amount to about half. So if in the past you smoked the typically available low quality weed from the 1970s and now you smoke the typically available higher quality available today you have gone from 1-2% to about 11% THC content. That's like going from lite beer that's been watered down by half to wine. That's a big jump. The charts show hashish as going from around 2-3% to the high 20s. That's an order of magnitude.
-- QED
I mind my own business up to the point the smoke from my pot-smoking neighbor fills the hallway with it.
Shitty trolling. Go back to troll school and try to bring some knowledge to the discussion, because pure ignorance will only bait the stupid.
Carl Sagan is dead. Nice attempt at an appeal to authority though.
And yeah, jazz sucks. It has absolutely nothing more to do with marijuana than anything else, so I'm not sure why you're trying to make a connection there.
Again, deluded. Put down the pipe for a while and come back to reality.
I once had a cop spazz so hard over finding a tiny roach in the back of my car that he broke one of my fingers subduing me. I was sitting calmly on the ground as ordered when he lost control and had to practice his sloppy version of a Felony Take-down. (He wasn't quite freaked out enough to call his accomplice back from looting my car, in case I tried to defend myself from the unprovoked assault.)
I'm fairly certain there was a causative relation, maybe from his apparent steroid abuse?
Has Officer S.D. (Short Dong) Wong of the EBRPD gone to rehab yet? Danger lurks in the Oakland Hills.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
>implying your armchair "neurobiology education" is remotely accurate or useful
Maybe if he spent all that energy and resources on bettering himself, or helping the community, the world just might be a little better.
What exactly makes you think that that energy will be applied in a positive direction? I think if you listed the top twenty catastrophes that have occurred to MY PLANET in the last hundred years, you'll find the perpetrators were all sober and ambitious.
More Human Beings and fewer Human Doings will be the key if Human Civilization is to continue.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Idiot moderators like to mod up lies and mod down truths. Pretty simple.
Why is it that every dodgy study on marijuana comes from some scientists from the Netherlands or Finland??? Think about it, do you really think weed can have such a massive affect on a person, that we've only now discovered? Heck, every synthetic drug advertized on the TV has far weirder effects such as, ooooooh, death, and yet they aren't part of some press release. Sheesh.
Real coders prefer a sugar high, or maybe potato chips.
You will not find anyone in the alcohol abuse treatment community claiming that alcoholic proof has the slightest bit of difference in the risk and harm of alcohol consumption.
Drinking high proof liquor increases your risk of mouth and esophageal cancer.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yes they do. Of course those results from old studies with monkeys where they asphyxiated the monkeys with smoke. Turns out asphyxiation will damage your brain no matter what you use. Go figure.
The study I cited was one of many more modern follow-ups because the methodology used in those studies is known to have been bogus. The DEA likes those old studies too.
You are missing the portion of the test where he stops smoking for a month and all his scores revert to the same or higher levels across the board.
> Potheads want to smoke? What does it cost you, exactly?
A close relation started smoking pot as a teenager, became increasingly out of touch with the real world, spent the next 20 years in and out of mental hopsitals and ended up in prison after several violent, psychotic attacks.
So in this case it destroyed one life, and seriously affected the life of the relations and victims.
And, yes, I am aware that there were underlying mental health issues, but there was also a clear link between pot smoking and psychotic episodes.
Personally I am not impressed by tolerance of things that hurt other people, especially people who are already damaged or otherwise unable to help themselves.
Last I checked neurogenesis of any form is literal mind expansion. If you are referring to something else you are going to have to define it. As for memory, there aren't any credible studies I am aware of showing any form of long term mental damage as a result of marijuana use. And don't bother pulling out the DEA's favorite old studies where they asphyxiated primates to cause mental damage and happened to use marijuana smoke to do it. I've shown a benefit and the default is that the substance is harmless so the net ESTABLISHED result is that the substance is beneficial.
Regarding memory, there is evidence that there is a temporary decrease in short term memory capacity on marijuana use but the said impairment is completely reverted upon stopping use. So that does not qualify as long term damage.
Anything you come up with is going to be from addiction clinics which are essentially just profit mills who make serious money pretending marijuana has significant addiction potential. Anything coming from them on the topic is equivalent to listening to the tobacco lobby on the health effects of tobacco. It is biased garbage. More than 30% of the population uses marijuana and addiction research indicates a 30% addiction rate but I've yet to meet a marijuana addict. I have met people who went for treatment for other things who admitted they smoke marijuana and got a checkmark for marijuana addiction on the sheet. I've also known teens whose parents discovered they smoked and admitted them who similarly were listed as marijuana addicts.
I work at a technology firm. I am surrounded by people who mostly have genius level IQ's on a daily basis. Programmers, engineers, scientists, and people in the aerospace industry. Their incidence of smoking marijuana is far far higher than that 30% of the general population. I think I know three guys professionally who don't smoke and dozens if not hundreds who do. There certainly is no evidence of impairment there.
I'm not saying marijuana is harmless. I don't know of much of anything that is. But it is fairly benign as most things go if used in moderation and there is no especially compelling evidence that it damages your brain.
Which still does not imply or suggest causation.
The recent election brought the Christian parties to an all-time low (21/150, not in coalition government)
Yes, let us forget that the largest Christian party has been part of the government as either the nation's largest or second largest party from 2002 until the recent election, which made a decidedly right-wing party the largest.
Also, there are about 23% less coffeeshops in The Netherlands than there were in 1999. Starting in 2014, all coffeeshops within a distance of 350m of a school will have to close.
As for the suggestion that the politics are captive to the media, facts speak against you again. This theory originates in countries with a two-party system and doesn't effectively work in multi-party systems. The chances of backing "the wrong party" are too big, and therefore the mass media befriend all parties. Also, the larger amount of parties causes a far larger amount of political brokering. The scoop will go to a friendly media organization.
Yes, because populism hasn't gained any traction in the Netherlands. It's not like there's a Dutch politician that has become a worldwide celebrity because of his populistic approach?
Also, do you really believe that there hasn't been a stable government in The Netherlands since 1998 because they just couldn't get along?
Finally, your scientific argument fails too. WP notes a number of possible explanations, and a common causal variable indeed is one of them. But besides that failing Occam's razor, even the presence of a common causal variable would not disprove bidirectional causation.
I didn't say it would disprove anything, Occam's razor has nothing to do with this and no mention of a common causal variable is in the abstract (which the scientists themselves wrote). The 'suggestion' adds nothing to the correlation.
mmm sinsemilla (spanish for "without seed")
I don't care whether cannabis is bad for me, I don't use it.
There is no likely causation. That's the point. Even if the correlations were 1, no causation can be proven or deemed likely from them.
Scientists should be careful with their suggestions, as we all know that the media will have a field day further mangling their words. Unless that was the whole point of the suggestion.
You assume wrongly. Technically, the bi-directional association makes it _less_ likely that A is caused by B and vice versa; it makes it _more_ likely that a third factor is causing them both.
Anecdotal evidence only, but a friend of mine became immediately severely schizophrenic from a puff of pot smoke at the age of approx 30. She had been a heavy pot smoker as a teen but had been off it for many years. One puff at a party and she was having schizo events forever afterwards. I used to have to go find her shoes when we went out cos she'd lose her mind and shoes, get up on stage with the band, and be terribly sorry afterwards. She eventually had to go live with her dad cos she couldn't be alone anymore. Pot is no way a soft drug. And if only she could have avoided it she may have been normal all her life, i dunno. I guess I can't guess what her life would have been, but I know it's rubbish now.
If we take into account that pot eases the way in presence of pain and some cases of mental disorder it makes some evolutive or even epigenetic sense that the brain ask more for some drug-induced settlement in some stressful situations. Not saying that it has to be that way, but it certainly makes sense. Of course pot, especially in case of severe usage, can cause brain and consciusnees alterations, so it is certainly double-edge when it comes to mental disseases. For funding, research and peer finding please refer to the non-profit Aging Portfolio.
There is absolutely as much scientific evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy as there is for God. The only difference is we tell our children a different story about one after they get older.
And there is a plenty of clinical evidence that marijuana has a much lower incidence of fatal health problems than alcohol of tobacco (and the LD-50 of THC is astronomical compared to ethanol or nicotine). Your knowledge is seriously lacking, but the data is not.
... all these butt hurt marijuana decriminalization supporters trying to fight back around here.
Face it folks, it's a drug and like every other drug it will cause side-effects.
Using the Genesis argument, why not just go eat a bunch of wolfsbane?
We should educate oureselves to understand the essense of the scientific method, basic statistics and fallacy such as correlation does not imply causation. Then we will have the tools to analyse such reports and understand what they really do and do not mean.
A friend of mine is a heavy pot smoker in his late 40s. It has damaged his intellect and health (shaky hands, etc.) But he continues to defend his drug habit, except for this one thing...
He told me about a young friend of his, that he once introduced to pot. The young fellow had a psychotic episode _when smoking pot the first time_. Since then, he's not been right in the head (i.e its caused some sort of permanent mental damage).
Others can count this as hearsay, but I heard this first hand from someone who _loves_ pot. This study just backs that up. I'd urge you to kick the habit.
Implying nothing. I'm not denying that cannabinoids induce neurogenesis in other parts of the brain because I know of no studies about it. But this study only concludes effects in the hippocampus and memory-unrelated behaviors. Thus it is insufficient evidence for any kind of "mind expansion", which is what we are talking about.
Check again, please, because the brain is quite a bit more than the "mind": there are all these neuronal groups dedicated to controlling things like hormonal production, blood pressure and the like that take no part in our conscience of ourselves, ability to predict the environment or other higher-order functions.
The did that? I didn't know. But once again, I have never asserted that marihuana harms the brain, only that the "mind expansion" argument needs proofs. And I have hardly seen any yet.
That may be true, but since we are discussing "mind expansion" I would follow from your argument that no, marihuana doesn't actually help mind expansion.
I'm not coming up with anything, mind you. If you re-read, I'm using the references you so kindly provided.
You see no evidence of impairment, which may be true, but it is not the point we are arguing. We are arguing whether marihuana "expands your mind" or not. My experience (basically as anecdotical as yours at your technology firm) doesn't lead me to consider marihuana something that makes people think better (for some values of "better"). Yours leads you to consider that it doesn't make people think worse. At most, both our experiences together might be evidence that it does nothing one way or the other. But for the memory issue you mentioned, of course.
I'm not saying marihuana is harmful either. I'm saying it is not beneficial, as far as I can tell. And, like everything else, in its right dose it can be harmless. But pot smokers don't get marihuana in medically tested doses, as far as I know, so their "moderated level" is actually unknown.
Cool, but keep count of those rapidly decreasing neuronal telomeres... as pot snips them away.
Me, I prefer my brain cells regenerate when I need them. Like, when I get old
One last thing - marijuana is neuroprotective, but the likely mechanism is this...
[ http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_science1.shtml ]
"Perhaps the current best guess for how these chemicals [Cannabinoids] provide their protective effects is that their general dampening of neural activity reduces excitotoxicity (damage caused by overly excited neurons)."
That's right, it dopes the brain down...
I'm talking about LSD. I can cite others as well. You have some proof that Leary is a crackpot along with a certifiable definition of crackpot?
As for marijuana I cite the vast billions who have used it over the ages, thousands of years. Funny it only became dangerous and illegal in a few places in the last few years for purely political purposes. Now what was that toilet paper flimsy claim you were making on something your mama told you?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Damn I'm high right now :)
But as to your question, I haven't ignored the fact that pot can have negative psychological effects on some people and cases (especially in chronic use [pun unintended]), I'm not going to ignore this, especially without reading it - if it's correct then it is.
PS. Assface.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Drug users claim that they use drugs because they supposedly expand their minds.
Not "drug users" but psychedelics users - they are drug users but drug users are not all (most really) them, sadly.
That is squarely where the burden of proof lies for that claim lies.
Yes it does - but I still can believe in my "mind expanding" (it's a tricky & wide concept, often misunderstood by those who haven't experienced it - and of those who have there are people who do think it wasn't real after all. Just to be fair) LSD experiences (as some experiences with other psychedelics) to be real.
For me it's hard (impossible really) to prove it and I don't know studies proving it so I'll leave it at that - it's my belief, nothing more as far as I can prove.
Still there are also people who claim it absolutely does not happen - but they have no proof either, so it's rather poor argument too.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
On the whole I agree with the principle, but at the point where someone is making a boatload of money selling something that might be dangerous, it deserves some medical attention to determine what the risks actually are. I don't care if it's marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco. Companies and individuals shouldn't be able to sell this stuff without the users of the product being made well-aware of what the hazards are.
Some pothead with experience of wide variety of drugs - mainly positive.
I agree with you on this fully.
For informed adults and responsible companies, yeah, who cares? It's their business. But for youth and irresponsible businesses, the rest of us do have some obligation to care about what is going on. Same for tobacco and alcohol, same for weed.
And this as well.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Let me put this question to you: is a Sam Adams Boston Lager very different in its health and drug abuse risks than a Sam Adams Double Bock? The latter has 80% more alcohol than the former. You will not find anyone in the alcohol abuse treatment community claiming that alcoholic proof has the slightest bit of difference in the risk and harm of alcohol consumption.
Your points above were all good, but this - which I consider bollocks. I'm assuming that it's because you know less about alcoholism and alcohol abuse treatment community than you know about Mary Jane. Or perhaps you know a large number of people from the community and it just happens that they fit into your claim, which maybe has caused your belief? I wouldn't know, and it doesn't matter - it's OK.
I'm not putting any arguments about the difference in harm between mild and hard liquor, I just wanted to friendly tell you that there are people in the community including alcoholics themselves (like my best friend who is recovering alcoholic with quite a bit of experience of that claimed difference - as his friend I share some of his experience, having seen enough to share his belief on this) as well as people working to help them. :)
As said, I wont argue anybodys views about this subject in this message - but if you want to discuss about it I will reply
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
just as there's plenty of cases where people blame alcohol for the stupid shit they've done. AA is full of them.
still, if an alcie goes to doctor because of anger issues/unstability(that they blame on drinking) around here it's quite usual they're given diazepam. which would be all good if they weren't unstable alcoholics and the pams just enhance that. giving them a bag of weed would be much better, at least if someone is going too deep with weed they're not 99.99% of time going to hurt anyone, themselves or others, except through inactivity. someone with anger issues gets alcohol+diazepam psychosis and someone is going to get hurt - via physical assault.
Of course there are also very similar people with very different story. My friend is much like your alcie, except that his doing quite well on not drinking in excess. He has severe anger issues and unstability, which alcohol doesn't help but which actually existed before it and is the no. 1 reason he became alcoholic - poorly misguided attempt to self-medicate his mental condition.
He would need some diazepam - I've seen it and he doesn't have to drink if he has some, but currently his only source is street dealers. He has tried doctors for help - being honest (and also trying to get help with alcoholism too) he has told about his problem with alcohol and that he wants to be without it. His told about his mental issues, and asked for benzos because they would help - the doctor agrees they would probably help. He has also told that when he gets medication he doesn't have the need to drink - because the big reason for drinking in the first place is gone.
You know what the problem is? The damn stupid ass doctor, after all this, tells that he can't write prescription for such drugs because of the alcohol problem! Flaming fsck!
Yes, I'm angry - not only does his problems spread into my life too but he is also my best friend. I see him suffer, I feel him suffer - and a dipshit like this is appointed to my friend at local public healthcare station (this is Finland). Now when he lived in Tampere, different city with different healthcare policies, he actually got help. Since he now lives in Helsinki there is very little hope for him to get the medication *proven* to help tho two major problems, one which causes the other, and the other that causes him to not receive medication in this city from public healthcare.
this study doesn't really surprise me at all though, it's even on the "no shit sherlock" level, it's so blatantly obvious. still, it's nice that they bothered to make a real study about that unhappy people seek a fix.
I don't drink anymore due to health issues(pancreatitis is a bitch that wont let her eye off you) and would be very glad if they legalized weed around here. Sure, it might make you spend a lot of time thinking with yourself and laughing at stupid shit along the way but quite frankly what's so bad about that?
Psychosis as a term is so fucking all over the place that it's almost useless as a word too, since it can mean fucking anything - even me wanting to emphasize things with "fucking" is a form of psychosis if you ask the right idiot. basically most weedsters use psychosis as a word for being bored nowadays(they're out of weed it's "psychosis", they got some good weed but nothing fun to do while smoking it and it's psychosis again! they smoke enough that they're practically sleeping and that too then is psychosis.) - it's so fucked up thanks to the prohibitionists. hell, even being drunk is "psychosis" nowadays, fucking pansies.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Sorry for accidentally leaving the end part of your message into end of my reply below btw...
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.