Slashdot Mirror


Pot Smokers Might Not Turn Into Dopes After All

ananyo writes "Back in August last year, we discussed a study reportedly showing heavy marijuana use in teenagers had been linked to a decline in IQ in later life. Now, a new analysis suggests that the study may have been flawed. Using the same data, the researchers found that they could explain the IQ drop by properly accounting for socioeconomic factors — such as individuals from poorer backgrounds being more likely to smoke cannabis as well as having reduced access to schooling."

68 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Just when science was emotionally satisfying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bam! They do more of it, and it isn't!

    Who designed this religion anyway?

  2. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I realized this when i met someone who had smoked for about 2 years. He was border line retarded. Then I met someone else who had been smoking since he was 14, and he was an engineer. Different strokes for different folks. Dont blame the drugs.

    1. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You realized that there wasn't a statistically significant correlation based on a sample size of two?
      What have you been smoking?

    2. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Troll weed. It makes a big "Whoosh" sound and causes idiots to reply to your comments.

    3. Re:lol by vux984 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then I met someone else who had been smoking since he was 14, and he was an engineer.

      Engineer? ~snort~ Clearly the pot prevented him from achieving a respectable career in theoretical physics.

      Bazinga!

    4. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You realized that there wasn't a statistically significant correlation based on a sample size of two?
      What have you been smoking?

      I think he/she realized that correlation is not causation, regardless of sample size.

    5. Re:lol by tool462 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In my experience (which is extensive), the theoretical physicists smoke a LOT more pot than the engineers.
      The genesis of the membrane extension of string theory came about in the mid-90s due to a late night bake-out and some Cypress Hill. Who else would come up with an 11 dimension "solution" to the problem of string theory?

    6. Re:lol by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Interesting

      LSD. Honestly, all this time I thought that was LSD talking.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    7. Re:lol by shaitand · · Score: 2

      In my experience LSD makes you THINK you are having great epiphanies but if you actually record yourself or write them down they aren't very wondrous and usually not even coherent in the morning. Thinking you had revelations can still be beneficial though. It can help you overcome emotional problems and help you open your mind to possibilities you wouldn't have been willing to give a chance sober and afterward you feel like you've opened your mind and those conclusions you reached were deep and valid. The conclusions are almost always positive because of the extreme mind blowing euphoria that LSD brings on.

      Doing this a lot means having lots of ideas you normally would have never reconsidered crushed and leads to maintaining a more open viewpoint to just about everything. And keeping an open mind without losing prospective is always a good thing.

    8. Re:lol by shaitand · · Score: 2

      In my experience people of high intelligence, especially in STEM fields smoke a lot more pot than the general population pretty much across the board.

    9. Re:lol by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      "If I have seen a little further into that great ocean of truth, it is by standing on the shoulder of a giant doobie."

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    10. Re:lol by abirdman · · Score: 2

      Dear AC, The parent AC was encouraging open-mindedness and a willingness to do more research. I think anecdotal evidence with a sample size of two is an acceptable way to promote more research. It's not evidence so much as motivation. There's not much science on cannabis yet.

      --
      Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
    11. Re:lol by Xtifr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In my experience LSD makes you THINK you are having great epiphanies but if you actually record yourself or write them down they aren't very wondrous and usually not even coherent in the morning.

      Generally true, but back in late seventies or early eighties, I actually designed and implemented a debugging tool while tripping balls. It was in use throughout the company within a week. It actually came to me in a vision. :)

      Of course, when it comes to psychedelics, "You Mileage May Vary" has never been more true. There seem to be no consistent effects from person to person. Even dilated pupils turn out not to be universal (although it's the closest that's been found). Just because I was (at least once) able to direct my hallucinations in a useful direction doesn't mean someone else will.

    12. Re:lol by malignant_minded · · Score: 2, Insightful

      LSD does not increase intelligence but allows one to remove themselves from there typical outlook on something. We try and do this all the time as humans. When you hit a problem you try and step back and look for a different way around said problem. LSD simply allows one to see things completely differently without effort. For those that wander down the rabbit hole most are not fortunate to be working on a problem that requires serious thought let alone have the intelligence and or luck to actually see a solution. Recreational drugs do not improve people except in that most people need recreation or we would die of overload. Some people drink, some smoke, who gives a shit if you do not harm others?

  3. Uhh ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I forgot what I was going to post !

  4. Pot smoker here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Going on smoking the dope for about 15 years now. If anything, it assisted me with diving in to the world of UNIX with intense enthusiasm and concentration. I've worked in IT business solutions and web development this whole time and things progressively get better as long as you continue to work hard. Just like anything else, all it takes is being responsible. What you do after 5pm is none of my business as long as your work gets done on time and in a professional manner. If you spent all of your waking hours drunk on booze, high on dope, full on fast food, or anything else out of control, then you probably won't succeed very much at anything. Toke responsibly.

    1. Re:Pot smoker here... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      If anything, it assisted me with diving in to the world of UNIX

      So THAT explains it! I've been looking at this all wrong. (sometime later) Yeah, like, everything's a file. See this? It does ONE thing, really well. Just ONE thing. Wow, man!

      No, man, UNIX is just a gateway drug to Plan 9. That is where the everything's a file stuff gets deep and, like, totally networked.

    2. Re:Pot smoker here... by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Almost 40yrs here, I am a completely different person to who I was in 1975, for a start I'm 20kg heavier and I've had a haircut.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Pot smoker here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      -2

      Both you guys have been negated.

    4. Re:Pot smoker here... by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

      What you do after 5pm is none of my business as long as your work gets done on time and in a professional manner.

      Too bad most employers don't see things this way. And I'm not just talking to you, pot smokers. Enforcing arbitrary morality standards has become commonplace in the workplace, even when your questionable behavior occurs strictly after business hours and doesn't affect your productivity. Hell, I refuse to even have a Facebook account (in my own real name anyway) because I know for a fact that my employer is nosy. Potheads are especially vulnerable though, as positive pre-employment THC tests, which absolutely do no indicate intoxication at work, or at any specific time, can be used as the sole grounds to fire or refuse to hire someone, nearly everywhere. Personally, I can not stand the idea that I can be bound to an employers behavior standards even if I do nothing to negatively impact business, and during times when I am not being paid. Can we who do our jobs, and do them well, just maybe keep our private lives private? Please?

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  5. Re:First Post by box4831 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Randomly getting the first post yo. Thank you THC.

    Failed first post attempt? Or subtle commentary on the effects of weed on the mind? You decide!

    --
    Miller Lite tastes like water that's somehow managed to rot.
  6. What about the other way around? by parallel_prankster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about whether high IQ folks are more likely to smoke pot or dumb ones? That would also be an interesting study. Does pot smoking have enough of a stigma attached to it that people who are considered "smarter" are less likely to smoke it. Also, how does it compare with alcohol ? I did not read TFA btw!

    1. Re:What about the other way around? by parallel_prankster · · Score: 2

      I thnk some of the answers are in the article already now that I read it. Still, the study is pretty non-eye-opening with the exception that it debunks the usual myth about pot smokers. I have had lots of friends over the years here in California who smoked pot and they definitely did not get any dumber with that. Ofcourse, that is just my observation.

    2. Re:What about the other way around? by Splab · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have an IQ between 128 and 140 depending on the test. I smoke pot from time to time. I'm part owner of a company and work full time as a consultant.

      I have never suffered from loss of memory from smoking pot, I have only once experienced "the munchies", I have never lost control while being high. Drinking alcohol however, I've experienced massive blackouts, I've lost entire evenings in the haze of strong booze, I've woken up in my own bed, only to wonder how the fuck I got home. I have experienced hangovers lasting more than a day with exhaustion lasting a week. Pot on the other hand last for a couple of hours and leaves my body in a relaxed state for up to a week.

      In the circles I move, I meet a lot of the higher echelons of our society and a lot of them smoke weed or do harder drugs.

      Does this prove anything? Heck no. I doubt there will be any useful data, until experiments are run under proper control. Data based on peoples own perception will be flawed.

    3. Re:What about the other way around? by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope but I've known plenty of lazy moron layabouts who did nothing but smoke pot. The pot doesn't make them lazy moron layabouts though it's just something to do.

    4. Re:What about the other way around? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Does this prove anything? Heck no. I doubt there will be any useful data, until experiments are run under proper control. Data based on peoples own perception will be flawed.

      There IS useful data, our own government has run experiments under proper control on numerous occasions, then they invalidate them when they don't say what they want. And there's literally whole books filled with meaningful studies that were performed in other countries. Hell, even Russia's seed arks preserve Cannabis along with the other species. Our government does not work on science.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Re:First Post by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Funny

    He's totally going to be first tomorrow, so GET OFF HIS BACK, MOM!

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  8. And .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You realized that there wasn't a statistically significant correlation based on a sample size of two?
    What have you been smoking?

    And most people will focus on the person in the above stories that confirm their bias.

    Like pot? Then it'll make you an engineer!

    Hate drugs? Then it makes you a retard!

    My doctor likes to point out that many of these studies aren't randomized controled trials - RCT - because it's a bitch to do any study on "recreational" drugs in the US because of our Puritanical laws and this whole "War on Drugs" horseshit.

    Of course, there aren't any studies of whether smoking pot causes the same instances of emphysema, cancer, and other diseases that can happen from smoking anything.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, there was a study years ago (not RCT either) that showed that there may be a link with smoking pot and slowing tumor growth.

    It hasn't been repeated as far as I know so the results haven't been verfied.

    Anyway, there are plenty of folks out there in the internet peanut gallery that cling to that one study and came to the conclusion that pot stops cancer.

    Oy!

    1. Re:And .... by shaitand · · Score: 2

      There are studies that show increased levels of known carcinogens compared with say tobacco smoke. Most of these are known to be byproducts of burning so they really have nothing to do with cannabis. However studies DO NOT support an actual increased incidence of cancer among marijuana smokers despite the presence of those known carcinogens.

      I'll provide as many links as you've bothered to.

      Finding carcinogens in the smoke is NOT a substitute for actually finding increased incidence of cancer. Since that increased incidence has been looked for (believe me there are plenty of entities including the DEA that have funded studies trying to find it) but not found it implies there is something else contained within the smoke which is minimizing or even neutralizing the cancer causing effects of these substances.

    2. Re:And .... by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Finding carcinogens in the smoke is NOT a substitute for actually
      > finding increased incidence of cancer.

      While pot may be one of my favorite issues, this is also a common problem right here. There is a great talk by Dr Lustig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM ) on sugar, where he talks about a range of issues, and this is one of them...

      That early evidence pointed to a link between cholesterol and heart disease. This has been the basis for the "low fat diet" recommendations, as dietary fat does increase cholesterol levels.

      My summary is no substitute for the video but, the basic summary is that fructose (whether from HFCS or as a product of sucrose) is metabolized in the liver, and raises vLDL levels.... making it far worst than the dietary fat which it has been replacing. (and doing so at a staggering rate)

      Hence the "war on fat", has actually caused the rise in obesity and diabetes, in addition to the heart disease that it was an attempt to reduce.

      His claim is essentially that, your liver is similarly damaged by fructose as it is by alcohol, such that a small glass of OJ is similar to a shot of bourbon.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:And .... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know you can get THC without burning right?

      Personally I prefer to make Ghee. Then put it on toast, popcorn, etc.

    4. Re:And .... by Synerg1y · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Could it possibly be that some of the 600 or so additives found in cigarettes but not in pot lead to the difference in cancer rates among pot smokers and cigarette smokers?

    5. Re:And .... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Given the massive quantities one can produce on the back 40 of even one farm cannabis should be sold by the pound right next to flour.

      And that's a big problem to forces that block it's legalization. 'They' want to control it yet unlike Tobacco, for instance, it's really easy to grow at least baseline quality pot that will get you stoned. Which makes it difficult to regulate and tax. Similar problems with Alcohol emerged which led to things like the Gin Tax in the 19th century.

      It's too easy to find chemical vices that satisfy and demotivate, I guess.

    6. Re:And .... by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Of course, there aren't any studies of whether smoking pot causes the same instances of emphysema, cancer, and other diseases that can happen from smoking anything.

      Studies have been done. More than one showed a solid correlation between smoking pot and COPD (the linked article doesn't mention it) and what I read was short on details, but a Washington Post article was detailed. Excerpt:

      The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

      "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

        Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

      Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

    7. Re:And .... by dryeo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How long before store bought pot also has 600 or so additives? I'd guess at that point pot induced lung cancer will go up just as it did with tobacco.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:And .... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      Price be damned. Pass the taxes, if that's what it takes. Stop chasing kids down alleys to arrest and/or kill them when they resist arrest.

      --
      "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
    9. Re:And .... by dryeo · · Score: 2

      The same points as adding the additives to tobacco. Make it burn better, increase the flavour and make it more addicting.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    10. Re:And .... by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Most of my post seems to have been lost so here it is again

      Has it ever been studied? Lung cancer was very rare in the west until after the chemical additives were added to tobacco. And yes, people lived long enough to get lung cancer, at least those people who made it past childhood.
      If all the smoking causes cancer studies were done with tobacco that had many additives added, it's not conclusive whether it's the tobacco or cigarettes that cause cancer. There's also the fact that the common insecticide used on tobacco fields was lead arsenic, common fertilizer was full of polonium and crop rotation was not practiced all that much.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    11. Re:And .... by zmooc · · Score: 2

      Multiple studies show that certain cannabinoids prevent or inhibit the growth of certain types of tumors in mouse. This is not controversial.

      http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

      http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page5

      While the jury is still out and will be out for a long time, it is rather obvious that cannbinoids have certain effect on certain types of tumors. There's a lot more going on than wishful thinking by pot smokers and waaaay too many studies have been done to just dismiss their results as "not properly randomized". While it may be a bitch to do any study on "recreational" drugs in the US, the US is not the only country doing science.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    12. Re:And .... by shaitand · · Score: 2

      It's questionable if marijuana demotivates. But as someone else pointed out the a pack of cigerettes an ounce of tobacco and in IL for example have a total of about $4/OZ combined state and federal taxes. California was proposing about $75/oz of tax on Cannabis. The result of such a high tax would be a price that stays near the black market price of $400/oz.

  9. Vicious circle by Quila · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You smoke pot so we're kicking you out of school

    You'll lose the opportunity to be educated and socialize normally with a mainstream peer group

    We'll use your now sub-standard IQ and abnormal social skills to defend the prohibition on pot

    1. Re:Vicious circle by Quila · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A report I read a while back said that overall the most damaging aspect of smoking pot on the lives of the users are the legal consequences of the prohibition, not the pot itself.

    2. Re:Vicious circle by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      And this is why our jails are full of non-violent offenders who don't need to be in the prison system.

      Pot should be legalized immediately. I'm not so sure about certain other substances, but throwing people in jail for pot smoking is ridiculous and always has been.

      That said, smoking itself is bad for you, mm'kay? It's still you inhaling smoke, so find a better way of ingesting it. Lung cancer is bad.

  10. Words of the Prophet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference.

    -- Bill Hicks

  11. Too bad nobody's going to hear about the follow-up by RoTNCoRE · · Score: 2

    There is no way most of the mainstream press is going to cover this. The potentially flawed study reinforced too many stereotypes and opinions in step with the "war on drugs" which bankrolls increasingly powerful law enforcement.

  12. Re:Defence of original paper by RoTNCoRE · · Score: 2

    NARK!

  13. tomorrows newspaper headlines by bitt3n · · Score: 2, Funny

    "pot use reduces not only IQ but also wealth and access to schooling"

  14. Re:In my experience, yes it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

  15. Words to live by: by Nyder · · Score: 4, Funny

    "A friend with weed is a friend indeed"

    "Dope will get you thru times of no money better then money will get you thru times of no dope."

    both I learned from the Fabulous Furry Freak Brother comics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabulous_Furry_Freak_Brothers

    I'm really stoned right now and low or high IQ, this is the best I can do for this conversation.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  16. Re:In my experience, yes it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'll take your anecdote about your friend, and respond with my anecdote about how it has saved my life. Between my intense migraines that I suffered from for 20 years with no pharmacological relief, and my severe depression, I'm positive that I would have killed myself without it. It eases the depression and goes a long way to reduce the occurrence and intensity of my headaches.

    Somehow your friend sounds like he had other problems that the weed just compounded. I'm sorry for him, but your anger is misplaced.

  17. Re:Defence of original paper by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

    If I was one of the original paper's authors I'd post as an AC as well. If smoking pot makes you stupid then I was smarter than Einstein and Feynman combined at one time. I'm not posting as an AC since it is 2013, and anyone who judges me for smoking pot is highly likely to do a much, much worse drug known as alcohol, and I don't hide from morons and hypocrites.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  18. Re:In my experience, yes it does by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not really a question of "is pot harmful". It's a question of "how harmful is pot in comparison to other legal activities". Other people could provide similar anecdotes about the affects of alcohol, gambling, or online games - yet possession of any of those isn't illegal.

    Our society is hypocritical. It needs to decide once and for all, whether citizens have the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness in a manner they choose, or whether the state abrogates to itself the right to decide for its citizens what level of risk they are allowed to take, and the adopt a consistent policy.

    They won't, of course, because a consistent policy will either lead to a lessening of authority and money, as the privatised prison system is forced to downsize, and police authority curtailed, or to mass corruption and civil disobedience as briefly glimpsed in prohibition. So they'll remain happily hypocritical, not because it is the right thing to do, or backed by scientific evidence, but because it is the best way to retain the current balances of power - and that, after all, is what politics is all about.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  19. Re:In my experience, yes it does by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think alcohol is harmless, yet I drink beer or wine a couple of times a week. With alcohol, some people handle it just fine and others fall off a cliff. From what I've seen, pot is the same way.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  20. Re:The Answer by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "There you have your answer about cannabis and drugs in general."

    Not at all, because the statement is flawed. It should have said "individuals from poorer backgrounds being more likely to get caught and prosecuted for smoking cannabis as well as having reduced access to schooling, while individuals from power backgrounds are likely to smoke cannabis (Clinton/Obama), do cocaine (Bush), philander (Clinton/Kennedy), do a very dangerous drug called alcohol (Most of them throughout history?) and become president."

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  21. So.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...when exactly will the 'blessed' leader of the country work hard to end the war on drugs, and push legislation on the federal level to at least allow the states to decide if they want pot to be legal?

    I mean, he used it (very documented) and enjoyed it, and he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected, so, when will he push for something that I'd guess a majority of his supporters and followers would support?

    Mr. Obama, are you listening?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  22. Again? by whitroth · · Score: 4, Informative

    For *decades*, we've been seeing Studies That Show The Dangers Of Weed (tm). And within the year, sometimes within the month, they're withdrawn, or debunked, or shown to be massively flawed.

    Not *ONE* has ever overturned the conclusions of the LaGuardia study of 1941 (completed? '44) http colon //www.drugtext.org/Table/LaGuardia-Committee-Report/

    The truth is that the prohibition was created thanks to Hearst's purchase of four very large wood pulp paper mills, and the last head of Prohibition, Anslinger, who wanted his job back, and it's been a useful tool to squash folks who might not agree with you in the ballot box.

    And the moralists. (The definition, by a friend years back, is that moralists are TERRIFIED by the thought that Someone, Out There, might be having... FUN!)

                      mark

  23. Re:In my experience, yes it does by lannocc · · Score: 2

    Interesting anecdote. But you fail to make your point that pot was actually harmful, unless you only meant it was harmful to your friendship.

    Yes, smoking marijuana can change a personality. Perhaps only while under the effects or perhaps indefinitely, it just depends on the person. I liken it to an "eye-opening" experience for some people, that after smoking they now view and think about the world in a different way that makes it impossible to go back to their prior-to-smoking mindset.

    Smoking pot is an experience, and for some, it is profound. Like any profound experience, you may be forever changed. Consider also that some people have been doing and thinking the same things for so long in their life that when finally introduced to new/altered perceptions they simply require a period of time to "tune out", look inward, organize the new and reorganize the old thoughts. This could be a day or this could take years. Or it could simply be an excuse for the person to finally do whatever it is they have always really wanted to do, possibly to the exclusion of those around them. I don't believe any of this is necessarily harmful. I believe much of this is enlightening.

    /occasional smoker

  24. Re:Defence of original paper by fermion · · Score: 2
    Any heavy drug use, be it cannabis, caffeine, alcohol, sugar, during the developing years is likely to cause significant problems in later life. That is why so many people are freaked out about the quantity of drugs given to children and young adults. For females the body might be mature by 18, but for males it is more likely 20, so any excessive drug use prior to that can be damaging.

    Even though something can be explained by low SES doesn't mean it that low SES is the explanation. In fact low SES is almost never the answer by itself. it is a factor that must be controlled, and if the study in fact did not control for it then the study may in question. Even so SES may indicate that pot use, with other factors such as nutrition, may lead to lower IQ. Or it could mean that the IQ test is flawed. I was watching Firefly with the episode they had cows walking on grates. All I thought of is Josh Whedon probably has a pretty high IQ, but does not know anything about cows. Imagine that. It is hard to pinpoint exact bias in a test, but the assumptions made are the cultural norms of the test writer.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  25. Re:In my experience, yes it does by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not a pothead, I've never smoked pot (or anything else) and never been interested in doing so.

    Here's my question: Your college buddy, did he ever hurt anybody? Did he ever punch or shoot someone that he otherwise wouldn't have? Did he have a hard time maintaining relationships with his family? Did he mistreat any significant others he had? Because the only drawback you've stated is that you didn't like him anymore, and that it changed him in some ways. You also said he graduated with a 4.0, which hardly sounds like he destroyed himself.

    People change all the time, for all sorts of reasons. Alcohol, tobacco, heroin, cocaine, etc have easily documented harmful effects that far outweigh anything you've described, so if your friends' pot use is as serious a problem as you claim you should also be able to point to some actual impacts.

    If we're putting laws in place, we should have a demonstrable harm that we're protecting the public from, and that harm should be greater than the harm of enforcing the law. On that basis, outlawing PCP makes total sense, because people on angel dust pose extreme risks to people around them, but outlawing pot has not been demonstrated to be useful.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  26. 10 years of medical marijuana by kawabago · · Score: 2

    10 years of medical marijuana hasn't produced any noticeable changes. I was always absent minded. More like focused to the exclusion of everything else. Now I'm stoned and communicating with all life everywhere in the universe at the same time. No extra charge for long distance. Being on disability and having no schedule imposed by work makes appointments the hardest thing to keep. I made it to the dentist this morning on time! That's once in a row, a record! The prescription drugs for disease with serious side effects that create the need for medical marijuana will kill me far sooner than marijuana use will.

  27. Re:So.... by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Not really a shining endorsement of pot smoking as a past time"

    Doesn't really indicate anything negative about it either. Pot is chemically induced euphoria. Some people add artificial in there but your emotions are nothing more than a chemical state so there is nothing artificial about it. If your life isn't a joyful wonderland pot is a fairly effective and low cost way to make it one for a little while. Being poor sucks and being dumb sucks, why wouldn't you want cheap happiness. If you aren't dumb but merely lazy and making bad choices it seems that would tend be depressing as well so ditto on cheap happiness. If you are highly intelligent and can't help but realize just how fucked we are in this life then again bring on the happiness.

    If you are rich, lazy, and dumb on the hand you don't have much to be unhappy about. You get handed degrees from the best schools, society is set up to ensure that the wealthy enjoy the most comfort and have the best of everything, and the opposite sex will throw themselves at you all day long.

  28. Re:Hard to prove by shaitand · · Score: 2

    Except that there are no shortage of very productive individuals who drink and smoke pot and aren't poor.

  29. Re:So.... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Becasue there is more to worry about. Creating an issue that pubs hate will create ANOTHER pathetic excuse to be obstructionists.

    Pay attentionh to a president first year. They try to probe what thye want and check for repson form congress. If an issue will stop a bigger issue from going through, they set it aside.

    One of the big examples from Obama is gitmo. He worked on closing it, but the pubs dug their heals in and made pathetic excuse of why a supermax prison won't hold them. Once that became an issue that the pub would stop all activity over, it was set aside. The the pubs uses it against him..the vary same ones who wouldn't let it close.

    Fact of the matter, you could put most of the remaining people at gitmo in a county prison, and it would be perfectly secure.

    So, yes he is listening, but pubs would use it as an 'evil liburl' reason not to vote for democrats.
    Same thing with Clinton.

    What Obama did to was change the priority of who to go after, and frankly, that was a pretty big step and nearly amazing accomplishment he did it so well with this congress.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  30. Re:10 years of medical marijuana by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    10 years of medical marijuana hasn't produced any noticeable changes.

    Yes it has, for many people. For example, many chronic pain sufferers have been able to live more normal lives because they haven't been as debilitated or addicted to opioids, some cancer patients have lived longer because their weed helped them tolerate the chemo treatments better, allowing them to complete regimens that many can not, folks who suffer sever anxiety and panic attacks can get out and live their lives without being overwhelmed by fear, people with glaucoma have maintained their sight without risky surgeries, and at least one person with epilepsy (who I personally know) no longer suffers from seizures as long as she "medicates" at least every 2-3 days.

    It is very clear that there have been noticeable changes since medical marijuana became available in the U.S., and they have been overwhelmingly positive. Crime rates in medi-pot areas have NOT increased, cases of addiction to illegal drugs have not gotten out of control (busting the guess that weed is a "gateway" drug), there hasn't been a rise in cardio-pulmonary diseases among non-tobacco smokers, and courts in states like Colorado have not been clogged with minor, non-violent marijuana offenders.

    Of course I do not advocate driving under the influence, use among minors, or puffing away all day like a stereotypical Rastafarian or flash in the pan, one hit wonder rapper, but informed use in moderation or under a physician's supervision should be possible in every state. I'd like to see it reach a level of acceptance where employers are not permitted to dictate how you live your life or choose to medicate yourself when you are not at work. If they do not specifically suspect that you are high at work, and have no evidence that you are, positive tests for THC should not warrant dismissal or exclusion from employment. But then I believe strongly in the American concepts of privacy and freedom, so I am certainly a bit biased.

    And further, wait.... what?

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  31. Re:So.... by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mr. Obama, are you listening?

    No, he doesn't listen to idiots who refer to him as "the 'blessed' leader."

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
  32. drains drive and will to succeed by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    there was this one toker who graduated from this ivy league school, but instead of taking on big corporate job like his classmates just went into community organizer work on the bad side of Chicago. then he became a senator then president. beware the weed, kids...

  33. Re:So.... by castle · · Score: 2

    This sir is exactly my feeling on the subject. I salute you.

    Ron Paul vs Dennis Kucinich is a (for the most part, there's always going to be BS and marketing in politics) genuinely healthy political axis. Obama vs Bush is a Reality TV show.