If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Daily)   Adolescent pot use shown to leave lasting, like, stuff and all   (sciencedaily.com) divider line 248
    More: Scary, photos, Institute of Psychiatry, development studies, shortages, teenagers, marijuana  
•       •       •

9228 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Aug 2012 at 8:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



248 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-28 05:29:05 AM

Plant Rights Activist: sample bias


Says the individual complaining about a large scale scientific study.
 
2012-08-28 05:33:13 AM

Trashy_McKraut:
You must be a blast at parties. Keep crusading against that devil weed, you totally don't sound like a raving religious fanatic. You might as well wrap yourself up in that security blanket of smugness and self-righteousness. Clinging onto it with that white-knuckled death grip must be exhausting.


Have you ever heard pot advocates go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how it's harmless, helps them relax, doesn't affect their mental processes (yeah, and most drunks think they're witty), isn't addictive and how their lives revolve around getting and smoking the stuff? The words "crusading", "raving", "fanatic", "security blanket", "smugness" and "self-righteousness" could hardly be more appropriately used.
 
2012-08-28 05:34:36 AM

D_Evans45: However, weed shop culture has evolved so much that I go to the weed shop to socialize now, as much as fulfill my cannabis needs. I go on my lunch break with my buddies almost every day now, talk with the beautiful budtenders (weed shops make a point of hiring attractive young ladies), hit the blunt they're passing around in the shop, and choose an edible to blast off with later. Good music and atmosphere, attractive young people, it's a scene you'll find in a drug dealer's garage/basement. Ill pay a little more at my shop for this experience.


Interesting. How do you feel about the legalisation-will-reduce-use and legalisation-will-reduce-prices arguments?
 
2012-08-28 08:02:50 AM

fragMasterFlash: Remember kids, poke smot every day.


===================

I have for years. No evidence that it brained my damage.
 
2012-08-28 08:27:40 AM

FloydA: What's ironic is that these data will probably be used to try to support a "tough on drugs" stance, when in fact, the most effective way to reduce teenagers' access to pot would be to legalize it and treat it like alcohol or tobacco- no ID, no sale. The street corner pot dealers don't ask for ID, but shop clerks do. Legalize it for sale to adults and the profit will drop out of the bottom, so the criminal gangs won't sell it anymore. Immediately, teenagers' access to pot would be dramatically diminished.


exactly. when i was in school it was much harder to get beer than pot. in fact if i needed pot now i'd probably have to ask a highschool kid.

beer reaks havoc on your developing brain as well...
 
2012-08-28 09:51:51 AM
Alternate Headline: Study shows teenage pot use increases likelihood of rally spectating later in life.
 
2012-08-28 10:04:48 AM

orbister: Trashy_McKraut:
You must be a blast at parties. Keep crusading against that devil weed, you totally don't sound like a raving religious fanatic. You might as well wrap yourself up in that security blanket of smugness and self-righteousness. Clinging onto it with that white-knuckled death grip must be exhausting.

Have you ever heard pot advocates go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how it's harmless, helps them relax, doesn't affect their mental processes (yeah, and most drunks think they're witty), isn't addictive and how their lives revolve around getting and smoking the stuff? The words "crusading", "raving", "fanatic", "security blanket", "smugness" and "self-righteousness" could hardly be more appropriately used.


Have you ever heard anti-pot advocates go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how it's harmful, increases your heart rate, reduces your mental processes (yeah, like it's their business what my IQ is), is an addictive substance, and how their lives revolve around telling others what they should or shouldn't do? The words "crusading," "raving", "fanatic", 'wet noodle", "smug" and "self-righteousness" could hardly be more appropriately used.
 
2012-08-28 10:27:53 AM

IronJelly: Have you ever heard anti-pot advocates go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how it's harmful, increases your heart rate, reduces your mental processes (yeah, like it's their business what my IQ is), is an addictive substance, and how their lives revolve around telling others what they should or shouldn't do?


And those oncologists. Have you heard how they go on about carcinogens as if they were a bad thing? Interfering do-gooders. 

Incidentally, why has the greenlit thread on the original PNAS article disappeared?
 
2012-08-28 10:35:10 AM

namegoeshere: - The persistent, dependent use of marijuana before age 18 has been shown to cause lasting harm to a person's intelligence, attention and memory, according to an international research team.

Among a long-range study cohort of more than 1,000 New Zealanders, individuals who started using cannabis in adolescence and used it for years afterward showed an average decline in IQ of 8 points when their age 13 and age 38 IQ tests were compared.


So we're talking about the heaviest, long-term users here. Anyone got a study about the effects of recreational use?


Doesn't matter. Its entirely plausible that the type of person that persistently uses pot from their teen years and doesn't quit might be a different demographic from other people, with the pot usage only being a symptom. In other words, if we're looking at losers, that they smoke pot might not have much to do with the loser-ness.

But I can give you a long term study! I started smoking pot in my 20's and did so for about 8 years, then quit for 20 years and started again last year to help with arthritis and back/foot pain. Looking at my social security earnings chart, it goes up like a rocket until I started smoking pot, flattens out for the entire time I used it, then takes off like a rocket again. So apparently it knocks your motivation out and prevents you from doing well at work. I'm imagining it would have an enhanced effect on a kid still in school, since all I had to do half the time at work was close the door and take a nap for two hours.

Since picking it back up again, I see another drop in motivation and accomplishment, but I'm old and retired now so who gives a %$@# ?

What I have found interesting is when fully stoned being able to vividly remember odds and ends from the last time I smoked pot, when I haven't had those recollections for decades. Seems like it re-opened an area of memory that's been pretty dormant for a while. And my recollection of random facts also improved dramatically. While stuff tended to fall out of my head eventually, if I don't think about it and just blurt out the first thing I think of when asked a question, its usually correct.

Medically, at a good dosage level its quite nice on inflammation and joint pain. I've had a few high dose edibles that made me so numb I think you could have performed surgery on me. It lowers my blood pressure a ridiculous amount. Between being able to get off my BP meds and being able to do stuff without pain, I managed to lose 70lbs. Yard work is way more fun when stoned, just leave the stuff with motors and sharp blades on the shelf...

We do have a laugh about the war on drugs and the evilness of marijuana. Clearly I'm a danger to the nation while sitting on my couch eating chips and watching old movies.

Just...don't mix pot and booze. Aggressive and stupid is a bad way to go through life, son.
 
2012-08-28 10:36:39 AM
Oh and I forgot (what a surprise) but I sported a 155 IQ as a teenager, pre-pot. 157 and 158 after 8 years of regular use. So apparently this study started off with "How do we make pot look bad by making shiat up?" and went from there. IQ is apparently, in a sample size of one, not affected.
 
2012-08-28 10:53:06 AM

Asa Phelps: namegoeshere: - The persistent, dependent use of marijuana before age 18 has been shown to cause lasting harm to a person's intelligence, attention and memory, according to an international research team.

Among a long-range study cohort of more than 1,000 New Zealanders, individuals who started using cannabis in adolescence and used it for years afterward showed an average decline in IQ of 8 points when their age 13 and age 38 IQ tests were compared.


So we're talking about the heaviest, long-term users here. Anyone got a study about the effects of recreational use?

It's also been established that depression makes you stupid.

Can't imagine why someone would become a habitual, dependent user of a numbing agent.


I agree, they aren't taking the top of the class and forcing them to smoke pot all day. They are talking 'stoners' that are smoking conically. At that point I don't know how much a drop in education can be attributed to pot use over simple atrophy.*
That said, there was a fraternity at an engineering college (similar to MIT) that was known as the pot heads, and they were one of the smarter groups of people. I'd like to see a study on that group of people, though again you don't have any control so it wouldn't be any more conclusive than the study from TFA.
www.phoenixrealm.com
 
2012-08-28 10:59:32 AM

orbister: Trashy_McKraut:
You must be a blast at parties. Keep crusading against that devil weed, you totally don't sound like a raving religious fanatic. You might as well wrap yourself up in that security blanket of smugness and self-righteousness. Clinging onto it with that white-knuckled death grip must be exhausting.

Have you ever heard pot advocates go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how it's harmless, helps them relax, doesn't affect their mental processes (yeah, and most drunks think they're witty), isn't addictive and how their lives revolve around getting and smoking the stuff? The words "crusading", "raving", "fanatic", "security blanket", "smugness" and "self-righteousness" could hardly be more appropriately used.


As these threads detail from people talking about their own habits, it's a lifestyle for many of these people, and since it's their lifestyle they can't get away from it because changing lifestyles is farking hard.
 
2012-08-28 11:03:30 AM

archichris: As soon as there is such a thing as nano-drones there will be trillions of them that have a hunger for the various drug plants. Then you can kiss em goodbye.


LOL bet you can kiss your flesh goodbye too when your nano-drones starts eating it off your bones.
 
2012-08-28 11:09:11 AM

archichris: Locally our prosecutor says Heroin is the biggest factor in crime. Can you really tell me that legalizing heroin will mean the addicts have access to it without needing to commit crimes? Their habits are more than their federal checks can support by a long run. They will continue to use crime to obtain it.



Not if you legalize it and give it to them free under Medicare, which would be far, far cheaper than incarcerating them for decades. You really are stupid not to have seen this. Or maybe you are just angry at the sativa.
 
2012-08-28 11:09:23 AM
Marijuana = bad

The End
 
2012-08-28 12:27:42 PM

bhcompy: As these threads detail from people talking about their own habits, it's a lifestyle for many of these people, and since it's their lifestyle they can't get away from it because changing lifestyles is farking hard they are addicted.


De-euphemismificated that for you.
 
2012-08-28 01:39:52 PM

Umfufu: FloydA: What's ironic is that these data will probably be used to try to support a "tough on drugs" stance, when in fact, the most effective way to reduce teenagers' access to pot would be to legalize it and treat it like alcohol or tobacco- no ID, no sale. The street corner pot dealers don't ask for ID, but shop clerks do. Legalize it for sale to adults and the profit will drop out of the bottom, so the criminal gangs won't sell it anymore. Immediately, teenagers' access to pot would be dramatically diminished.

Ummm...does anyone think the corner dealers are going to go away if pot is legalized? Really?

Really?



Go away? No. Shrink in numbers? Definitely. Drug dealers engage in drug dealing because it is profitable. They aren't doing it just for fun, they are doing it because it makes money. If pot was legal for sale to people over 21, then it would be cheaper for people to buy it legally than to buy it on the black market, so fewer people would go to the corner dealers.

This is basically the same problem that we dealt with during Prohibition. People are going to try to get high, no matter what laws are in place. When alcohol was illegal, production, distribution, and sale didn't stop, it just fell into the hands of criminal gangs. As soon as the Volstead Act was repealed, there was no more profit to be made running speakeasies and manufacturing bathtub gin. The customers preferred the legal bars and liquor stores because (A) they got a better quality product, (B) they were not going to be arrested for failure to pay tax on their booze, and (C) if a legal liquor store rips you off or their booze is poison, you can go to the cops. If a gang rips you off or poisons you, you're screwed.

The same thing will happen with pot. People will buy it from the legal distributors, and that will make it less profitable for the criminal gangs, and if there is one thing we know about crime gangs, they don't bother engaging in crimes that don't make a profit.

Personally, I don't smoke it because I don't really like it, but prohibition never works.
 
2012-08-28 01:49:25 PM
I don't deny there are side-effects, but 8 points seems very specific for an IQ test...or more to the point, for such a specific conclusion to be drawn from said test(s).
Did the article mention a margin of error? I can't remember.

/no short term memory
 
2012-08-28 02:22:33 PM
FACT: IQ tests not taken prior the ages of 13 tend to favor the test take 3-4 points, FACT: IQ tests taken after the afterthe age of 24 tend to dissfavor the test take 3-4 points.

Logical conclusion Cannabis thus has no real long term affect on IQ

Rational assumption: the people doing the research are competent.
Rational addendum: Thus the research people are aware of the previously mentioned age bias in IQ test.

Logical conclusion: The research people are purposefully using a know test bias to push an agenda and should be sent to the board for investigation and punishment.
 
2012-08-28 02:38:25 PM
sigh i always ind the threads related to my profession way after they are no longer relevant..
 
2012-08-28 03:34:22 PM

RandomRandom: My doctor says that all of the young lung cancer patients he sees are heavy weed users, anecdotal, I know.


You should probably get a different doctor, because he's obviously delusional. Kaiser-Permanente did a massive study and found no lung cancer risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9328194

I'm dubious about this NZ study, for a number of reasons. For one, excessive use of any drug seems to indicate some sort of pathology in the subject. Many heavy adolescent users of drugs are attempting to self-medicate. An underlying mental illness can have a very serious effect on cognition.
 
2012-08-28 04:13:50 PM

knobmaker: You should probably get a different doctor, because he's obviously delusional. Kaiser-Permanente did a massive study and found no lung cancer risk.


My doc's just fine, and there is real science backing his anecdotal findings.

There are studies which have shown definite lung cancer risk among heavy pot smokers. One study showed a 20x increase over non-smokers.
 
2012-08-28 04:17:51 PM

RandomRandom: knobmaker: You should probably get a different doctor, because he's obviously delusional. Kaiser-Permanente did a massive study and found no lung cancer risk.

My doc's just fine, and there is real science backing his anecdotal findings.

There are studies which have shown definite lung cancer risk among heavy pot smokers. One study showed a 20x increase over non-smokers.


Lol, no. Did your 'doctor' happen to mention they all smoked a pack of tobacco cigs a day too?
 
2012-08-28 04:18:19 PM

Daeva: Logical conclusion: The research people are purposefully using a know test bias to push an agenda and should be sent to the board for investigation and punishment.


Or those doing the study corrected for that aberrance and you're engaging in wish-fulfillment.
 
2012-08-28 04:29:22 PM

lewismarktwo: Lol, no. Did your 'doctor' happen to mention they all smoked a pack of tobacco cigs a day too?


Notice that I said YOUNG, heavy pot smokers. Young cigarette smokers rarely get lung cancer, it just doesn't present that early. Most of the young lung cancer patients he sees have been heavy pot smokers. As I said, anecdotal, but still, CANCER, ugh.

If you want to pick and choose which studies to believe, that's your call. The truth is that some studies indicate a real lung cancer risk, other do not. Not all the metrics in those studies were identical. If you want to look at it with rose colored glasses, one could say the jury is still out regarding a pot / lung cancer risk. A more reasonable conclusion would be that once-a-week users are probably not causing a lot of cancer risk, while the heaviest of pot smokers are probably putting themselves at serious risk of lung cancer.

While there is some small doubt about cancer risk, there is NO serious debate about heavy pot smoking causing severe respiratory disease. It isn't hard to see why. Regularly, and deeply breathing heavy particulates into your lungs isn't their preferred method of operation.
 
2012-08-28 04:40:13 PM

RandomRandom: lewismarktwo: Lol, no. Did your 'doctor' happen to mention they all smoked a pack of tobacco cigs a day too?

Notice that I said YOUNG, heavy pot smokers. Young cigarette smokers rarely get lung cancer, it just doesn't present that early. Most of the young lung cancer patients he sees have been heavy pot smokers. As I said, anecdotal, but still, CANCER, ugh.

If you want to pick and choose which studies to believe, that's your call. The truth is that some studies indicate a real lung cancer risk, other do not. Not all the metrics in those studies were identical. If you want to look at it with rose colored glasses, one could say the jury is still out regarding a pot / lung cancer risk. A more reasonable conclusion would be that once-a-week users are probably not causing a lot of cancer risk, while the heaviest of pot smokers are probably putting themselves at serious risk of lung cancer.

While there is some small doubt about cancer risk, there is NO serious debate about heavy pot smoking causing severe respiratory disease. It isn't hard to see why. Regularly, and deeply breathing heavy particulates into your lungs isn't their preferred method of operation.


Why would weed present so soon when the proven carcinogen tobacco takes longer? Weed limits blood flow to capillaries starves the cancer out it.

Or are you trolling by talking about an oncologist who specializes in adolescent lung cancer and his patients are using cannabis to alleviate their nausea and pain?

Also, good jorb completely avoiding the use of edibles and vaporizers.
 
2012-08-28 04:44:44 PM

Umfufu: Ummm...does anyone think the corner dealers are going to go away if pot is legalized? Really?

Really?


Yes, Really!

The corner dealers would be out of business overnight if pot were legalized. OVERNIGHT.

I explained why above. http://www.fark.com/comments/7291635/78991353#c78991353

TL:DR, Big Tobacco could probably make a very good profit on FIVE CENT joints. (they sell Cigarettes for less) Mark it up with 4000% tax and this fresh, high quality, consistent, safe(er) joint would cost consumers $2.

Street corner dealers can't compete with that, neither can the medical dispensaries or the illicit growers who provide their stock. The illicit pot business would die overnight. The authorities wouldn't have to lift a finger, the market would do the job. 

How many speakeasies survived prohibition? Next to none. They either went legal (so were no longer a speak-easy) or they went under. Most of those currently in the weed business can't go legal. A few small growers would go legal and market their specialty products, legally, but most would go under. The street corner dealer would be out of the weed business, forever.
 
2012-08-28 04:45:36 PM

RandomRandom: Daeva: Logical conclusion: The research people are purposefully using a know test bias to push an agenda and should be sent to the board for investigation and punishment.

Or those doing the study corrected for that aberrance and you're engaging in wish-fulfillment.


well.... i honestly neither considered, nor looked into that fact, so point you maybe because i am still not going to, which... is sort of a point to you.
 
2012-08-28 04:51:01 PM

lewismarktwo: Or are you trolling by talking about an oncologist who specializes in adolescent lung cancer and his patients are using cannabis to alleviate their nausea and pain?

Also, good jorb completely avoiding the use of edibles and vaporizers.


No, the doc who told me this is a GP. He sees everybody, middle-school to rest home. He has told me that his existing youth patents who are diagonalized with lung cancer are invariably heavy pot smokers. He is not anti-weed, I know he used to smoke himself and is in favor of legalization.

I haven't seen a lot of studies discussing edibles, but I do know that most users don't regularly use edibles because it wastes too much pot. Slower high, less duration requiring more weed. It's more expensive and requires more work. Because of this, edibles and vaporizer users make up just a tiny percentage of pot users which is probably why there are so few studies.

/I'm completely in favor of total legalization, but I also think users should be fully aware of the risks. Head in the sand is no way to go through life son.
 
2012-08-28 04:53:27 PM

RandomRandom: Umfufu: Ummm...does anyone think the corner dealers are going to go away if pot is legalized? Really?

Really?

Yes, Really!

The corner dealers would be out of business overnight if pot were legalized. OVERNIGHT.

I explained why above. http://www.fark.com/comments/7291635/78991353#c78991353

TL:DR, Big Tobacco could probably make a very good profit on FIVE CENT joints. (they sell Cigarettes for less) Mark it up with 4000% tax and this fresh, high quality, consistent, safe(er) joint would cost consumers $2.

Street corner dealers can't compete with that, neither can the medical dispensaries or the illicit growers who provide their stock. The illicit pot business would die overnight. The authorities wouldn't have to lift a finger, the market would do the job. 

How many speakeasies survived prohibition? Next to none. They either went legal (so were no longer a speak-easy) or they went under. Most of those currently in the weed business can't go legal. A few small growers would go legal and market their specialty products, legally, but most would go under. The street corner dealer would be out of the weed business, forever.


wtf are you talking about? why just last week i bought a gallon of methanol moonshine from a guy who then riddled our car with bullets from his tommy gun as we drove off
 
2012-08-28 04:56:11 PM

RandomRandom: No, the doc who told me this is a GP. He sees everybody, middle-school to rest home. He has told me that his existing youth patents who are diagonalized with lung cancer are invariably heavy pot smokers. He is not anti-weed, I know he used to smoke himself and is in favor of legalization.


i don't believe that.

the studies don't really support it - at least not for lung cancer. what they do support is actually that people who smoke marijuana and tobacco are at a greater risk for developing cancer-like cells than users who smoke just one or the other.
 
2012-08-28 05:02:58 PM

Pathman: i don't believe that.

the studies don't really support it - at least not for lung cancer. what they do support is actually that people who smoke marijuana and tobacco are at a greater risk for developing cancer-like cells than users who smoke just one or the other.


That's not true. There definitely are some studies which have shown a lung cancer risk. One study in particular displayed a 20x increase in lung cancer risk among heavy pot (not cigarette & pot) smokers.

You're right that there are other studies which have not shown this risk, though from what I read, these various studies haven't used the same metrics regarding definitions of use frequency, so they're tedious to compare. It would take one of those meta-studies to do a proper alignment.

Based on the available science, my guess is that heavy pot smokers are very likely putting themselves at increased risk of lung cancer. Once-a-week users? Not so much.
 
2012-08-28 05:35:21 PM

FloydA: If pot was legal for sale to people over 21, then it would be cheaper for people to buy it legally than to buy it on the black market, so fewer people would go to the corner dealers.


Yes, because corner dealers will be assiduous about paying state and federal taxes on it. That's why something like 80% of all (perfectly legal) hand-rolling tobacco in the UK is sold on the black market. Oh, wait. Oops.
 
2012-08-28 05:36:47 PM

Daeva: FACT: IQ tests not taken prior the ages of 13 tend to favor the test take 3-4 points, FACT: IQ tests taken after the afterthe age of 24 tend to dissfavor the test take 3-4 points.

Logical conclusion Cannabis thus has no real long term affect on IQ

Rational assumption: the people doing the research are competent.
Rational addendum: Thus the research people are aware of the previously mentioned age bias in IQ test.

Logical conclusion: The research people are purposefully using a know test bias to push an agenda and should be sent to the board for investigation and punishment. have already allowed for this effect.

 
2012-08-28 05:48:44 PM

orbister: FloydA: If pot was legal for sale to people over 21, then it would be cheaper for people to buy it legally than to buy it on the black market, so fewer people would go to the corner dealers.

Yes, because corner dealers will be assiduous about paying state and federal taxes on it. That's why something like 80% of all (perfectly legal) hand-rolling tobacco in the UK is sold on the black market. Oh, wait. Oops.


Excessive taxation is akin to outright banning in that regard. Shocker.
 
2012-08-28 05:55:15 PM

RandomRandom: but I do know that most users don't regularly use edibles because it wastes too much pot. Slower high, less duration requiring more weed. It's more expensive and requires more work.


Wow, you officially have absolutely no idea what you are talking about now.

Speaking as a professional in the MMJ community, I can assure you that half of the sales in our store were of edibles. Edibles produce a SLIGHTLY slower onset (20 minutes instead of two minutes), the effects last MUCH longer and are more pronounced, and most edibles are made from trim and kief, not buds, so your "requires more weed" argument goes right out the window. Same goes for it being more "expensive" as you are using your plant's waste products to make it. And as for hard work: if you can operate a crockpot, you can make high quality edibles right in your own home, with no more fuss than preparing cookies or a delicious pesto.

And there are plenty of studies done on vaporization. All of them show that when done properly not only does vaporization pose ZERO health risks, it does wonders for the respiratory system and provides all of the anti-tumorial benefits of cannaboids with absolutely none of the carcinogens or particulate matter.

And if neither of those work for you, there are also THC pills, suppositories, and transdermal patches.

Do not speak about things that you do not know anything about with a tone of authority. It makes you look like a fool.

RandomRandom: but still, CANCER, ugh.


At this point in the conversation, I'm farking praying for terminal cancer.
 
2012-08-28 05:58:57 PM

radarlove:
Wow, you officially have absolutely no idea what you are talking about now.

Speaking as a professional in the MMJ community, I can assure you that half of the sales in our store were of edibles. Edibles produce a SLIGHTLY slower onset (20 minutes instead of two minutes), the effects last MUCH longer and are more pronounced, and most edibles are made from trim and kief, not buds, so your "requires more weed" argument goes right out the window. Same goes for it being more "expensive" as you are using your plant's waste products to make it. And as for hard work: if you can operate a crockpot, you can make high quality edibles right in your own home, with no more fuss than preparing cookies or a delicious pesto.

And there are plenty of studies done on vaporization. All of them show that when done properly not only does vaporization pose ZERO health risks, it does wonders for the respiratory system and provides all of the anti-tumorial benefits of cannaboids with absolutely none of the carcinogens or particulate matter.

And if neither of those work for you, there are also THC pills, suppositories, and transdermal patches.

Do not speak about things that you do not know anything about with a tone of authority. It makes you look like a fool..



This. I can't get edibles where I am, but I've tried them, and it is as you say. it takes longer to come into effect, but lasts quite a bit longer, and is definitely a bit stronger.

//I hate being in a small town sometimes.
 
2012-08-28 06:52:59 PM

radarlove: Wow, you officially have absolutely no idea what you are talking about now.


Speaking as a professional in the MMJ community, I can assure you that half of the sales in our store were of edibles.
And there are plenty of studies done on vaporization. All of them show that when done properly not only does vaporization pose ZERO health risks, it does wonders for the respiratory system and provides all of the anti-tumorial benefits of cannaboids with absolutely none of the carcinogens or particulate matte

Give me a break.

You're suggesting that vaporization and edibles are even slightly as pervasive as smoked weed? My wild assed guess would be that they maybe, maybe make up 1% of usage, and that's probably on the high side.

Clearly, you live in the in the land of pot dispensaries. Your land is not like the rest of our land. Most of the US does not live in California. Most of the US does not have access to pot dispensaries or their specialty products. The vast majority of the US population doesn't have easy access to edible product unless they make them themselves. And vaporizers, not exactly common off campus. Even on campus, smoking is the prevalent method. I know a lot of pot users, all of them smoke, a few vaporize, and only on rare occasion do they use edibles.

As for vaporization and edibles having zero health risks, uh, wrong, You're in the pot selling business and clearly too close to this issue to make a fair-minded evaluation The New Zealand study that precipitated this post didn't discriminate regarding method of use, yet it found an 8 point IQ drop across the board. FYI, that study included 98% of the population born in that town for an entire year. I very much doubt the IQ drop came from respiratory distress, that only leaves the chemical effects of the product as a causal agent. As you point out, those effects are similarly present in smoked, edible and vaporized products.

As I said, I'm 100% in favor of total legalization (not decriminalization). Users should be aware of the risks. Suggesting there are no risks, especially given that you're a seller, that's shameful. I'll be ecstatic the day legalization comes. Funny thing though, it will definitely put you out of a job.
 
2012-08-28 07:21:51 PM
Science Daily is like the National Enquirer of "science news". Not a reputable news source at all, frankly I'm sick of it being linked to constantly on here. And the daily mail, too. Fark quality really has gone downhill recently...
 
2012-08-28 07:48:22 PM

RandomRandom: Give me a break.


I was. I'm not going to be as nice this time around.

RandomRandom: My wild assed guess would be that they maybe, maybe make up 1% of usage, and that's probably on the high side.


At least now you're admitting to making wild-assed guesses instead of claiming to be an authority on the subject.

RandomRandom: Most of the US does not live in California. Most of the US does not have access to pot dispensaries or their specialty products.


You are correct about that for the time being, though 17 states (not including District of Columbia) already have MMJ laws and legal dispensaries and with another seven states voting on it this year, we will be at damn near fifty percent of the nation. Never been to California.

RandomRandom: The vast majority of the US population doesn't have easy access to edible product unless they make them themselves.


The vast majority of pot dealers have pot brownies for sale as well. As I said, edibles are made from the waste products of your plant, and incredibly easily at that. It is foolish to not use every part of said plant.

RandomRandom: And vaporizers, not exactly common off campus.


I wouldn't know, as I'm a bit too old at this point to be associating with college students outside of a business capacity. I will however tell you that every adult marijuana user I know owns a vaporizer. They are affordable, easy to use, and they make your product last longer, stretching out those pot-dollars. The world has moved on from combustion. Would you like to know how many of those people also use e-cigs?

RandomRandom: I know a lot of pot users, all of them smoke, a few vaporize, and only on rare occasion do they use edibles.


I know a lot more cannabis users than you. Many smoke on occasion. Most vaporize. Every one of them cooks their own edibles because it is SO DAMN EASY AND EFFECTIVE.

RandomRandom: You're in the pot selling business and clearly too close to this issue to make a fair-minded evaluation


Actually, I'm in the Medical Marijuana and Patient Advocacy businesses, and a good part of my job is staying on top of research and studies so that I can be sure that those people who come to me with cancer, multiple sclerosis, ALS, war-induced PTSD, and various autoimmune diseases get the maximum effect to treat their conditions without exacerbating them. I am responsible for the treatment progress of cannabis use for these people. They have placed their trust in me due to my diligence and expertise, and I take that very seriously.

RandomRandom: The New Zealand study that precipitated this post didn't discriminate regarding method of use, yet it found an 8 point IQ drop across the board.


No, it found an eight percent drop in teens. I do not sell cannabis to anyone under the age of 18, not only in accordance with state law but also in accordance with my own personal ethics. Children should not be using psychoactive substances of any type, in my opinion. That goes for not only marijuana, but cigarettes, alcohol, and caffeine as well. Childhood is supposed to be a time of growth, development, learning, and inspirational experiences. Children should not need the chemical crutches that adults do until infuriatingly ignorant people like you drive them to it later in life.

RandomRandom: Users should be aware of the risks.


I agree completely. I ensure that all of my clientele are well aware of the risks, and I get in writing that they will not operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of our products.

RandomRandom: Suggesting there are no risks, especially given that you're a seller, that's shameful.


Everything in life carries risks. Were I to claim otherwise, I would look as foolish as you do right now. What I said is that studies have shown that vaporization poses zero HEALTH risks.

RandomRandom: I'll be ecstatic the day legalization comes.


Me too. Our client base will explode, and I will finally be able to assist people without them going through government channels first.

RandomRandom: Funny thing though, it will definitely put you out of a job.


The legal sale of marijuana IS my job. I don't work out of some basement or on some streetcorner. I work in a retail setting. In a real storefront. In a commercial building. We pay our taxes. We follow employment laws and OSHA regulations. We abide by stricter state regulations than even casinos. We are a corporation within an industry. I regularly meet with state senators, attorneys, law enforcement agencies, and medical professionals in a business capacity. The National Geographic channel produced a critically acclaimed series in which one of our shops was featured prominently. We are serious business.

We are the existing commercial framework upon which legal marijuana sales will flourish.

Put us out of the job? Legal marijuana will bring our business to the masses.


I'm sorry that you felt the need to double down on the stupid. I don't like having to give intellectual smackdowns to people who don't know what they are talking about. Considering that your present foolishness has detracted from every other argument that you've made in this thread and destroyed your credibility, I highly suggest that you tuck tail and try to learn something from this experience. Don't ever again try to sound like an expert on things that you are completely uneducated on.
 
2012-08-28 08:25:41 PM

orbister: FloydA: If pot was legal for sale to people over 21, then it would be cheaper for people to buy it legally than to buy it on the black market, so fewer people would go to the corner dealers.

Yes, because corner dealers will be assiduous about paying state and federal taxes on it. That's why something like 80% of all (perfectly legal) hand-rolling tobacco in the UK is sold on the black market. Oh, wait. Oops.


that's another side of the same problem - that's nanny state silliness on the other level: still trying to regulate behaviour. they're doing it in new york too. and guess what - there is a huge and even violent tobacco black market.

in an elastic good it doesn't really matter who pays the tax - the burden is fairly equal on the consumer and the merchant. this becomes far less true as you move into inelastic goods - the burden shifts squarely onto the shoulders of the consumer. taxing the hell out of smokes on the hopes that people will smoke less is, in my opinion, far outside the scope of what government's role in our lives should be.
 
2012-08-28 08:27:26 PM

lewismarktwo: orbister: FloydA: If pot was legal for sale to people over 21, then it would be cheaper for people to buy it legally than to buy it on the black market, so fewer people would go to the corner dealers.

Yes, because corner dealers will be assiduous about paying state and federal taxes on it. That's why something like 80% of all (perfectly legal) hand-rolling tobacco in the UK is sold on the black market. Oh, wait. Oops.

Excessive taxation is akin to outright banning in that regard. Shocker.


exactly
 
2012-08-28 08:47:47 PM

radarlove: Put us out of the job? Legal marijuana will bring our business to the masses.


You are completely delusional. That statement alone makes me question the credibility of everything else you've written. There is so much wrong with the rest of what you've written that I'm not going to bother to address each point. I will however address how wrong you are on the economics, I have very specific knowledge of this topic.

Have you ever researched the economics of Big Tobacco? I have.

The cost to produce a tobacco cigarette is pennies, PENNIES. The last analysis I saw measured the production cost at less than 3 cents per cigarette. Consider that the product used in cigarettes is highly processed and supplemented with expensive additives. Further, tobacco is no easier to grow than pot. Yes, high-quality pot is often cloned, but cigarette tobacco's extensive processing puts them at a no more than a cost equivalent. My guess has long been that the end production cost of industrially farmed pot would be substantially less than that of tobacco, but at worst it's equivalent.

Big Tobacco would eat your breakfast, lunch, and dinner. How? Were a legalization bill to reach the US Congress, big tobacco's lobbyists would write that bill. They would likely lobby for taxes to be scheduled as a percentage of wholesale cost. They would probably also lobby for very, very, very high taxes. I suspect they'd dangle the prospect of the huge tax revenues available were taxes to be set at 2000% to 4000%.

Their production cost per cigarette would be perhaps 3 cents, probably less, their wholesale price would be perhaps five cents. At a wholesale cost of five cents, their joints would cost one to two dollars. If your you dropped your prices to 50 cents per cigarette, the after tax cost would be ten to twenty dollars, per joint.

Can you sell joints for 5 cents, pre tax? Can your suppliers supply product at that price, pre tax? Of course not, only industrially scaled farms and industrially scaled production lines can reach those price points. You have access to neither. You have access to illicit farms, illicit product, illicit payrolls, illicit transportation. All of those illicit costs make your product completely unenviable in a legalized world. Even if you had access to legal farms, would they be scaled industrially? Not at first, not for awhile. What about mile-long cigarette factories capable of producing cigarettes for less than 3 cents? No, you wouldn't have access to that either.

Were Big Tobacco to start selling their product at Wal Mart and Costco for 1/20th to 1/40th your prices, could you continue to exist? Of course not.

You are a modern speak easy. Just as with the speakeasies of the twenties, most dispensaries would immediately go under. Some might try to rebrand themselves at "Coffee Houses", most would not, just as with speakeasies, the vast majority with very few exceptions would fail completely.
 
2012-08-28 09:46:12 PM

RandomRandom: radarlove: Put us out of the job? Legal marijuana will bring our business to the masses.

You are completely delusional.


You just had to come back for more, didn't you? Foolish, foolish pride.

RandomRandom: I have very specific knowledge of this topic.


Please, do explain your qualifications. I'm curious, and I've already gone into detail on mine.

RandomRandom: Have you ever researched the economics of Big Tobacco?


Big Tobacco is not Big Cannabis. Tobacco growers and manufacturers are limited to one, maybe two dozen specific breeds of tobacco that they use in their products, each with different flavor profiles. There are over 14,000 different strains of cannabis, each with not only it's own unique flavor profile but it's own array of effects. Big Tobacco cannot simply produce one catch-all "cannabis cigarette" that does everything, because different people need different things. You wouldn't make an apple pie with Fiji apples, and you wouldn't treat stress with a high-strung sativa strain.

RandomRandom: Can you sell joints for 5 cents, pre tax?


Actually, we give them away free with purchase.

RandomRandom: Can your suppliers supply product at that price, pre tax?


State law says that we need to produce at least 75% of our product in-house. With the exception of edibles, we produce 100% of our product in-house.

RandomRandom: only industrially scaled farms


Which we own five of.

RandomRandom: and industrially scaled production lines


You have no idea how cannabis works...you seem to think that everybody out there purchases pre-rolled joints.

RandomRandom: You have access to illicit farms, illicit product, illicit payrolls, illicit transportation. All of those illicit costs make your product completely unenviable in a legalized world.


Again, you have no idea how this industry works. Every single thing we do, from every seed planted to every joint rolled, is monitored and tracked by the state. "From Seed to Sale," they call it. The system is set up that way, and it is a good system. Every year for every store we pay $10,000 in fees to the state for the privilege of being allowed to run our MMJ business. Not only do we pay our commercial taxes to the state and local communities, our employees all have their w4s and i9s and pay their taxes as well. Our transportation of material is far from illicit, as we have to file a manifest with all state law enforcement agencies any time we get on the road with product, detailing what we have, where we are taking it to and from, what we are driving, who is driving, and how long we will be on the road. The suppliers of our edibles are all subject to monthly inspections from the Department of Health, and as good business-owners we inspect their facilities ourselves at least twice yearly. We have very good relationships with all of our edibles suppliers.

RandomRandom: Even if you had access to legal farms, would they be scaled industrially?


We do, and they are. They are also under 24-hour state surveillance, in accordance with the law.

RandomRandom: What about mile-long cigarette factories capable of producing cigarettes for less than 3 cents?


Again, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that people buy joints. Practically nobody buys joints. That is why we give them away. Marijuana actually requires very little processing compared to tobacco.

RandomRandom: Were Big Tobacco to start selling their product at Wal Mart and Costco for 1/20th to 1/40th your prices, could you continue to exist? Of course not.


My tobacconist seems to do pretty well for himself.

RandomRandom: You are a modern speak easy. Just as with the speakeasies of the twenties, most dispensaries would immediately go under.


No, we are a legal commercial storefront with the infrastructure already in place to expand our business to meet demand. You seem to think that we're some kind of shady hole-in-the-wall operation that's ducking through the shadows to avoid the long arm of the law. We deal with the law and the politics of this industry every single day. I am speaking from experience here.

Your error here, besides your foolish pride that is making you want to "win" some argument instead of listening to and learning from someone with experience in this industry, is believing that the two industries are alike. I believe that you know how Big Tobacco works. But you have absolutely no idea how Big Cannabis does.

Fancy another go?
 
2012-08-28 09:54:01 PM

RandomRandom: My doctor says that all of the young lung cancer patients he sees are heavy weed users


i bet all of the patients he sees that have been married for 50 years are losing their hair as well.
conclusion: marriage causes hair loss.
 
2012-08-28 10:03:49 PM

RandomRandom: OK So Amuse Me: I took many tests including IQ tests tested out at 124, To think I could have been at 132

If you're so smart, why haven't you realized that an average 8 point drop for a person of average IQ - 100, is a rather more dramatic decrease that you may have suffered?

For the average person, it could bring the potential for a substantial decrease in mental acuity.  Even worse, for those innately at the limits of the competency barrier, this could result in a debilitating IQ loss.


Why do you just assume that I haven't? Believe me, with my upbringing I was more shocked to discover my IQ than you might believe. I knew I had common sense, street smarts and adaptability on my side, had to use those on a daily basis.

Perhaps there are some other factors involved also... If this test group is stationery enough to monitor for that prolonged a period that sort of suggests to me that they might have been a bunch of dead enders from the start.

Whereas I have traveled extensively, interacted with people from all over the world, had to adapt to various stressful and traumatic life changes and usually managed to land on my feet even though I twisted my ankle plenty of times.

I just know that this debate won't be decided on this one study, nor anytime in the near future.

Don't like cannabis?
Don't smoke it.
Also don't get migraines. (mine last on average, three debilitating days a go)
You might find weed helps kill it quicker.
 
2012-08-28 10:08:22 PM

RandomRandom: Were Big Tobacco to start selling their product at Wal Mart and Costco for 1/20th to 1/40th your prices, could you continue to exist? Of course not.


You can buy cheap nasty coffee at a gas station, and yet somehow, Starbucks is booming.

Radar, don't waste your time on RanRan, he's obviously angry at the sativa and full of shiat. Good luck to you and your business and thanks for fighting the good fight.

I don't use any drugs, other than coffee, myself, but it is clear that marijuana is harmless, has health benefits, and may even be a cure for cancer, and it is also long past obvious that the drug war does far more harm than good.

Probably the only reason that marijuana is not yet legal is that the government fears being sued for wrongful incarceration by the millions of citizens harmed by the drug war.
 
2012-08-28 11:21:55 PM

orbister: FloydA: If pot was legal for sale to people over 21, then it would be cheaper for people to buy it legally than to buy it on the black market, so fewer people would go to the corner dealers.

Yes, because corner dealers will be assiduous about paying state and federal taxes on it. That's why something like 80% of all (perfectly legal) hand-rolling tobacco in the UK is sold on the black market. Oh, wait. Oops.


I would like to respond to your points, but I really want to couch my reply in terms that are appropriate for my audience, so I have to ask you a few questions first. 1) Did your mother drink a lot when she was pregnant with you? 2) Are you the offspring of a brother/sister marriage? 3) Has the word "Thalidomide" been used a lot in your presence? 4) Are you currently being treated for an open head wound?

If you can reassure me on those four points, I will gladly explain why legitimate businessmen who pay taxes are less likely to be arrested and therefore more likely to make a profit than black marketeers. But you have to meet me half-way here. I'll answer your questions about my understanding of economics if you will answer my questions about your severe congenital and/or traumatic brain damage.

Fair?
 
Displayed 48 of 248 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report