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.

(AsiaOne)   New study says smoking between one and seven joints a week causes brain abnormalities in young adults that make them unfocused on   (yourhealth.asiaone.com) divider line 117
    More: Interesting, behavioural sciences, brain abnormalities, Journal of Neuroscience, nucleus accumbens, drinking alcohol, White House Office, brains  
•       •       •

977 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Apr 2014 at 11:07 AM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-16 09:48:02 AM
I don't think anyone can seriously argue against the overwhelming evidence that pot is bad for you in the long-run, though a lot of proponents still try to convince you otherwise with their pseudoscience and proof-by-example fallacies.
 
2014-04-16 09:48:48 AM
Which is why the states that have legalized it have also set a minimum age for purchasing and consuming marijuana.

It's recreational, but it's also damaging to growing brains. Pretending like it's a magic cure-all without realistically looking at the facts is not good science.
 
2014-04-16 09:55:28 AM
Dave's not here had an aneurysm man.
 
2014-04-16 09:55:53 AM
B-b-b-but pot is 42.
 
2014-04-16 10:00:15 AM

Lucky LaRue: I don't think anyone can seriously argue against the overwhelming evidence that pot is bad for you in the long-run, though a lot of proponents still try to convince you otherwise with their pseudoscience and proof-by-example fallacies.


True, though this can be said about any single habit.
 
2014-04-16 10:04:00 AM
yep, they call it reefer madness, there's a video.
 
2014-04-16 10:05:42 AM

RedPhoenix122: Lucky LaRue: I don't think anyone can seriously argue against the overwhelming evidence that pot is bad for you in the long-run, though a lot of proponents still try to convince you otherwise with their pseudoscience and proof-by-example fallacies.

True, though this can be said about any single habit.


Drinking alcohol chief among them. So why is a drug that has tons of dangers, both to the consumer and to society, completely legal for people over 21 but a drug that poses limited risk to the consumer and basically none to society is completely illegal in federal law?
 
2014-04-16 10:06:28 AM
Sounds like another tightly controlled study, funded by legit sources, and resulting in wholly unambiguous findings. Should be hilarious to read.
 
2014-04-16 10:09:16 AM

Serious Black: Drinking alcohol chief among them. So why is a drug that has tons of dangers, both to the consumer and to society, completely legal for people over 21 but a drug that poses limited risk to the consumer and basically none to society is completely illegal in federal law?


Morality laws.
 
2014-04-16 10:43:02 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Which is why the states that have legalized it have also set a minimum age for purchasing and consuming marijuana.

It's recreational, but it's also damaging to growing brains. Pretending like it's a magic cure-all without realistically looking at the facts is not good science.


Of course, setting a minmum age makes it more attractive to growing brains, which tend to do things that damage their growing brains because their decision-making skills are limited by the fact that their brains aren't yet grown.

/intelligent design my ass
 
2014-04-16 11:08:58 AM
on?...on what?

i171.photobucket.com

Finish!...the farking story, man!
 
2014-04-16 11:20:54 AM

fruitloop: on?...on what?

Finish!...the farking story, man!



he did finish.  i no longer focus on young adults.
 
2014-04-16 11:22:29 AM

RedPhoenix122: Serious Black: So why is a drug that has tons of dangers, both to the consumer and to society, completely legal for people over 21 but a drug that poses limited risk to the consumer and basically none to society is completely illegal in federal law?

Morality laws.


Also, a good deal of expensive lobbying paid for by the same people who wish to continue selling you the drug that has tons of dangers, both to the consumer and to society.
 
2014-04-16 11:24:11 AM
If only there were some way to control the sales and marketing of pot so that young people find it hard to obtain.
 
2014-04-16 11:25:58 AM

Serious Black: Drinking alcohol chief among them. So why is a drug that has tons of dangers, both to the consumer and to society, completely legal for people over 21 but a drug that poses limited risk to the consumer and basically none to society is completely illegal in federal law?


I've always heard that a big part of it was certain individuals (William Randolph Hearst) with massive financial & political clout, had huge investments in the timber industry....and thus had major incentives to lobby hard to eliminate the primary competition (hemp & all other forms of MJ) to his pulp/paper empire.
 
2014-04-16 11:28:30 AM

RedPhoenix122: Serious Black: Drinking alcohol chief among them. So why is a drug that has tons of dangers, both to the consumer and to society, completely legal for people over 21 but a drug that poses limited risk to the consumer and basically none to society is completely illegal in federal law?

Morality laws.


No, history.  Morality took its shot back in the 1800's and early 1900's (temperance movement) but was ruined by the results of Prohibition (rise of organized crime, no significant drop in consumption).  People have been consuming alcohol for thousands of years.  It's part of culture, religion, and society.  Pot was seen differently; it doesn't have the same history and acceptance as alcohol.  So, yeah, morality there, fed by the lack of societal experience with it.  Basically, alcohol is grandfathered in.
 
2014-04-16 11:31:27 AM

Galloping Galoshes: Pot was seen differently; it doesn't have the same history and acceptance as alcohol


In America, you mean.

The real allure of making pot illegal is that it was smoked mostly by Mexicans.  That made Mexicans easier to lock up.
 
2014-04-16 11:32:36 AM

ristst: Serious Black: Drinking alcohol chief among them. So why is a drug that has tons of dangers, both to the consumer and to society, completely legal for people over 21 but a drug that poses limited risk to the consumer and basically none to society is completely illegal in federal law?

I've always heard that a big part of it was certain individuals (William Randolph Hearst) with massive financial & political clout, had huge investments in the timber industry....and thus had major incentives to lobby hard to eliminate the primary competition (hemp & all other forms of MJ) to his pulp/paper empire.


Knowing Hearst, that's unlikely.  If there was money in it, he would have found a way to take it over.  Also, hemp has never been a significant competitor to timber/paper/pulp.  It's uses were primarily cordage (rope) and foodstuffs.  It wasn't until very recently that hemp has been a significant component in building materials.
 
2014-04-16 11:35:53 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Galloping Galoshes: Pot was seen differently; it doesn't have the same history and acceptance as alcohol

In America, you mean.

The real allure of making pot illegal is that it was smoked mostly by Mexicans.  That made Mexicans easier to lock up.


And Blacks.
 
2014-04-16 11:35:55 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Galloping Galoshes: Pot was seen differently; it doesn't have the same history and acceptance as alcohol

In America, you mean.

The real allure of making pot illegal is that it was smoked mostly by Mexicans.  That made Mexicans easier to lock up.


In western culture generally.  I think your second statement is unlikely, except possibly in the Southwest. There was a strong counter-culture aspect to using pot in the rest of the country (hash came from the heathen East.
 
2014-04-16 11:38:32 AM

Galloping Galoshes: Marcus Aurelius: Galloping Galoshes: Pot was seen differently; it doesn't have the same history and acceptance as alcohol

In America, you mean.

The real allure of making pot illegal is that it was smoked mostly by Mexicans.  That made Mexicans easier to lock up.

In western culture generally.  I think your second statement is unlikely, except possibly in the Southwest. There was a strong counter-culture aspect to using pot in the rest of the country (hash came from the heathen East.


Missing a ) there.  Hash and pot have a long history as well, but not in western cultures.
 
2014-04-16 11:39:44 AM

Galloping Galoshes: RedPhoenix122: Serious Black: Drinking alcohol chief among them. So why is a drug that has tons of dangers, both to the consumer and to society, completely legal for people over 21 but a drug that poses limited risk to the consumer and basically none to society is completely illegal in federal law?

Morality laws.

No, history.  Morality took its shot back in the 1800's and early 1900's (temperance movement) but was ruined by the results of Prohibition (rise of organized crime, no significant drop in consumption).  People have been consuming alcohol for thousands of years.  It's part of culture, religion, and society.  Pot was seen differently; it doesn't have the same history and acceptance as alcohol.  So, yeah, morality there, fed by the lack of societal experience with it.  Basically, alcohol is grandfathered in.


"We've always done it this way" is a Goddamn moronic reason to keep doing something.
 
2014-04-16 11:40:24 AM
Here are the facts of this study---

* the sample size was 20 - ridiculously small and renders the "study" worthless right off the bat
* not peer reviewed
* paid for by pharmaceutical companies

How does this not scream of an agenda to everyone?
 
2014-04-16 11:42:23 AM

Serious Black: RedPhoenix122: Lucky LaRue: I don't think anyone can seriously argue against the overwhelming evidence that pot is bad for you in the long-run, though a lot of proponents still try to convince you otherwise with their pseudoscience and proof-by-example fallacies.

True, though this can be said about any single habit.

Drinking alcohol chief among them. So why is a drug that has tons of dangers, both to the consumer and to society, completely legal for people over 21 but a drug that poses limited risk to the consumer and basically none to society is completely illegal in federal law?


Because they tried to make it unconstitutional and it was a miserable failure
 
2014-04-16 11:44:30 AM

Galloping Galoshes: RedPhoenix122: Serious Black: Drinking alcohol chief among them. So why is a drug that has tons of dangers, both to the consumer and to society, completely legal for people over 21 but a drug that poses limited risk to the consumer and basically none to society is completely illegal in federal law?

Morality laws.

No, history.  Morality took its shot back in the 1800's and early 1900's (temperance movement) but was ruined by the results of Prohibition (rise of organized crime, no significant drop in consumption).  People have been consuming alcohol for thousands of years.  It's part of culture, religion, and society.  Pot was seen differently; it doesn't have the same history and acceptance as alcohol.  So, yeah, morality there, fed by the lack of societal experience with it.  Basically, alcohol is grandfathered in.


People have been consuming pot for thousands of years too. Morality does factor into it. How many times do you hear "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" when legalization of cannabis is discussed?

Tons of reasons why pot was criminalized. It's only now that the general populace is starting to call bullshiat on those reasons.
 
2014-04-16 11:46:07 AM
So... more than seven and you'll be safe?
 
2014-04-16 11:48:32 AM

Marcus Aurelius: If only there were some way to control the sales and marketing of pot so that young people find it hard to obtain.


I know.  And the system works because teens never get access to alcohol.
 
2014-04-16 11:49:57 AM

RedPhoenix122: Lucky LaRue: I don't think anyone can seriously argue against the overwhelming evidence that pot is bad for you in the long-run, though a lot of proponents still try to convince you otherwise with their pseudoscience and proof-by-example fallacies.

True, though this can be said about any single habit.


content8.flixster.com
                              "People on ludes should not drive."
 
2014-04-16 11:51:00 AM

fortunesmith: Here are the facts of this study---

* the sample size was 20 - ridiculously small and renders the "study" worthless right off the bat
* not peer reviewed
* paid for by pharmaceutical companies

How does this not scream of an agenda to everyone?


The sample size is not really that big of a deal since a single study never (dis)proves anything, regardless of how big or small the sample. It just adds to the total corpus of literature on the subject. Cade studies of a single subject are still valuable to medical research, for example, and sometimes smaller sample studies provide information on the subject that is lost in large sample studies. Of course, all of that depends on the (quasi)experiment's design. But as a general rule, power analysis can determine an appropriate sample size for investigating certain hypothesized effect sizes, and make crticism over sample sizes kind of irrelevant.

Also, the source of funding for research is often also not a big deal since funding has to come from somewhere. Until someone can point to a part of the grant contract that says the sponsor has final say over what can be published (or something equally suspicious) I don't see any reason to assume questionable research based on funding sponsor.

In general, more people could benefit from a stat methods and research methods course.
 
2014-04-16 11:59:15 AM

Galloping Galoshes: Knowing Hearst, that's unlikely. If there was money in it, he would have found a way to take it over. Also, hemp has never been a significant competitor to timber/paper/pulp. It's uses were primarily cordage (rope) and foodstuffs. It wasn't until very recently that hemp has been a significant component in building materials.


Not a history expert here by any stretch, but a quick web search yields tons of articles that cite Hearst and DuPont having a hand in the legislation...some say more while others say less.  Other articles cite racism and other sociological reasons were the primary fuel, rather than the paper industry.

As with most of these kind of theories, I suspect the truth is probably somewhere in between.
 
2014-04-16 12:03:16 PM
It makes sense.  Now that the flower children are entering their golden years, the catastrophic effects of decades of daily marijuana abuse are plain to see. Except they're not, unlike any other toxic substance on the planet.
 
2014-04-16 12:10:23 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Marcus Aurelius: Galloping Galoshes: Pot was seen differently; it doesn't have the same history and acceptance as alcohol

In America, you mean.

The real allure of making pot illegal is that it was smoked mostly by Mexicans.  That made Mexicans easier to lock up.

In western culture generally.  I think your second statement is unlikely, except possibly in the Southwest. There was a strong counter-culture aspect to using pot in the rest of the country (hash came from the heathen East.


Harry Anslinger is the name I was looking for.
 
2014-04-16 12:11:52 PM

mjbok: And the system works because teens never get access to alcohol


I said "harder to obtain", you goofball.
 
Oak
2014-04-16 12:29:59 PM

Galloping Galoshes: ristst: Serious Black: Drinking alcohol chief among them. So why is a drug that has tons of dangers, both to the consumer and to society, completely legal for people over 21 but a drug that poses limited risk to the consumer and basically none to society is completely illegal in federal law?

I've always heard that a big part of it was certain individuals (William Randolph Hearst) with massive financial & political clout, had huge investments in the timber industry....and thus had major incentives to lobby hard to eliminate the primary competition (hemp & all other forms of MJ) to his pulp/paper empire.

Knowing Hearst, that's unlikely.  If there was money in it, he would have found a way to take it over.  Also, hemp has never been a significant competitor to timber/paper/pulp.  It's uses were primarily cordage (rope) and foodstuffs.  It wasn't until very recently that hemp has been a significant component in building materials.


Hearst is said to have believed that the improvements George Schlichten patented for the decorticator in 1919 made hemp an economic competitor to timber for pulp production.
 
2014-04-16 12:37:13 PM
If the first mate is hauling 497 1/2 feet of rope aboard your vessel, you might be a bit concerned.

/obscure?
 
2014-04-16 12:49:58 PM

Marcus Aurelius: I said "harder to obtain", you goofball.


Back in the day (late 80's), it was MUCH easier to get ahold of weed than alcohol.  Not to mention the fact that weed is much easier to hide based purely on volume.  Things may very well have changed since the days of my mis-spent youth, but legalization would make something already easily accessible even more so.
 
2014-04-16 12:58:15 PM
This study only had a sample size of 20. It's the same one the AP is sending through papers sound the country. Bullshiat is bullshiat.
 
2014-04-16 01:00:26 PM

Serious Black: "We've always done it this way" is a Goddamn moronic reason to keep doing something.


Sometimes not.  When the reason is forgotten, bad things can happen when "always done it this way" is forgotten.  Like why people didn't build in a historic flood plain.  On the other hand...  back between the big wars, the British were reexamining their artillery procedures.  In one step, before firing, one soldier was to proceed 20 yards away from the guns and stood at attention.  No one could figure out why.  They brought in an old artillery man, who thought, and thought, and then exclaimed, "Of course!  He's holding the horses!"  So, sometimes you're right.
 
2014-04-16 01:02:21 PM

fortunesmith: Here are the facts of this study---

* the sample size was 20 - ridiculously small and renders the "study" worthless right off the bat
* not peer reviewed
* paid for by pharmaceutical companies

How does this not scream of an agenda to everyone?


It just so happens it agrees with other peer-reviewed studies that show hindrances to brain development for people under the age of 17 who smoke pot?
 
2014-04-16 01:11:22 PM
Hey, I smoked that much as a teenager and I turned out ok.

/well, mostly insane actually
//only in the mornings
 
2014-04-16 01:28:39 PM

PreMortem: Hey, I smoked that much as a teenager and I turned out ok.

/well, mostly insane actually
//only in the mornings


You're on Fark.  'Nuf said.
 
2014-04-16 01:35:44 PM

MayoSlather: Sounds like another tightly controlled study, funded by legit sources, and resulting in wholly unambiguous findings. Should be hilarious to read.

 Yeah, about that... FTFA:
The study to be published on Wednesday in the Journal of Neuroscience differs from many other pot-related research projects that are focused on chronic, heavy users of cannabis.

The study, which was funded in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.


Not saying that these observations won't be useful when determining the actual mechanisms/actions of the `endogenous' cannabinoids  circulating through all humans (neurotransmitter/anandamides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anandamide ). However, as the conclusions posited are more about the next round of funding from sponsors that have never paid out for any `good' news, I'll wait until the armies of amotivational youth come wandering zombie like through the malls - oh, they already do that without benefit of drugs?

Not saying the researchers aren't on to something - but mixing up `acute' & `chronic' for purposes of propaganda doesn't inspire confidence.  But, to the acute `slow down' (guess you could call it `amotivation'):  Nixon's `72 Shafer Commission (recommended decrim & Nixon went ballistic):

Violent Crime:
"Further, no findings indicated that marihuana was generally or frequently used immediately prior to the commission of offenses in the very small number of instances in which these offense's did occur. In contrast, however, the aggressive and violent offenders in this sample did report with significantly greater frequency the use of alcohol within 24 hours of the offense in question.
These findings should be considered in light of an earlier West Coast study of disadvantaged minority-group youthful marihuana users, many of whom were raised in a combative and aggressive social milieu similar to that found in several of the West Philadelphia sampled neighborhoods. The data show that marihuana users were much less likely to commit aggressive or violent acts than were those who preferred amphetamines or alcohol. They also show that most marihuana users were able to condition themselves to avoid aggressive behavior even in the face of provocation. In fact, marihuana was found to play a significant role in youth's transition from a "rowdy" to a "cool," non-violent style"
http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/documents/nc1contents.aspx

If researchers in U.S. only had some way to obtain marijuana without having to spend years just trying to receive initial permission from NIDA, et al, maybe valid observations by researchers so funded wouldn't end up being overplayed like NIDA's public service ads (yo' mama gonna find you dead!).
 
2014-04-16 01:41:29 PM
What about eating or vaporizing the equivalent of 1-7 joints per week, to see if it's the marijuana or the way it's consumed.
 
2014-04-16 01:47:45 PM

cevarius: What about eating or vaporizing the equivalent of 1-7 joints per week, to see if it's the marijuana or the way it's consumed.


A clear case for the researcher to participate in the experiment.  Hey, self-experimentation has a long and distinguished history.
 
2014-04-16 01:49:04 PM
I love how many "think of the children!" articles we get now with regards to cannabis.

It's bad for the children! No farking kidding, shocking news that altering the chemistry of developing brains is bad for kids. So is beer. And HFCS. And trans fat. And porn.

But guess what? I'm not a farking child, so what's bad for children should have zero affect on whether it should be legal for me. And yet somehow all those things that are bad for kids are ok for adults except cannabis.
 
2014-04-16 02:01:25 PM
Apparently marijuanas cause your balls to fall off too.
 
2014-04-16 02:03:56 PM

Semper IvXx: And porn.


You take that back. Your farking with my childhood there. The other things you mentioned as well, but I digress.
 
2014-04-16 02:04:31 PM
' e
 
2014-04-16 02:05:00 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Serious Black: "We've always done it this way" is a Goddamn moronic reason to keep doing something.

Sometimes not.  When the reason is forgotten, bad things can happen when "always done it this way" is forgotten.  Like why people didn't build in a historic flood plain.  On the other hand...  back between the big wars, the British were reexamining their artillery procedures.  In one step, before firing, one soldier was to proceed 20 yards away from the guns and stood at attention.  No one could figure out why.  They brought in an old artillery man, who thought, and thought, and then exclaimed, "Of course!  He's holding the horses!"  So, sometimes you're right.


I think there's a pretty big difference between "We forgot what the reason was" and "I don't care what the reason was." If you've forgotten, you can always go back and look it up or do other forms of research. To make the flood plain example look like the British artillery example, you could hire a civil engineer (or some other engineer if I'm getting the exact type wrong) to examine an undeveloped area and determine its suitability for development. If they're worth their weight in salt, they'll come back to you with a report that says "Hey guys, this area is a flood plain, you shouldn't build anything here unless you want it to get flooded."
 
2014-04-16 02:05:36 PM
given the ever increasing potency of the shiat  these days...anyone smoking 7 joints a week is just wasting a LOT of weed, or their tolerance is way to high and they need to slow down anyways.

/seriusly...I am a daily user and an 1/8 lasts me 3-4 months.
 
Displayed 50 of 117 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report