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.

(Mother Nature Network)   New study discovers that if you're a heavy user of marijuana, even Ritalin won't help you get focused and concentrate   (mnn.com) divider line 112
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1368 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Jul 2014 at 9:31 AM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-16 02:15:50 AM
This is great!  Con's should provide as much free grass as possible to Democrats!
 
2014-07-16 07:41:51 AM
It's an awful shame when you're fast enough to grab that premier spot for your message designed to derail a pot thread with a predictably hyperbolic bit of political douchebaggery, but you're too stupid to understand the difference between plural and possessive. It's like being in a bar and taking a chance on that really hot girl and her friends and for 15 minutes you talk to them and they're laughing and seem to be having a great time with you and then you leave to get more drinks and realize that your fly's been down the whole time and the tail of your shirt is sticking out. Slow down a little next time, breathe. Don't rush it. It's like firing a gun -- you know about firing a gun, right? Slow, steady pressure on the trigger....aim and breathe....then squeeze. Don't jerk. Never jerk.
 
2014-07-16 07:44:21 AM
I love riling up the heads early in the morning.

/oh who am I kidding, the heads aren't awake till noon......
 
2014-07-16 07:44:41 AM
lh6.ggpht.com
 
2014-07-16 08:07:44 AM
LinWell duh. Ritalin isn't going to help you focus if you're a heavy user of any drug. I've seen people take it when drinking - they're also not more focused, they simply spend more on booze that night.
 
2014-07-16 08:32:11 AM
Headline :  New study links excessive marijuana use to brain damage

The second to last paragraph :  Researchers noted that these results only show a correlation between excessive marijuana use and blunted dopamine response. It's still unclear whether excessive marijuana use is actually causing damage to the brain's reward circuitry, or whether people who already have damaged reward circuitry just happen to gravitate more toward using marijuana.

Nice trolling there Mother Nature network.
 
2014-07-16 08:41:16 AM
Oh and the authors of the study-

Decreased dopamine brain reactivity in marijuana abusers is associated with negative emotionality and addiction severity

Nora D. Volkow a, b, 1,
Gene-Jack Wang a,
Frank Telang a,
Joanna S. Fowler c, 1,
David Alexoff c,
Jean Logan d,
Millard Jayne a,
Christopher Wong a,
Dardo Tomasi a

a Laboratory of Neuroimaging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Rockville, MD 20857;
b National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD 20857;
c Biosciences Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973; and
d Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY 10016


No Bias there, no sirree...
 
2014-07-16 09:12:32 AM

Pocket Ninja: It's an awful shame when you're fast enough to grab that premier spot for your message designed to derail a pot thread with a predictably hyperbolic bit of political douchebaggery, but you're too stupid to understand the difference between plural and possessive. It's like being in a bar and taking a chance on that really hot girl and her friends and for 15 minutes you talk to them and they're laughing and seem to be having a great time with you and then you leave to get more drinks and realize that your fly's been down the whole time and the tail of your shirt is sticking out. Slow down a little next time, breathe. Don't rush it. It's like firing a gun -- you know about firing a gun, right? Slow, steady pressure on the trigger....aim and breathe....then squeeze. Don't jerk. Never jerk.


Typical American partisan. "Fire!  Ready!  Aim!"
 
2014-07-16 09:16:35 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say excessive use of anything is probably going to not be great for you.

Of course, then the argument becomes what precisely defines "excessive."  I don't want to get into that now, though.  I'm still pretty cheesed from my 'good morning' bong hit.
 
2014-07-16 09:40:49 AM

lindalouwho: LinWell duh. Ritalin Cocaine isn't going to help you focus if you're a heavy user of any drug. I've seen people take it when drinking - they're also not more focused, they simply spend more on booze that night.


FTFY
 
2014-07-16 09:52:44 AM

Diogenes: I'm going to go out on a limb and say excessive use of anything is probably going to not be great for you.

Of course, then the argument becomes what precisely defines "excessive."  I don't want to get into that now, though.  I'm still pretty cheesed from my 'good morning' bong hit.


it's true; i excessively wore tight socks everyday for 2 years; now i have no leg hair around my ankles.
 
2014-07-16 09:56:18 AM

Mjeck: Diogenes: I'm going to go out on a limb and say excessive use of anything is probably going to not be great for you.

Of course, then the argument becomes what precisely defines "excessive."  I don't want to get into that now, though.  I'm still pretty cheesed from my 'good morning' bong hit.

it's true; i excessively wore tight socks everyday for 2 years; now i have no leg hair around my ankles.


I feel much better since I switched from briefs to boxers.
 
2014-07-16 09:56:33 AM
It's on the Mother Nature Network so it must be true.

And honestly I'm concerned. If heavy abusive marijuana use makes Ritalin ineffective how the hell are we supposed to control our kids? Actually parent? Screw that, ban the devil's lettuce so we can continue drugging our children into submission with pharmaceuticals like Jesus intended!
 
2014-07-16 10:04:50 AM

Dinki: Oh and the authors of the study-

Decreased dopamine brain reactivity in marijuana abusers is associated with negative emotionality and addiction severity

Nora D. Volkow a, b, 1,
Gene-Jack Wang a,
Frank Telang a,
Joanna S. Fowler c, 1,
David Alexoff c,
Jean Logan d,
Millard Jayne a,
Christopher Wong a,
Dardo Tomasi a

a Laboratory of Neuroimaging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Rockville, MD 20857;
b National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD 20857;
c Biosciences Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973; and
d Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY 10016


No Bias there, no sirree...


That is all well and good, but I don't see what is so hard to believe about the possibility that excess pot results in a messed up dopamine response.

Many prescribed psychiatric drugs as well as heroin or even diuretics/laxatives can result in exactly that kind of body response.

You take a drug that artificially boosts chemical x (or its effects - see ssri's) and your body adjusts (sometimes) to it by making less on its own.

I wouldn't call it brain damage though. Things can get back to normal over time. The brain, as normal as ever, just has to readjust.
 
2014-07-16 10:10:34 AM

Smackledorfer: I wouldn't call it brain damage though. Things can get back to normal over time. The brain, as normal as ever, just has to readjust.


That's not necessarily true.  Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't.  Sometimes an excess of a chemical causes you to attenuate receptors for it.  You don't always get those back.  Depends on the chemical and its receptor.

Not all addictions follow the same precise mechanisms in your brain.
 
2014-07-16 10:12:39 AM
"...Possibly interfere with dopamine receptors."

Huh, that's not good, but it makes sense, from what I've seen in others who have smoked for years. That's got me worried, cuz I used to smoke quite a bit before the baby...

excessive marijuana users, each of whom smoked a median of about five joints a day, five days a week, for 10 years.

An eighth to a quo a day? How the hell are these people such heavy users that can still hold down a job that affords them $50-100/day to spend on pot? Also, maybe buy better pot instead of smoking so much of it? I can't remember the last time I had bud that bad that I had to smoke 5 Js a day to maintain.
 
2014-07-16 10:16:47 AM

Dinki: Oh and the authors of the study-

Decreased dopamine brain reactivity in marijuana abusers is associated with negative emotionality and addiction severity

Nora D. Volkow a, b, 1,
Gene-Jack Wang a,
Frank Telang a,
Joanna S. Fowler c, 1,
David Alexoff c,
Jean Logan d,
Millard Jayne a,
Christopher Wong a,
Dardo Tomasi a

a Laboratory of Neuroimaging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Rockville, MD 20857;
b National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD 20857;
c Biosciences Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973; and
d Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY 10016


No Bias there, no sirree...


People who study addiction aren't magically biased, dumbass.  If anything, it's an area of expertise that provides better comparative insight.

Sorry, you want to play with legal Marijuana, you're going to have to accept that there are negative aspects to it.  Drugs aren't magic problem solvers, even if we can collectively move past seeing all artificial highs as being inherently bad.
 
2014-07-16 10:20:17 AM

lindalouwho: LinWell duh. Ritalin isn't going to help you focus if you're a heavy user of any drug. I've seen people take it when drinking - they're also not more focused, they simply spend more on booze that night.


Ritalin is just a high-grade stimulant.  Cocaine or (pure) caffeine have similar effects on people with ADHD.  Yeah, everyone is confused at the idea of using stimulants to treat hyperactivity, but the underlying causes are under-firing neurons(compared to an arbitrary definition of healthy), which in turn causes a lack of focus.
 
2014-07-16 10:30:40 AM

ikanreed: you're going to have to accept that there are negative aspects to it. Drugs aren't magic problem solvers, even if we can collectively move past seeing all artificial highs as being inherently bad.


This is the part of the pot debate I don't get.  Any time the possibilities of any side-effects are raised people get bent out of shape like it's crazy to think something that gets you high might not be all rainbows and unicorns.  I'm not anti-pot.  I don't care if it's legal or not.  But there are people on the pro side of the debate (for legalization, not just for medical use) who claim (on Fark) that it doesn't impair you for driving and there are no bad parts to it at all.
 
2014-07-16 10:31:27 AM
"The study provided Ritalin to 24 excessive marijuana users, each of whom smoked a median of about five joints a day, five days a week, for 10 years."

That's some seriously heavy marijuana (ab)use. I'd wager if you put these stoners in head-to-head physical and mental health tests against a bunch of drunks who similarly abused alcohol on a daily basis for a solid decade the potheads would come out looking pretty good.

It's amazing how pathetic research into marijuana harm is when it's used to back up the nation's absurd drug laws. So we found out that spending multiple years smoking so much pot that if your body ever gets cremated everyone at your funeral is getting high causes a reduced sensitivity to other mind altering drugs... That's it?!

How does that compare to someone who spent the last decade knocking back a fifth of Vodka a day?
 
2014-07-16 10:33:27 AM
My ex-wife burned out any ability I had to feel pleasure long ago. Maybe I should take up heavy marijuana use.
 
2014-07-16 10:47:19 AM

ikanreed: People who study addiction aren't magically biased, dumbass.

 
People who study addiction aren't magically unbiased either, dumbass.
 
2014-07-16 10:47:40 AM

Diogenes: I'm going to go out on a limb and say excessive use of anything is probably going to not be great for you.

Of course, then the argument becomes what precisely defines "excessive."  I don't want to get into that now, though.  I'm still pretty cheesed from my 'good morning' bong hit.


According to the study:

The study provided Ritalin to 24 excessive marijuana users, each of whom smoked a median of about five joints a day, five days a week, for 10 years. A control group of equal size was also provided with Ritalin. Researchers then compared the two groups' reactions to the heightened levels of dopamine in their systems. Members of the control group experienced greater increases in heart rate and diastolic blood pressure than the marijuana abusers did. The control group also reported feeling more high, restless, anxious and affected by the drug in general. PET scans confirmed differences in brain activation between the two groups. 

Read more:  http://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/stories/new-study-links- e xcessive-marijuana-use-to-brain-damage#ixzz37driaLz5


At first glance that sounds like a lot to me, but it depends on the quality of mj and other things.  But my question is how would one convert the measurement used (joints) to other consumption methods? Is a one hitter equiv to one joint?

Even if that is the case, the study is not supported by anecdotal evidence. CSB, one time my friend stayed out too late and someone gave him ritalin to help him drive home.  He didn't take it then but later on, on the weekend after he verified it was ritalin.  He said it was awesome, he ended up vacuuming (used the extension tube) the bed spreads instead of using a cat brush, something he never considered before.  He said he felt like the old lady in Requiem for a Dream.  He could see why folks abuse it, he liked it, and why he didn't want anymore.

TL;DR Ritilan affected a heavy user just fine.
 
2014-07-16 10:48:18 AM

mjbok: ikanreed: you're going to have to accept that there are negative aspects to it. Drugs aren't magic problem solvers, even if we can collectively move past seeing all artificial highs as being inherently bad.

This is the part of the pot debate I don't get.  Any time the possibilities of any side-effects are raised people get bent out of shape like it's crazy to think something that gets you high might not be all rainbows and unicorns.  I'm not anti-pot.  I don't care if it's legal or not.  But there are people on the pro side of the debate (for legalization, not just for medical use) who claim (on Fark) that it doesn't impair you for driving and there are no bad parts to it at all.


It's a bit like anyone else who's anti-science.  They lock into a perspective, and rather than having the debate in a place that helps their case the most, they start trying to take a complete disregard of evidentialism, as a morally superior approach.

You can identify it in yourself easily.  If you reject organized, carefully collected data out of hand, you're doing it.

There's 3 reasons to reject data, that don't count as "out of hand":
1.  You've got another source with more accurate or reliable processes that outright contradicts the other numbers.   This should be easy to do with "biased" data.
2.  There is a genuine reason to believe there's outright fabrication of data(this one can be fuzzy, but the word "bias" is too low a threshold).
3.  There are clear inferences from underlying data to presented data that don't hold up to scrutiny.

If you can't do one of those, shut up and accept the facts and try and incorporate them into your view.
 
2014-07-16 10:49:23 AM
Conservatives are just Liberals who haven't gotten high yet.
 
2014-07-16 10:51:27 AM

dready zim: People who study addiction aren't magically unbiased either, dumbass.


Burden of farking proof, person who is still being a dumbass, and could have easily stopped.  They have methodology and peer review validating the general processes taken.  You have seeing one word and deciding that's sufficient evidence to declare bias.

One of the great things about science is you can be as personally biased as you want, but a hard experiment stands separately from such problems.  Sure the experiment could be flawed, but you're too dumb to attack the argument or examine methods.  You'd rather reject facts than face a complex world.
 
2014-07-16 10:51:48 AM

Diogenes: Smackledorfer: I wouldn't call it brain damage though. Things can get back to normal over time. The brain, as normal as ever, just has to readjust.

That's not necessarily true.  Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't.  Sometimes an excess of a chemical causes you to attenuate receptors for it.  You don't always get those back.  Depends on the chemical and its receptor.

Not all addictions follow the same precise mechanisms in your brain.


Yea I knew that as I typed it but hoped I could get away with the error and hit send anyway. Also that was a run-on and I'm keeping it that way.

:)
 
2014-07-16 10:52:28 AM

Superjew: Conservatives are just Liberals who haven't gotten high yet.


Some of us liberal folk are pretty sober.  On fark even.
 
2014-07-16 10:52:44 AM

ikanreed: People who study addiction aren't magically biased, dumbass.


Do you really believe that researchers don't understand the expectations of those funding their studies? When the National Institute on Drug Abuse funds a study do you think they want the results of that study to show there are no adverse affects of the drug? When the NRA funds a gun safety study do you really think they want results that show guns are unsafe, or when the oil companies fund a climate change study they want any results other than that climate change is not man made?

And the researchers don't have to be dishonest in their research, they just have to be incomplete. This pot study is a perfect example. They tested 24 users that had been smoking 5 joints a day at least 5 days a week for 10 years. There is no evidence they accounted for other variables like genetics, environment, other drug use, alcohol use, or anything else.  They even admit that the study didn't actually determine if there was any real 'damage' just that the Ritalin did not affect the users the same way it affected the control group. Also, they did not attempt to determine if the reason these particular people were heavy users was because they already had some kind of brain abnormality that predisposed them to pot abuse.

It's bad science, and it serves nobody any good.
 
2014-07-16 10:53:32 AM

mjbok: ikanreed: you're going to have to accept that there are negative aspects to it. Drugs aren't magic problem solvers, even if we can collectively move past seeing all artificial highs as being inherently bad.

This is the part of the pot debate I don't get.  Any time the possibilities of any side-effects are raised people get bent out of shape like it's crazy to think something that gets you high might not be all rainbows and unicorns.  I'm not anti-pot.  I don't care if it's legal or not.  But there are people on the pro side of the debate (for legalization, not just for medical use) who claim (on Fark) that it doesn't impair you for driving and there are no bad parts to it at all.


Sadly you aren't strawmanning.
 
2014-07-16 10:56:34 AM
Dinki, you say they are so biased you cannot trust them, yet the crux of your complaibt about their study comes from who? Oh right, the researchers you don't trust who helpfully chose not to lie in presenting their study.

Do you see how silly that sounds? It is like my climate denier coworker pointing to an noaa revision of their own data as proof they are biased liars.
 
2014-07-16 11:01:20 AM

Dinki: ikanreed: People who study addiction aren't magically biased, dumbass.

Do you really believe that researchers don't understand the expectations of those funding their studies? When the National Institute on Drug Abuse funds a study do you think they want the results of that study to show there are no adverse affects of the drug? When the NRA funds a gun safety study do you really think they want results that show guns are unsafe, or when the oil companies fund a climate change study they want any results other than that climate change is not man made?

And the researchers don't have to be dishonest in their research, they just have to be incomplete. This pot study is a perfect example. They tested 24 users that had been smoking 5 joints a day at least 5 days a week for 10 years. There is no evidence they accounted for other variables like genetics, environment, other drug use, alcohol use, or anything else.   They even admit that the study didn't actually determine if there was any real 'damage' just that the Ritalin did not affect the users the same way it affected the control group. Also, they did not attempt to determine if the reason these particular people were heavy users was because they already had some kind of brain abnormality that predisposed them to pot abuse.

It's bad science, and it serves nobody any good.


Rolling my eyes here.  The study was establishing dopamine uptake.  Ritalin is a well established proxy for that measure.  This is not good criticism, but it's better than screaming bias for no reason.

Also, from the farking paper, the fact that you're a liar.

Marijuana abusers were excluded if they had
a history of substance abuse or dependence (other than marijuana and nicotine), history of other psychiatric or neurological diseases, medical conditions that might alter cerebral function (i.e., cardiovascular, endocrinological, oncological, autoimmune diseases), current use of prescribed or over-the-counter medications, and/or head trauma with loss of consciousness for more than 30 min.  All subjects had Hamilton's Anxiety and Depression scores<19 (32)


Pretending that they didn't control for other factors when they did control for many of the exact factors you mentioned just means you didn't read the methodology, not that the study is flawed.
 
2014-07-16 11:10:04 AM

mjbok: ikanreed: you're going to have to accept that there are negative aspects to it. Drugs aren't magic problem solvers, even if we can collectively move past seeing all artificial highs as being inherently bad.


This is the part of the pot debate I don't get.  Any time the possibilities of any side-effects are raised people get bent out of shape like it's crazy to think something that gets you high might not be all rainbows and unicorns.


The thing is - You have billions of dollars a year going into detecting, prosecuting and punishing pot use, combined with the phenomenal human cost of saddling people with a criminal records that will follow them around for the rest of their lives. Given that, you would normally hope the medical justification for keeping it illegal was more compelling than "people who smoke a joint at least every three hours, every day, for many years tend to have reduced response to other mind altering drugs" or "children who smoke at least three joints a day, every day, from before the age of 15 through to the age of 26 tend to perform slightly worse on IQ tests".
 
2014-07-16 11:13:38 AM

Smackledorfer: Dinki, you say they are so biased you cannot trust them, yet the crux of your complaibt about their study comes from who? Oh right, the researchers you don't trust who helpfully chose not to lie in presenting their study.


So you are saying that we should discount the possibility of bias in the study because the researchers admitted that their study is incomplete?
 
2014-07-16 11:22:22 AM

Dinki: Smackledorfer: Dinki, you say they are so biased you cannot trust them, yet the crux of your complaibt about their study comes from who? Oh right, the researchers you don't trust who helpfully chose not to lie in presenting their study.

So you are saying that we should discount the possibility of bias in the study because the researchers admitted that their study is incomplete?


I am saying your bias is higher than theirs, your knowledge is lower, and your dedication so low you couldn't bring yourself to even fully read the study you wrongly criticize.
 
2014-07-16 11:28:16 AM
I don't use MJ regularly. I dabble in it enough to know that I shouldn't be doing it regularly. YMMV.

In my experience, it affects different people in different ways. Some people just get mellow and relaxed, some get paranoid and edgy, some experience a sort of grand epiphany over every minor realization, some people get very poetic and some just want to dance (badly). And in nearly all cases, the loss of "focus" is a feature, not a bug.
 
2014-07-16 11:29:03 AM

ikanreed: Also, from the farking paper, the fact that you're a liar.

Marijuana abusers were excluded if they had
a history of substance abuse or dependence (other than marijuana and nicotine), history of other psychiatric or neurological diseases, medical conditions that might alter cerebral function (i.e., cardiovascular, endocrinological, oncological, autoimmune diseases), current use of prescribed or over-the-counter medications, and/or head trauma with loss of consciousness for more than 30 min.  All subjects had Hamilton's Anxiety and Depression scores<19 (32)


So they managed to find 24 hardcore pot users, people that smoked at least 5 joints a day for 10 farking years, that never abused any other drugs, never drank excessively, and lived seemingly normal, sedate lives. It's truly mind boggling. Not that I'm saying it's not possible, but it seems ... unlikely.

Although funny thing, I don't see any mention of family history. Did they ask if anyone in their family had neurological issues? Because you know, that might be of some importance.
 
2014-07-16 11:34:50 AM

Dinki: So they managed to find 24 hardcore pot users, people that smoked at least 5 joints a day for 10 farking years, that never abused any other drugs, never drank excessively, and lived seemingly normal, sedate lives. It's truly mind boggling. Not that I'm saying it's not possible, but it seems ... unlikely.


Another way of looking at it - smoking a joint every three hours for ten years straight doesn't prevent you from leading an otherwise normal life.
 
2014-07-16 11:36:56 AM

Target Builder: Dinki: So they managed to find 24 hardcore pot users, people that smoked at least 5 joints a day for 10 farking years, that never abused any other drugs, never drank excessively, and lived seemingly normal, sedate lives. It's truly mind boggling. Not that I'm saying it's not possible, but it seems ... unlikely.

Another way of looking at it - smoking a joint every three hours for ten years straight doesn't prevent you from leading an otherwise normal life.


True, not that I would recommend it.
 
2014-07-16 11:37:57 AM

ikanreed: lindalouwho: LinWell duh. Ritalin isn't going to help you focus if you're a heavy user of any drug. I've seen people take it when drinking - they're also not more focused, they simply spend more on booze that night.

Ritalin is just a high-grade stimulant.  Cocaine or (pure) caffeine have similar effects on people with ADHD.  Yeah, everyone is confused at the idea of using stimulants to treat hyperactivity, but the underlying causes are under-firing neurons(compared to an arbitrary definition of healthy), which in turn causes a lack of focus.


No on the caffeine. Doesn't work that way; doctors tell ADHD patients to not use it, whether the person is taking Ritalin or a similar med.
Cocaine I have seen people self-medicate with. That seems to work for a while, until the "dose" is inevitably raised.and raised again.
 
2014-07-16 11:43:25 AM

Target Builder: The thing is - You have billions of dollars a year going into detecting, prosecuting and punishing pot use, combined with the phenomenal human cost of saddling people with a criminal records that will follow them around for the rest of their lives. Given that, you would normally hope the medical justification for keeping it illegal was more compelling than "people who smoke a joint at least every three hours, every day, for many years tend to have reduced response to other mind altering drugs" or "children who smoke at least three joints a day, every day, from before the age of 15 through to the age of 26 tend to perform slightly worse on IQ tests".


The reasons it was initially made illegal were a ruse, not the real reasons.  The way the government over-stated side-effects, long term damage and addiction have also been laughably false.  In debate class in college (required class) one of the tactics successful debaters (as opposed to master debaters) used was to acknowledge some of the points of their opponent, thereby establishing credibility.  You have idiots on the fence with the issue who hear "there's nothing bad about pot whatever" and they dismiss the rest of the pro-pot arguments out of hand.  That coupled with the farce of medical marijuana (the vast majority of script holders have no legitimate need for it) and the pro pot people have a credibility problem.  Of course, you would hope that these fence sitters would also dismiss the governments points the same way due to the demonstrably false statements they have made.

I've said it once, I'll say it again.  Legalize it and tax the ever living fark out of it.
 
2014-07-16 11:44:52 AM

lindalouwho: ikanreed: lindalouwho: LinWell duh. Ritalin isn't going to help you focus if you're a heavy user of any drug. I've seen people take it when drinking - they're also not more focused, they simply spend more on booze that night.

Ritalin is just a high-grade stimulant.  Cocaine or (pure) caffeine have similar effects on people with ADHD.  Yeah, everyone is confused at the idea of using stimulants to treat hyperactivity, but the underlying causes are under-firing neurons(compared to an arbitrary definition of healthy), which in turn causes a lack of focus.

No on the caffeine. Doesn't work that way; doctors tell ADHD patients to not use it, whether the person is taking Ritalin or a similar med.
Cocaine I have seen people self-medicate with. That seems to work for a while, until the "dose" is inevitably raised.and raised again.


Anyone who self medicates with cocaine is an idiot.
 
2014-07-16 11:47:41 AM

mjbok: Legalize it and tax the ever living fark out of it.


Why?
 
2014-07-16 11:51:02 AM

Target Builder: mjbok: Legalize it and tax the ever living fark out of it.

Why?


Same reason alcohol and tobacco are taxed.  It's a sin tax.  It would be nice to have a tax on something I don't use for a change.

The funniest thing is once it is legalized and regulated people will biatch that it is taxed too much.
 
2014-07-16 11:52:46 AM

mjbok: Target Builder: mjbok: Legalize it and tax the ever living fark out of it.

Why?

Same reason alcohol and tobacco are taxed.  It's a sin tax.  It would be nice to have a tax on something I don't use for a change.

The funniest thing is once it is legalized and regulated people will biatch that it is taxed too much.


Fine, as long as folks can grow their own too.
 
2014-07-16 11:54:01 AM

Target Builder: Fine, as long as folks can grow their own too.


I would guess that would depend on how it is legalized.  You can grow your own tobacco, but it's not cost effective.  You should be able to grow your own, but not sell it.
 
2014-07-16 11:57:14 AM

Smackledorfer: I am saying your bias is higher than theirs, your knowledge is lower, and your dedication so low you couldn't bring yourself to even fully read the study you wrongly criticize.


I admit I got a little Hyperbolic in my criticism. I have seen too many 'studies' over the years that were nothing more than rehashed propaganda pieces. What really set me off was the headline of the article claiming that the study linked excessive pot use to 'brain damage', when the study does no such thing.
 
2014-07-16 11:58:44 AM

mjbok: Target Builder: mjbok: Legalize it and tax the ever living fark out of it.

Why?

Same reason alcohol and tobacco are taxed.  It's a sin tax.  It would be nice to have a tax on something I don't use for a change.

The funniest thing is once it is legalized and regulated people will biatch that it is taxed too much.


We shouldn't tax things because they are sinful, though people do refer to these as sin taxes. We should tax them because the existence of the substance holds costs for society. Costs that are less than the cost of prohibiting them outright, but costs none-the-less.

I have no doubt that there will be idiots who get high and drive (among other bad decisions), and some of them will be too poor to be directly fined for their damage to society. Those who choose to use such products pay a tax to cover those costs.
 
2014-07-16 12:02:44 PM

Dinki: Headline :  New study links excessive marijuana use to brain damage

The second to last paragraph :  Researchers noted that these results only show a correlation between excessive marijuana use and blunted dopamine response. It's still unclear whether excessive marijuana use is actually causing damage to the brain's reward circuitry, or whether people who already have damaged reward circuitry just happen to gravitate more toward using marijuana.

Nice trolling there Mother Nature network.


They're not trolling, you're just having a knee-jerk reaction to something you don't like.

The headline says that there's a "link", it doesn't say that marijuana "causes" brain damage. The study did find a correlation, so the term "link" is entirely appropriate.

Maybe you just haven't read much scientific reporting lately, but TFA, it's headline, and Fark's headline are all entirely accurate, which is actually more notable than the idea that potheads tend to be dumb.
 
2014-07-16 12:03:27 PM

theflatline: lindalouwho: ikanreed: lindalouwho: LinWell duh. Ritalin isn't going to help you focus if you're a heavy user of any drug. I've seen people take it when drinking - they're also not more focused, they simply spend more on booze that night.

Ritalin is just a high-grade stimulant.  Cocaine or (pure) caffeine have similar effects on people with ADHD.  Yeah, everyone is confused at the idea of using stimulants to treat hyperactivity, but the underlying causes are under-firing neurons(compared to an arbitrary definition of healthy), which in turn causes a lack of focus.

No on the caffeine. Doesn't work that way; doctors tell ADHD patients to not use it, whether the person is taking Ritalin or a similar med.
Cocaine I have seen people self-medicate with. That seems to work for a while, until the "dose" is inevitably raised.and raised again.

Anyone who self medicates with cocaine is an idiot.


Yes. Excuses and denial are strong forces. Not being in the mental health system is not a badge of honor when a person clearly needs the help.
Stigma is a biatch.
 
Displayed 50 of 112 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