Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Yahoo)   Proof positive that cannabis is truly a deadly drug: two people dead after smoking it. That's right, TWO people out of an estimated 147 million users worldwide. PANIC to the right   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 218
    More: Fail, Mcintyre, Forensic Science International, smoking marijuana, Charles Lemos, toxicologies, marijuana  
•       •       •

7379 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Aug 2014 at 10:38 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-06 02:17:52 PM  
Well, that escalated rather slowly over the course of the thread.
 
2014-08-06 02:20:44 PM  

Dinki: Funny thing about all the people touting these anecdotal reports of Pots harmful effects. If you talk about pots beneficial effects, they will scream "But you don't know what is in that weed you bought on the street!! You don't know the percentage of THC or CBD or if it has been mixed with other more dangerous substances!!" Yet they will point to someones past use of pot as if it alone must be the reason for that persons malady.


If the major risk is from unknown concentrations and additives, isn't that a great argument for legalize and regulate?

That is the argument for restricting moonshine, the safety concerns from the lack of oversight and risk of contamination. You legalize marijuana and 95% of that issue disappears.
 
2014-08-06 02:21:03 PM  

Tatterdemalian: You wouldn't go to an astronomer to find out your horoscope, you'd go to an astrologer who is an expert on the subject, right?


An expert on made-up nonsense?
 
2014-08-06 02:26:54 PM  

khyberkitsune: Yea, SMOKING. How many different avenues are there for cannabis ingestion? Quite a few, from IV tinctures in a lipid-saline solution to vaporization.


Congradulations. You're arguing against something I never said or even approached.

Speaking of, as a "MS", I'm curious about your peer reviewed, published research on the topic; especially based on your claims in this thread. Would you mind linking to them?
 
2014-08-06 02:27:31 PM  

WilderKWight: I see no reason for you to announce to the workplace that you're going to indulge in whatever taboo habits you enjoy.


That's nice, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the comment you're responding to.
 
2014-08-06 02:29:15 PM  

hardinparamedic: Would you mind linking to them?


They're not published and kept under NDA by my former employer.

Primarily because it'd upset all of you and crash their own stock portfolio.
 
2014-08-06 02:29:57 PM  

khyberkitsune: They're not published and kept under NDA by my former employer.


Oh, speaking of, if you do want the info, my NDA expires in 76 days. Wait?
 
2014-08-06 02:30:30 PM  

Dinki: TabASlotB: Dinki: Just a tip, prohibitionists- BS 'reports' like this only make you look really desperate and dishonest. If you want to prove there are links to marijuana and some health risk, do the science- double blind tests of randomly selected people, with extensive medical background checks to rule out any extenuating factors. Until you do that, STFU.


That's not how epidemiology usually works...not even close.

 I was talking about actual science related to identifying the possible effects of the active ingredients in marijuana. If you think this 'report', or most studies that have come out lately about the relative dangers of pot are actual helpful, you need to do more research. To wit- The very first ' scientific literature' you link is a well debunked french study that tried to link cannabis use to heart attacks and even death. Some interesting facts about that french study- Research was funded by the French InterMinisterial Mission for the Fight Against Drugs and Addiction and the French Drug Agency. also, part of the authors' conclusion is that a death rate of 25.6% exists in cases of cardiovascular complications related to cannabis. If those aren't warning signs about the legitimacy of the report you are fooling yourself.


I am 'swayed' by your 'excessive' use of 'scare quotes' and link to a 'debunking' article by a guy who claims "I have beliefs that if a Higher Power puts a disease on this Mother Earth, he also put a plant or herb that is here that can cure it."

Your response has definitely convinced me that my actual day-to-day research on drug addiction and the many physiological effects of psychotropic substances doesn't qualify me to evaluate the literature properly. I shall now slink away in shame.
 
2014-08-06 02:33:44 PM  

nekom: cryinoutloud:
And you said you had bad effects, right? So my point stands. I started smoking in the late 70's. It was nothing like it is today. And your dad is sort of right--there WERE very strong kinds of pot then, but very few people ever got any. We were usually smoking stuff like grows in the ditches in Kansas. Your average pothead wasn't touching the stuff that came from Amsterdam, or Maui Wowee, or whatever the fark was around then. I just don't think it's the same now. Barely even the same drug, the way it's been modified and genetically altered to do different things.

It's like comparing driving a 1970 Volkswagen to driving a late-model [insert name of super-fast car here.] Well, what do I care? You young stoners keep smoking modern pot like it's the 70's, until your brain fogs up for three days, your mouth falls open, and you barf, while I'll keep taking my tiny little hits and saving a lot of money.

Have you given any thought to the fact that your age might be the difference and not necessarily (or at least not exclusively) the pot?  When I was 19 I did LSD and mushrooms, I know for a fact that at 34 that would be a BAD idea.  I could not handle it these days, I'm sure of this.  I know it's sort of apples and oranges but your body has changed.

/with you on the tiny hits though
//too much gives me bad side effects
///I also like saving money


Why do you think this?  I'm 44, and didn't do LSD or shrooms until a few years ago.  I do acid once or twice a year now, with no ill effects.
 
2014-08-06 02:35:21 PM  

khyberkitsune: hardinparamedic: Would you mind linking to them?

They're not published and kept under NDA by my former employer.

Primarily because it'd upset all of you and crash their own stock portfolio.


Dude, a little self awareness goes a long way.  That is some self-important, insufferable shiat right there.
 
2014-08-06 02:37:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: The whole point of my response to you was that attempting to deflect or minimize the cardiovascular risk profile of smoking marijuana


I'm only attempting to prevent the hyperbolic use of anecdotal data as settled science. There is a huge leap from "Pot can cause increased heart rates that may effect those with preexisting cardiovascular conditions" (Which nobody is seriously arguing against) to "OMG if you use pot, even if you are a normal healthy human being, you are going to die!!!" Where this report of two deaths falls apart is the implication that Pot MUST be responsible for their deaths, simply because we can't find any other cause. It's bad science, and given the political climate around pot these days, can lead to bad public policy.
 
2014-08-06 02:37:22 PM  

GnomePaladin: That is some self-important, insufferable shiat right there.


Oh? So refusing to violate my legally-bound contract is self-important.

So much for your idea. Come back when you understand relevant laws.
 
2014-08-06 02:39:59 PM  

TabASlotB: Your response has definitely convinced me that my actual day-to-day research on drug addiction and the many physiological effects of psychotropic substances doesn't qualify me to evaluate the literature properly.


Hmm, impressive- exactly how many studies relating to the use of Pot and its effects on health have you published? I'd like to read them!
 
2014-08-06 02:40:00 PM  
I would be remiss in not pointing out that this story is a repeat from February.

http://time.com/10372/marijuana-deaths-german-study/
 
2014-08-06 02:42:33 PM  

Dinki: Where this report of two deaths falls apart is the implication that Pot MUST be responsible for their deaths, simply because we can't find any other cause. It's bad science, and given the political climate around pot these days, can lead to bad public policy.


I just tried to VPN to the work network just to gain access to the CINAHL and UT Medical journal system so I could get the PDF of the actual study. I somehow doubt that the intent of authors in a small impact medicolegal forensic journal is to use an N=2 Case Study as the basis for policy changes internationally on marijuana legalization or availability.
 
2014-08-06 02:47:10 PM  

hardinparamedic: I somehow doubt that the intent of authors in a small impact medicolegal forensic journal is to use an N=2 Case Study as the basis for policy changes internationally on marijuana legalization or availability


Oh I agree. But don't you agree that given the current political climate around pot, there are many that will use that study for exactly that purpose? Shouldn't scientists be aware of the political implication of their work, and take extra care that their work not be easily misused for a political agenda?
 
2014-08-06 02:48:00 PM  
CheekyMonkey:
Why do you think this?  I'm 44, and didn't do LSD or shrooms until a few years ago.  I do acid once or twice a year now, with no ill effects.

I've had some bad panic attacks under the influence of nothing.  I don't want to know what a panic attack on LSD is like.
 
2014-08-06 02:54:30 PM  

Dinki: hardinparamedic: I somehow doubt that the intent of authors in a small impact medicolegal forensic journal is to use an N=2 Case Study as the basis for policy changes internationally on marijuana legalization or availability

Oh I agree. But don't you agree that given the current political climate around pot, there are many that will use that study for exactly that purpose? Shouldn't scientists be aware of the political implication of their work, and take extra care that their work not be easily misused for a political agenda?


I would think that the current "political climate" around pot is drastically changing, and that people aren't quite as gullible as the heartland-foundation crackpot/DARE types think they are. Even if the increase in CV risk factor is comparable to tobacco use, it doesn't justify a climate of criminalization.

I would LIKE to think that pointing out the case study's intent, sample size, and narrow implications would tend to shut down any drive to use this to make policy changes across the atlantic.
 
2014-08-06 03:08:32 PM  
Caffeine, and other methylated xanthines, are far more effective in ruling out underlying cardiovascular `weaknesses'.

In 1986, Dronabinol/Marinol (synthetic Delta 9 THC) hit the market as a Schedule II medication.  A couple of decades later it was reduced to a Schedule III medication.  The FDA/DEA/ONDCP/NIDA have had very little to say about a spike in deaths from infarctions, in the premorbid, who are being dosed with Marinol (assume vanishingly small cohort).  Delta 9 does increase heart rate/BP.  The FDA did curry comb the mortality & morbidity reports (1986-2009) and could only discover 4 deaths attributable to Marinol/Dronabinol, alone.  All four were overdoses from this pill form of the single most `cardiac intensive' of the 300+ components identified in the marijuana bred at Uncle Sam's pot farm at the University of Mississippi.

Smoking the stuff?  Sure, hypoxia can't be discounted, along with the Delta Nine stimulation, yes?  Good luck with the regression given the data...

/still legal to mail out seeds from the Castor Bean plants, yes?
 
2014-08-06 03:19:55 PM  
I've smoked pot my whole adult life and I've never died.......yet.
 
2014-08-06 03:22:33 PM  
This thread has been lulzworthy. Thanks for the memories, FARK! :)

Crazy Lee: The FDA did curry comb the mortality & morbidity reports (1986-2009) and could only discover 4 deaths attributable to Marinol/Dronabinol, alone.  All four were overdoses from this pill form of the single most `cardiac intensive' of the 300+ components identified in the marijuana bred at Uncle Sam's pot farm at the University of Mississippi.

Smoking the stuff?  Sure, hypoxia can't be discounted, along with the Delta Nine stimulation, yes?  Good luck with the regression given the data...


Marinol is an amazing and apt case study in how profit motivation, moral busybodying, and racism can create the perfect derpstorm. I mean, sure, it's a synthetic form of D9THC, costs about 5 times what the same compound would cost naturally cultivated and compounded, and has less outright effectiveness, but at least the Mississippi blacks aren't dancing to Jazz with it.

It's interesting how when cheap 5HT3 Serotonin agents became available, Marinol suddenly got a new FDA indication for anorexia.
 
2014-08-06 03:23:56 PM  

khyberkitsune: GnomePaladin: That is some self-important, insufferable shiat right there.

Oh? So refusing to violate my legally-bound contract is self-important.


No.  Statements like "Primarily because it'd upset all of you and crash their own stock portfolio." are self-important.

So much for your idea. Come back when you understand relevant laws.

What idea?  What laws?
 
2014-08-06 03:41:13 PM  

GnomePaladin: khyberkitsune: GnomePaladin: That is some self-important, insufferable shiat right there.

Oh? So refusing to violate my legally-bound contract is self-important.

No.  Statements like "Primarily because it'd upset all of you and crash their own stock portfolio." are self-important.

So much for your idea. Come back when you understand relevant laws.

What idea?  What laws?


The more likely explanation is that the paper never existed, or never even passed a rudimentary peer review versus the fact that it "would have embarassed" the JAMA because someone "paid more" to be published. Especially since the names he gave either showed no results in publication, or were for papers that didn't even apply to his stated field of research.

 This same person has made some very tenuous claims in the past on FARK when challenged, either in a display of narcissism, or to troll.

The fact he basically made up many "qualifications", went from having one degree to another, claimed computer networking and technology certifications were medical and scientific in nature, and then didn't even know basic terminology of thing like a Physician vs. Medical Assistant, or what a Hazmat Technician was called add to the ability to call shenanigans.
 
2014-08-06 03:41:41 PM  

khyberkitsune: hardinparamedic: Would you mind linking to them?

They're not published and kept under NDA by my former employer.

Primarily because it'd upset all of you and crash their own stock portfolio.


smells like FLYNAVY
 
2014-08-06 03:47:57 PM  
Resident Farker with neuropharmacology background here (read: published papers on preclinical models of substance abuse).  Haven't read the thread but I assume that many Farkers have already mentioned this article is full of shiat.

Serious Black: Let's be generous and say both of these deaths were caused by marijuana. That would make them the first two in recorded history. Compare those deaths to those caused by alcohol or tobacco. Statistically speaking, they both killed over a hundred people yesterday in the US alone. Yet those are completely legal under federal law while marijuana is a Schedule I substance. Where is the logic in that situation?


Supposedly because marijuana has no medicinal uses.  Which is bullshiat.  The US pharmacopoeia categorizes these drugs according to two factors 1.) medicinal value and 2.) abuse liability (shoutout).  These guys really have their heads up their asses in that while they made THC (the active molecule in marijuana) schedule I, they failed to schedule other synethetic cannabinoid agonists for YEARS which are more potent and have more diverse binding properties (i.e., effects on dopamine transporters and adrenergic receptors).  If you hear any seminars by some of todays 'scientists' touting that cannabinoids will kill you, they're really only referencing deaths from the synthetics.

hardinparamedic: nekom: Meanwhile cocaine is schedule II.  Yeah, perfectly sensible drug policy there.

Cocaine, like Marijuana, also has medical uses. Unlike Marijuana, however, it's very physiologically addictive. The form used in medicine is, literally, 100% pure liquid cocaine.

This is the actual published study.


The FDA actually has strict guidelines including (and probably most importantly) safety that limit the passage of a number of molecules that could potentially be beneficial in the clinic.  Oddly enough, many drugs like cocaine, acetaminophen  and morphine were grandfathered in (already shown to have medicinal uses) even though some of these drugs have an ED50/LD50 ratio (therapeutic index) that would never make it through phase I now-a-days.
 
2014-08-06 03:52:18 PM  

Abuse Liability: Resident Farker with neuropharmacology background here (read: published papers on preclinical models of substance abuse).  Haven't read the thread but I assume that many Farkers have already mentioned this article is full of shiat.


I think I get your name now. :)

Love it.

Abuse Liability: The FDA actually has strict guidelines including (and probably most importantly) safety that limit the passage of a number of molecules that could potentially be beneficial in the clinic.  Oddly enough, many drugs like cocaine, acetaminophen  and morphine were grandfathered in (already shown to have medicinal uses) even though some of these drugs have an ED50/LD50 ratio (therapeutic index) that would never make it through phase I now-a-days.


I'm actually surprised at the amount of grandfathered BS that the FDA lets people get away with - and the fact that congress has increasingly hobbled the way the FDA is allowed to act in terms of regulation of substances since the 1970s. (Hint: Delicious Pharma/Dietary Industry $$$ to congress).

The fact that APAP laces many opiates not as an adjunctive synergist, but as a way to kill off addicts and the FDA allows it is kind of a downer.
 
2014-08-06 03:52:41 PM  
A lot of people die.  Some of them smoke weed and then die.  Weed causes death.  Got it.
 
2014-08-06 03:57:36 PM  

WilderKWight: durbnpoisn: Serious Black: Let's be generous and say both of these deaths were caused by marijuana. That would make them the first two in recorded history. Compare those deaths to those caused by alcohol or tobacco. Statistically speaking, they both killed over a hundred people yesterday in the US alone. Yet those are completely legal under federal law while marijuana is a Schedule I substance. Where is the logic in that situation?

This.

I've been saying it for years, and literally every time one of these threads pops up.

The whole situation is upside down and backwards.

It actually drives me nuts how the whole social stigma works too...  You could happily annouce to your coworkers that you are going to the bar after work, have a few drinks and drive home.  Every smiles.  But say you are gonna stop by a friends how to smoke a few, and you could literally lose your job and end up in rehab.
Where's the sense in that?


No... I'd be just as annoyed by someone who can't get through their day without having a few drinks (and pissed that they intend to drive afterward). When I was in management, I would have kept my eye on someone who constantly announces they're stopping for drinks, and I would have written them up or fired them if I saw anything that made me believe they were bringing their bad habit into the workplace. For the record, I'd also fire someone who kept stepping out during the work day to have a 10-minute smoke break. If your habits interfere with work, you're out on your ass.

I see no reason for you to announce to the workplace that you're going to indulge in whatever taboo habits you enjoy.

How would you like it if Bob from accounting announced he was going to go home and take a big dump, clip his toenails over the sink, and then strip down and jerk off while watching Big Chunky Asses Dumping #13?

Exactly. Ugh. Who needs to hear that?! Who wants to know what Bob's doing outside of work?  Nobody.

In the same way, nobody else cares or wants to know what you do to yourself, with yourself, or with your other drunkard or stoner buddies. Why make it a public issue at all? Do you really need everyone else to approve of your habits? Is there some deep-seated need to not only do the drugs, but have everyone ACCEPT that you do drugs and legitimize your choices for you?

I'm in favor of legalization.  If you want to do it, DO IT. Just don't expect everyone else to change their opinion of you. Go home, get high, and leave everyone else out of it.

Be happy. You're getting it legalized in many places. You're officially less of a social pariah than a crackhead, but if you expect you're going to be more accepted than a smoker or a drunkard, you're dreaming. That's not going to happen any time soon. Keep your odious personal habits to yourself and all will be well. Bob won't talk about his love of perfectly-legal German scat porn featuring 500-lb women, Sheila won't talk about her pica making boogers taste awesome to her palate, and you can refrain from telling everyone in the office that you like to get farked up on this-or-that substance. Because honestly: Nobody wants to know, and nobody gives a shiat. Work in a head shop if you want to talk about pot.


I'll take "missing the point" for $500, Alex.
 
2014-08-06 04:02:18 PM  

JackieRabbit: cherryl taggart: I've tried to have some form of this discussion with my teen, who's battling a pre-natal addiction,  As long as pot possession/distribution was illegal, research could not occur.  So, there was no conclusive proof as to the harmfulness or harmlessness of pot.  Now that some sense has arrived on the scene, researchers can actually begin to document either the users' claims, or refute them.  As noted upthread, there is a trickle of research, just starting.  Just as we stopped trusting the marketing research about tobacco, we'll learn soon enough if these researchers are on the up and up. If they are shills, it will come out.  If they are unbiased, it will worth the wait to make an informed decision about consuming pot.

Marijuana was extensively studied when it was (and still is at the federal level and in 48 states) illegal. Schedule 1 drugs can be used for research and/or compassionate use with approval as an experimental drug. Hence its efficacy and safety in the treatment of several disorders is well documented. What is also wee documented is that it is virtually impossible to overdose on smoked marijuana. To date, no death as a direct result of smoking marijuana has ever been identified. There have been some rare instances, such as the ones covered in the FA where someone has died and had THC or its metabolites in their system, but this does not mean that the drug killed them. large doses of THC can lower blood pressure and sometimes dramatically so. So someone who has an undiagnosed cardiovascular problem may theoretically be at risk, since a rapid drop in blood pressure in such individuals may lead to cardiac arrhythmias.


It's not just smoked marijuana.  I've met researchers at conferences who have injected body cavities to bursting with 100% (intraperitoneally), and these rodents didn't overdose.  It is true that genetics can predispose some people to having an exaggerated response to some of the adverse effects of THC, but that's pretty rare.
 
2014-08-06 04:03:20 PM  

Dinki: TabASlotB: Your response has definitely convinced me that my actual day-to-day research on drug addiction and the many physiological effects of psychotropic substances doesn't qualify me to evaluate the literature properly.

Hmm, impressive- exactly how many studies relating to the use of Pot and its effects on health have you published? I'd like to read them!


I'm pseudonymous for a reason, so I won't link to my faculty profile or PubMed author list. Since 2013, I've published six papers on addiction biology (4 1st-author). I'm more of an expert on psychostimulants, but I have done some cannabinoid work, am currently starting a project on the "CB3" receptor (gpr55), and am moderately-well-acquainted with the literature. Of course, you can take this or leave it, 'cause I ain't gonna prove it.

My background doesn't mean I'm right, but it does allow me some ability to assess a growing, changing field, which has been rather woefully understudied thus far. I also have no reason to expect you'd know my background. My snark was merely directed at the fact that sometimes snarling "maybe you should do some research" in the internet may actually--occasionally--be directed at someone who actually does the research.

Then again, I could just be a dog.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-08-06 04:10:01 PM  

TabASlotB: Dinki: TabASlotB: Your response has definitely convinced me that my actual day-to-day research on drug addiction and the many physiological effects of psychotropic substances doesn't qualify me to evaluate the literature properly.

Hmm, impressive- exactly how many studies relating to the use of Pot and its effects on health have you published? I'd like to read them!

I'm pseudonymous for a reason, so I won't link to my faculty profile or PubMed author list. Since 2013, I've published six papers on addiction biology (4 1st-author). I'm more of an expert on psychostimulants, but I have done some cannabinoid work, am currently starting a project on the "CB3" receptor (gpr55), and am moderately-well-acquainted with the literature. Of course, you can take this or leave it, 'cause I ain't gonna prove it.

My background doesn't mean I'm right, but it does allow me some ability to assess a growing, changing field, which has been rather woefully understudied thus far. I also have no reason to expect you'd know my background. My snark was merely directed at the fact that sometimes snarling "maybe you should do some research" in the internet may actually--occasionally--be directed at someone who actually does the research.

Then again, I could just be a dog.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x335]


I was enjoying the masters guy and the paramedic going at it,  I kind of want to know who you are considering our field is a fairly small one (someone from Kalivas' group maybe?).  My name is right in my profile so you can pubmed me.  Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.
 
2014-08-06 04:12:12 PM  

Abuse Liability: Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.


This is going to sound creepy, but were you in the Research tower between the hospital there and the VA?
 
2014-08-06 04:15:03 PM  

hardinparamedic: Abuse Liability: Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.

This is going to sound creepy, but were you in the Research tower between the hospital there and the VA?


Yep.  Like I said, I'm a pretty open book.  Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm not faculty like tabAslotB, just a mere post-doc who's submitted a number of grant applications (a few being scored and a few more being triaged).  I don't see a facutly position for me in the near future, but who knows?
 
2014-08-06 04:17:20 PM  

Zizzowop: More interesting are the comments on Yahoo:

"You know it is so funny that all these dreadlock wearing, bloodshot eyed and smelly marijuana people are using pointless comparisons of "Oh alcohol kills more", "Oh it is not the cause of these two people's death", and other pointless arguments is laughable.

Look they are doctors. Doctors go to school for years to be doctors. Doctors don't need to lie because they are going to get paid no matter what. Doctors have a moral code not to lie. If they misdiagnosed something they can get sued and get their medical licenses suspended. Therefore when a doctor said that those marijuana drug burnouts died from smoking that smelly marijuna stuff guess what? They died.

So please marijuana burnout people don't change the story so you can have an excuse to smoke that smelly stuff." -smelly marijuana people, because, doctors.


Yes, because fraud never happens in medical science... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-co m panies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx
 
2014-08-06 04:18:00 PM  

Abuse Liability: hardinparamedic: Abuse Liability: Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.

This is going to sound creepy, but were you in the Research tower between the hospital there and the VA?

Yep.  Like I said, I'm a pretty open book.  Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm not faculty like tabAslotB, just a mere post-doc who's submitted a number of grant applications (a few being scored and a few more being triaged).  I don't see a facutly position for me in the near future, but who knows?


Heh. I think I might have held the door for you and not realized it. I was there in September for a semester doing some education with LifeFlight there. Your picture looks familiar. We used to walk through the building on the way to the helipad elevator.

Beautiful campus, crappy parking.
 
2014-08-06 04:20:27 PM  

chadwick1982: Yes, because fraud never happens in medical science... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-co m panies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx


Point of order: When discussing anything, it is not a good idea to use Joseph Mercola's website for anything. He ranks up there with "The Health Ranger" Mike Adams and NaturaNews.com with tabloid science. It's a great way to poison the argument, and really light on actual facts compared with actual spin.
 
2014-08-06 04:21:44 PM  

hardinparamedic: Abuse Liability: hardinparamedic: Abuse Liability: Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.

This is going to sound creepy, but were you in the Research tower between the hospital there and the VA?

Yep.  Like I said, I'm a pretty open book.  Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm not faculty like tabAslotB, just a mere post-doc who's submitted a number of grant applications (a few being scored and a few more being triaged).  I don't see a facutly position for me in the near future, but who knows?

Heh. I think I might have held the door for you and not realized it. I was there in September for a semester doing some education with LifeFlight there. Your picture looks familiar. We used to walk through the building on the way to the helipad elevator.

Beautiful campus, crappy parking.


Damn. Small world. Me and a buddy used to talk about  getting to the helipad, but we figured you need some sort of special key.  Yeah, i mostly traversed the fifth or first floor to get back and forth from the animal facility.
 
2014-08-06 04:26:46 PM  

Abuse Liability: TabASlotB: Dinki: TabASlotB: Your response has definitely convinced me that my actual day-to-day research on drug addiction and the many physiological effects of psychotropic substances doesn't qualify me to evaluate the literature properly.

Hmm, impressive- exactly how many studies relating to the use of Pot and its effects on health have you published? I'd like to read them!

I'm pseudonymous for a reason, so I won't link to my faculty profile or PubMed author list. Since 2013, I've published six papers on addiction biology (4 1st-author). I'm more of an expert on psychostimulants, but I have done some cannabinoid work, am currently starting a project on the "CB3" receptor (gpr55), and am moderately-well-acquainted with the literature. Of course, you can take this or leave it, 'cause I ain't gonna prove it.

My background doesn't mean I'm right, but it does allow me some ability to assess a growing, changing field, which has been rather woefully understudied thus far. I also have no reason to expect you'd know my background. My snark was merely directed at the fact that sometimes snarling "maybe you should do some research" in the internet may actually--occasionally--be directed at someone who actually does the research.

Then again, I could just be a dog.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x335]

I was enjoying the masters guy and the paramedic going at it,  I kind of want to know who you are considering our field is a fairly small one (someone from Kalivas' group maybe?).  My name is right in my profile so you can pubmed me.  Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.


Heh. I looked you up last time one of these threads came around. I will say that based on your mGluR5 work, you're probably vaguely familiar with my name...and I reviewed a paper from the Conn/Lindsley/Emmitte group very recently. Hope you've landed in another good lab.

The last time my pseudonymous ID could be traced to anything resembling an employer, I had a true nutjob stalk me and try to get me fired for no apparent reason. So that's as much personal info as I'll spread into the aether.
 
2014-08-06 04:35:25 PM  

TabASlotB: Abuse Liability: TabASlotB: Dinki: TabASlotB: Your response has definitely convinced me that my actual day-to-day research on drug addiction and the many physiological effects of psychotropic substances doesn't qualify me to evaluate the literature properly.

Hmm, impressive- exactly how many studies relating to the use of Pot and its effects on health have you published? I'd like to read them!

I'm pseudonymous for a reason, so I won't link to my faculty profile or PubMed author list. Since 2013, I've published six papers on addiction biology (4 1st-author). I'm more of an expert on psychostimulants, but I have done some cannabinoid work, am currently starting a project on the "CB3" receptor (gpr55), and am moderately-well-acquainted with the literature. Of course, you can take this or leave it, 'cause I ain't gonna prove it.

My background doesn't mean I'm right, but it does allow me some ability to assess a growing, changing field, which has been rather woefully understudied thus far. I also have no reason to expect you'd know my background. My snark was merely directed at the fact that sometimes snarling "maybe you should do some research" in the internet may actually--occasionally--be directed at someone who actually does the research.

Then again, I could just be a dog.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x335]

I was enjoying the masters guy and the paramedic going at it,  I kind of want to know who you are considering our field is a fairly small one (someone from Kalivas' group maybe?).  My name is right in my profile so you can pubmed me.  Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.

Heh. I looked you up last time one of these threads came around. I will say that based on your mGluR5 work, you're probably vaguely familiar with my name...and I reviewed a paper from the Conn/Lindsley/Emmitte group very recently. Hope you've landed in another good lab.

The last time my pseudonymous ID could be ...


I have, my wife really wanted to come home so I'm back where I belong.  They offered me a drug discovery position there, but I'd never be able to publish anything.  shiat, I have an entire manuscript using drug discrimination, self-administration and conditioned place preference doing an in depth analysis of the NAMs.  I don't think it'll ever see the light of day even though I wrote the whole manuscript, had someone else help me edit it, and submitted to my PI.  It may have had to do with the fact that the mGlu5 NAMs may have an abuse liability all their own, and partially substitute for CNS stimulants.  The truly stupid thing about it was, they developed a partial that had none of these properties, but I guess even the suggestion that NAMs have an abuse liability is a big no no.
 
2014-08-06 04:35:42 PM  

TabASlotB: I had a true nutjob stalk me and try to get me fired for no apparent reason. So that's as much personal info as I'll spread into the aether.


Heh. I tend to have a pretty argumentative personality on FARK, and I've had people try to harass me or my employer in real life because of it. It's been about three years, but it's still odd how people want to try to ruin the lives of others over something online.
 
2014-08-06 04:37:06 PM  

hardinparamedic: Abuse Liability: hardinparamedic: Abuse Liability: Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.

This is going to sound creepy, but were you in the Research tower between the hospital there and the VA?

Yep.  Like I said, I'm a pretty open book.  Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm not faculty like tabAslotB, just a mere post-doc who's submitted a number of grant applications (a few being scored and a few more being triaged).  I don't see a facutly position for me in the near future, but who knows?

Heh. I think I might have held the door for you and not realized it. I was there in September for a semester doing some education with LifeFlight there. Your picture looks familiar. We used to walk through the building on the way to the helipad elevator.

Beautiful campus, crappy parking.


Also, please don't kill me.  I'll mail you a pair of underwear if that'll sate your stalking proclivities.

/ :-)
 
2014-08-06 04:37:30 PM  

nekom: Have you given any thought to the fact that your age might be the difference and not necessarily (or at least not exclusively) the pot?  When I was 19 I did LSD and mushrooms, I know for a fact that at 34 that would be a BAD idea.  I could not handle it these days, I'm sure of this.  I know it's sort of apples and oranges but your body has changed.
/with you on the tiny hits though
//too much gives me bad side effects
///I also like saving money


Naw, I don't think so. Pot IS much stronger. And it's been chemically changed in a lot of ways. I've always been kind of a lightweight with drugs, but I think I could still handle shrooms or acid. The medical pot is just--its farking strong. I can't believe it when I even smell some of the stuff. There is a pot shop right down the street from where I work. They have maybe one fan for ventilation and you can smell it a block away. And that's just the growing plants.
 
2014-08-06 04:38:10 PM  

chadwick1982: Zizzowop: More interesting are the comments on Yahoo:

"You know it is so funny that all these dreadlock wearing, bloodshot eyed and smelly marijuana people are using pointless comparisons of "Oh alcohol kills more", "Oh it is not the cause of these two people's death", and other pointless arguments is laughable.

Look they are doctors. Doctors go to school for years to be doctors. Doctors don't need to lie because they are going to get paid no matter what. Doctors have a moral code not to lie. If they misdiagnosed something they can get sued and get their medical licenses suspended. Therefore when a doctor said that those marijuana drug burnouts died from smoking that smelly marijuna stuff guess what? They died.

So please marijuana burnout people don't change the story so you can have an excuse to smoke that smelly stuff." -smelly marijuana people, because, doctors.

Yes, because fraud never happens in medical science... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-co m panies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx


Fraud happens in every profession; science is no exception. That's not an excuse, it's a sad reality, and the risk increases with financial incentives. That said, Joe Mercola is quite possibly the worst possible source you could have linked to. That man is some combination of Gordon Gekko and batshiat crazy. Mostly batshiat. Greedy motherfarking batshiat.

In the future, go with someone like this guy:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
 
2014-08-06 04:40:32 PM  

nekom: CheekyMonkey:
Why do you think this?  I'm 44, and didn't do LSD or shrooms until a few years ago.  I do acid once or twice a year now, with no ill effects.

I've had some bad panic attacks under the influence of nothing.  I don't want to know what a panic attack on LSD is like.


OK.  Sounds prudent to avoid it, then.
 
2014-08-06 04:47:55 PM  
Ah. More expert 'studies' and analysis by people who have never smoked pot.

Just like idiot heterosexual experts on homosexuality.
 
2014-08-06 04:51:54 PM  

Abuse Liability: TabASlotB: Heh. I looked you up last time one of these threads came around. I will say that based on your mGluR5 work, you're probably vaguely familiar with my name...and I reviewed a paper from the Conn/Lindsley/Emmitte group very recently. Hope you've landed in another good lab.

The last time my pseudonymous ID could be traced to anything resembling an employer, I had a true nutjob stalk me and try to get me fired for no apparent reason. So that's as much personal info as I'll spread into the aether.

I have, my wife really wanted to come home so I'm back where I belong.  They offered me a drug discovery position there, but I'd never be able to publish anything.  shiat, I have an entire manuscript using drug discrimination, self-administration and conditioned place preference doing an in depth analysis of the NAMs.  I don't think it'll ever see the light of day even though I wrote the whole manuscript, had someone else help me edit it, and submitted to my PI.  It may have had to do with the fact that the mGlu5 NAMs may have an abuse liability all their own, and partially substitute for CNS stimulants.  The truly stupid thing about it was, they developed a partial that had none of these properties, but I guess even the suggestion that NAMs have an abuse liability is a big no no.


I'm glad to hear you've landed OK. The CPP studies and the reported psychotomimetic side effects of some of the NAMs are definitely sitting out there, clouding that field...did you test your NAMs in drug discrimination? Other studies appear to have ruled out strong PCP-like, THC-like, benzo-like, etc. effects of the mGluR5 NAMs, (e.g., recent papers by Swedberg & Raboisson) so it's an open question what the subjective effects of some of these NAMs are and whether that abuse liability is real or measurable by current techniques. I hope you can get your paper published...
 
2014-08-06 04:58:41 PM  

cherryl taggart: I've tried to have some form of this discussion with my teen, who's battling a pre-natal addiction,  As long as pot possession/distribution was illegal, research could not occur.  So, there was no conclusive proof as to the harmfulness or harmlessness of pot.  Now that some sense has arrived on the scene, researchers can actually begin to document either the users' claims, or refute them.  As noted upthread, there is a trickle of research, just starting.  Just as we stopped trusting the marketing research about tobacco, we'll learn soon enough if these researchers are on the up and up. If they are shills, it will come out.  If they are unbiased, it will worth the wait to make an informed decision about consuming pot.


Look, addiction is not usually a good thing, be it tobacco, alcohol, weed, caffeine or cocaine.  If you have an addictive personality to begin with, you are at greater danger.

Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that smoking Cannabis is not nearly as harmful to the average person as either tobacco or alcohol.  Or Peanuts, for that matter.

As to research:  The amount of GOOD research on cannabis is almost, but not quite zero, because for years the only funding you could get was for studies to prove how addictive and how deadly cannabis is.  Since it's NOT, that research was trashed for not fitting the Panjandrums Agenda for population control.  So to say we "need more study" by the pants-wetting prohibitionists is disingenuous since they have been prohibiting real research for more than 40 years.

Look, the fact is that if pot was a killer, we would have thousands of dead pot smokers every year, just like we do with Tobacco, yet those numbers DON'T EXIST.  They would long ago have shown up in the epidemiology.

When my son was old enough, I told him that I though pot would be better for him, but that he would be best off not doing either.  He's a drinker in moderation as far as I know.  He went thru a party phase, he's 32.
 
2014-08-06 05:02:20 PM  

TabASlotB: Abuse Liability: TabASlotB: Heh. I looked you up last time one of these threads came around. I will say that based on your mGluR5 work, you're probably vaguely familiar with my name...and I reviewed a paper from the Conn/Lindsley/Emmitte group very recently. Hope you've landed in another good lab.

The last time my pseudonymous ID could be traced to anything resembling an employer, I had a true nutjob stalk me and try to get me fired for no apparent reason. So that's as much personal info as I'll spread into the aether.

I have, my wife really wanted to come home so I'm back where I belong.  They offered me a drug discovery position there, but I'd never be able to publish anything.  shiat, I have an entire manuscript using drug discrimination, self-administration and conditioned place preference doing an in depth analysis of the NAMs.  I don't think it'll ever see the light of day even though I wrote the whole manuscript, had someone else help me edit it, and submitted to my PI.  It may have had to do with the fact that the mGlu5 NAMs may have an abuse liability all their own, and partially substitute for CNS stimulants.  The truly stupid thing about it was, they developed a partial that had none of these properties, but I guess even the suggestion that NAMs have an abuse liability is a big no no.

I'm glad to hear you've landed OK. The CPP studies and the reported psychotomimetic side effects of some of the NAMs are definitely sitting out there, clouding that field...did you test your NAMs in drug discrimination? Other studies appear to have ruled out strong PCP-like, THC-like, benzo-like, etc. effects of the mGluR5 NAMs, (e.g., recent papers by Swedberg & Raboisson) so it's an open question what the subjective effects of some of these NAMs are and whether that abuse liability is real or measurable by current techniques. I hope you can get your paper published...


I did indeed test it against a psychostimulant in a drug discrimination assay and the results are... interesting.  I'll email you the manuscript if you shoot me an email. Tzschentke's group even alluded to the fact that there might be substitution (but didn't do the study).  People have put MPEP in a syringe and found it was self-administered.  I couldn't do that with the compounds I was using because of solubility issues, but the CPP data speaks for itself (though we both know how difficult it is to interpret CPP data given the fact that it relies on memory, which is notoriously fickle when combined with drugs e.g., state dependent learning).
 
2014-08-06 05:08:21 PM  

TabASlotB: Abuse Liability: TabASlotB: Heh. I looked you up last time one of these threads came around. I will say that based on your mGluR5 work, you're probably vaguely familiar with my name...and I reviewed a paper from the Conn/Lindsley/Emmitte group very recently. Hope you've landed in another good lab.

The last time my pseudonymous ID could be traced to anything resembling an employer, I had a true nutjob stalk me and try to get me fired for no apparent reason. So that's as much personal info as I'll spread into the aether.

I have, my wife really wanted to come home so I'm back where I belong.  They offered me a drug discovery position there, but I'd never be able to publish anything.  shiat, I have an entire manuscript using drug discrimination, self-administration and conditioned place preference doing an in depth analysis of the NAMs.  I don't think it'll ever see the light of day even though I wrote the whole manuscript, had someone else help me edit it, and submitted to my PI.  It may have had to do with the fact that the mGlu5 NAMs may have an abuse liability all their own, and partially substitute for CNS stimulants.  The truly stupid thing about it was, they developed a partial that had none of these properties, but I guess even the suggestion that NAMs have an abuse liability is a big no no.

I'm glad to hear you've landed OK. The CPP studies and the reported psychotomimetic side effects of some of the NAMs are definitely sitting out there, clouding that field...did you test your NAMs in drug discrimination? Other studies appear to have ruled out strong PCP-like, THC-like, benzo-like, etc. effects of the mGluR5 NAMs, (e.g., recent papers by Swedberg & Raboisson) so it's an open question what the subjective effects of some of these NAMs are and whether that abuse liability is real or measurable by current techniques. I hope you can get your paper published...


Also, I used PCP as my control in the drug discrimination assay, and also found no substitution-like effects.  It's interesting for sure.  After reading a bit of the literature, I'd say that mGlu5 NAMs effects on cocaine self-administration may be more specific to cocaine, whereas their effects on reinstatement may be more generic (contrary to popular belief).  There's a paper out there  using sweetened condensed milk (by Weiss' group I think), where they successfully block reinstatement.  Kalivas told me (when he was visiting Vandy) that he had discussed the issue with Friedbert and believes it's because SCM is incredibly reinforcing, much like a drug of abuse (I remain skeptical).
 
2014-08-06 05:31:26 PM  

The Southern Dandy: I heard about this kid that smoked pot, and the pot made him think he was a bird, so he jumped out a window and he died.


I heard about this one kid, he was looking at his face in hubcaps and got run over, turned out he'd shot up two marijuana at a party the night before!
 
Displayed 50 of 218 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report