Title: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Murgos on May 01, 2007, 11:05:23 AM http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070501/ap_on_he_me/marijuana_mental_health
Maybe that movie was on to something after all. Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Miasma on May 01, 2007, 11:27:17 AM Those results are tainted by the fact that only a psycho would sign up to have medical testing done on them in the first place.
Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: FatuousTwat on May 01, 2007, 11:30:12 AM I can attest to the paranoid delusions and hallucinations, but it only happened to me once out of maybe 50 times, and I quit soon after it happened.
On the other hand, I don't believe it affected me permanently, as they seem to trying to say in the article, and I would suggest it over alcohol any day of the week. Edit: Oh man, only 15 people were tested? What bullshit. Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on May 01, 2007, 11:30:54 AM *15* whole people were tested? How titanic!
Psychotic symptoms: Dude! I think Roger Waters is trying to tell me something during "Comfortably Numb"! Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Sky on May 01, 2007, 11:38:41 AM Pot enhances paranoia? ORLY.
Hallucinations? No. I've smoked massive pounds of it in my time and never seen anything hallucinatory. I know hallucination, I've also taken a lot of LSD, mescaline and psilocybin. /That/ is hallucinating, and even a lot of that is visual/cortex trickery. Like breathing walls or moving tree branches, your eyes are so dilated that minute movements are overlapping, giving the impression of movement. We used to study that stuff and it kinda takes the fun out of it after a while. I can count on two hands the actual 'holy shit' hallucinations I've seen (and they were great! :P). Anyway. Yeah, schizos will have enhanced paranoia and that's a bad thing. But for normal folks, education is key. Know that you're more paranoid than normal and you can compensate.This study will no doubt be jumped on by the drug czars to keep marijuana illegal longer, because it will of course turn your children into psychotics, unlike your lack of attention or medicating their problems away. Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Yegolev on May 01, 2007, 12:35:09 PM If pot can make you hallucinate, I think I have been smoking something else.
I am very paranoid when sober. Gets worse when stoned, which is probably why I don't smoke anymore. Makes me CRAZY. Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on May 01, 2007, 12:47:37 PM Makes me CRAZY. Made you vote liberal, didn't it? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/410_saddam_and_dinner.gif) Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Yegolev on May 01, 2007, 12:52:08 PM Made you vote liberal, didn't it? Never! They are out to get us! Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Murgos on May 01, 2007, 12:53:26 PM I knew a guy in college who made some pot brownies. He had bought 8 lbs of pot, it came in garbage bags, and striped all the stems and crap out of it. He boiled those stems in cooking oil and then used the oil to make the brownies.
People complained of hallucinations. Interesting aside, this guy is now president of a small company. Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: HaemishM on May 01, 2007, 12:56:08 PM *15* whole people were tested? How titanic! 15 people is barely a good-sized football club, much less enough of a sample size for any kind of credible medical study. Maybe the researchers were sampling their own wares and just couldn't be arsed to get more volunteers. Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on May 01, 2007, 01:01:45 PM Interesting aside, this guy is now president of a small company. Ah, George W. Bush. I thought there was a common thread here. Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Sky on May 01, 2007, 01:49:23 PM I knew a guy in college who made some pot brownies. He had bought 8 lbs of pot, it came in garbage bags, and striped all the stems and crap out of it. He boiled those stems in cooking oil and then used the oil to make the brownies. Firstly, depending on when you went to college, that's upwards of $8k in weed. Coming in garbage bags, he probably knew a grower so maybe less depending on how good a friend. Nonetheless...a good friend to have around, eh? You can learn a lot of solid business skills, no suprise he's in the business world, really.People complained of hallucinations. Interesting aside, this guy is now president of a small company. Secondly, there is almost no THC in stems, seeds or leaves, though oil is a good mechanism to bind to. People who complained of hallucinations from watered-down (oiled-down?) stems are delusional. Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Murgos on May 01, 2007, 02:53:32 PM Not going to argue with you about it Sky, people complained about having minor hallucinations. Not 'special' people, or light-weight pussies just normal college people (i.e. not entirely inexperienced).
Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Nebu on May 01, 2007, 02:56:19 PM Psychoactive substances always have some chance to evoke a psychological response in people that are predisposed to abnormal psychological disturbances. The findings in this article are things that have been known in neuroscience for decades. Targeting something as benign as marijuana is probably part of some political agenda.
Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Furiously on May 01, 2007, 03:32:54 PM Hmmm... We'll lets see what the DEA says...
Quote Prices of marijuana show wide variation by country of origin. Using wholesale prices per pound and mid-1991 prices, the price of marijuana of Mexican origin varied between $350 and $1600. For Colombian marijuana, this figure was $800 to $1,000 and for marijuana from Thailand, the price ranged from $2,000 to $3,000 per pound. Jamaican marijuana brought $1,500 to $2,000 per pound for commercial grade and $2,000-$3,000 for sinsemilla (BJS, 1992, p. 54). It is estimated that United States consumers of marijuana spent $9 billion in 1990 (BJS, 1992, p. 36). The price of marijuana has been increasing on both a per pound and per ounce basis. During the early 1980s, a pound of commercial grade marijuana sold in the United States for between $350 and $600. Sinsemilla brought a higher price per pound, in the range of $1,000 to $2,000. In 1989 the price of a pound of commercial grade marijuana was between $350 and $2,000. An ounce of the same quality cost between $30 and $250. For sinsemilla, a pound cost between $700 and $3,000 and an ounce sold for between $100 and $300. A pound of commercial grade marijuana, in 1990, sold for between $250 and $3,000 and an ounce sold for between $25 and $300. For sinsemilla, the price ranges were $400 to $4100 for a pound and $80 to $350 for an ounce. The year 1991 saw commercial grade marijuana being sold for between $400 and $3,000 per pound and for between $40 and $550 per ounce. A pound of sinsemilla brought a price range of between $500 and $6,000 and an ounce brought a range of between $100 and $450. In the year 1992, a pound of commercial grade marijuana sold for between $300 and $3,000. An ounce of commercial grade brought between $40 and $450. The sinsemilla, in 1992, brought between $650 and $9,600 per pound and between $125 and $650 per ounce (BJS, 1992, p. 62). Figures on marijuana prices collected by the Community Epidemiology Work Group in June 1994 show essentially the same price structure (NIDA, 1994, p. 48). The range for a pound of sinsemilla in June, 1994 was between $650 and $9,000. For commercial grade marijuana, the range per pound was between $350 and $3,000. According to a user survey conducted by Chalsma and Boyum (1994) for the ONDCP, the average price of marijuana in the United States was $55 for a quarter ounce. This amounts to about 8 dollars per gram which is very similar to the price charged for marijuana in Dutch coffeeshops. To state the obvious, the cited prices demonstrate dramatic upsurge and offer tremendous potential for profit to the cultivator/trafficker of marijuana. Using indoor, high grade sinsemilla as an example, the DEA calculates the typical domestic marijuana grower to have approximately 250 plants per growing cycle. Using an estimate (which DEA purports as conservative) of one pound per plant and an average price of $3,000 per pound, the revenue generated would be of the magnitude of $750,000 per quarter (DEA, no date, p. 36). My guess would be if people were hallucinating he threw some lsd in to be "funny". Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Nebu on May 01, 2007, 04:39:05 PM Quote Using an estimate (which DEA purports as conservative) of one pound per plant and an average price of $3,000 per pound, the revenue generated would be of the magnitude of $750,000 per quarter (DEA, no date, p. 36). Amazing how much tax revenue the government is willing to give up in order to win an election. The tobacco lobby is to blame for marijuana being illegal and that costs us all. Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Big Gulp on May 01, 2007, 05:02:47 PM I'd just like to point out that the term is "reefer", not "refer", unless referring is now considered an act of madness.
Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on May 01, 2007, 06:16:43 PM Define "minor hallucinations", por favor.
Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: stray on May 01, 2007, 06:21:49 PM Hmm... They must be pricing pounds of weed according to the street prices of a quarter bags or something. And then scaling it from there. But that's not how it would work if you were to actually go out and buy a pound. I could get a pound of Mexican weed for about $400. Kine bud would be about $1200.
Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on May 01, 2007, 06:24:21 PM Maybe the researchers were sampling their own wares and just couldn't be arsed to get more volunteers. Naw, they just tested these guys: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5b/Half_baked.jpg) Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Murgos on May 01, 2007, 07:46:56 PM Define "minor hallucinations", por favor. Very slight blurring and shifting. Like if you focus it goes away. Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Samwise on May 01, 2007, 08:26:26 PM Define "minor hallucinations", por favor. Very slight blurring and shifting. Like if you focus it goes away. It turns out beer is a hallucinogen too. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Ironwood on May 02, 2007, 12:52:48 AM And, it turns out, tiredness.
Seriously, somewhere I hear the sound of barrels being scraped with this 'research'. Sigh. Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Murgos on May 02, 2007, 04:44:22 AM Define "minor hallucinations", por favor. Very slight blurring and shifting. Like if you focus it goes away. It turns out beer is a hallucinogen too. Yeah, alcohol poisoning causes hallucinations too. edit: also, Ironwood, sleep deprivation does cause hallucinations. There's only about 25 jillion studies showing it. Why are you guys such turds about this? Am I stepping on your dicks? Making you feel all defensive because in my experience an extremely strong marijuana high caused some people some slight hallucinations and you just don't anyone actually pointing out to you that fucking with your brains receptors is probably not really a good thing? Pot, the wonder drug!!! Or maybe it's just a drug? Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Trippy on May 02, 2007, 05:07:36 AM edit: also, Ironwood, sleep deprivation does cause hallucinations. There's only about 25 jillion studies showing it. Indeed. Once in my youth I went over 72 hours without sleep and when driving around trees and bushes looked like animals and stuff. It was fascinating since I was still awake enough to recognize what was going on but even though I knew that my mind wouldn't stop making stuff up.Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Roac on May 02, 2007, 06:05:36 AM Indeed. Once in my youth I went over 72 hours without sleep and when driving around trees and bushes looked like animals and stuff. It was fascinating since I was still awake enough to recognize what was going on but even though I knew that my mind wouldn't stop making stuff up. I never made it that far. Somewhere past a full day (26-28 or so) stuff in my room began moving around on its own, which I took as a sign that a nap was in order. Never had that happen as a result of alcohol. Alcohol just lets me come up with very creative ways to amuse myself until getting sick. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Endie on May 02, 2007, 06:40:43 AM I've smoked plenty of gear in my time, and used to have huge arguments with my sister (who works observation for the drugs squad in the local police) about marijuana. I always claimed it was harmless or even positive, while she saw the bad side. She'd say "gateway drug" and I'd say "100% of smacheads say they have drunk water. Gateway!" And so on.
But it's meant that I'm much more likely to spot and read articles on mj and meantal health issues, in a desperate search for evidence to cite. For several years I've been watching the trickle of relevant studies and it's certainly been enough for me to stop smoking the stuff. It does seem that the most vulnerable are teenagers and very heavy users, sure. And anyone who'd been to the Dam and smoked a shitload of Thai reefers over the course of several hours knows that there are hallucinatory (though not necessarily visual) side-effects associated with acute heavy use. But everyone knows the effects on memory, particularly short-term. It affects your brain. In ways we know about for sure, and maybe in others. Maybe long-term, maybe not. My brain matters a shitload to me, so I stopped. That seemed to make me hella faster-thinking, especially in rugby, and got rid of the lethargy that afflicted my mid-20s. Of course, that study comes with the warning: "Sample size 1 - statistically insignificant". Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Triforcer on May 02, 2007, 08:04:25 AM Why are you guys such turds about this? Am I stepping on your dicks? Making you feel all defensive because in my experience an extremely strong marijuana high caused some people some slight hallucinations and you just don't anyone actually pointing out to you that fucking with your brains receptors is probably not really a good thing? Pot, the wonder drug!!! Or maybe it's just a drug? Indeed. I'm not arguing that the most raving lunatic warnings of the Government or movies like Reefer Madness are correct, but it is amusing to see pot supporters making the claim that Pot is the ONE substance on earth with absolute no downsides. It whitens teeth, cures cancer, resurrects your dead childhood pet, and anyone who says otherwise is in the pocket of the producers of non-magical* drugs! *Everything else. Title: Re: Refer Madness? No, really. Post by: Ironwood on May 02, 2007, 08:37:48 AM edit: also, Ironwood, sleep deprivation does cause hallucinations. There's only about 25 jillion studies showing it. Er, yeah. I know. That being, you know, my point and all. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: FatuousTwat on May 02, 2007, 08:44:47 AM It whitens teeth, cures cancer, resurrects your dead childhood pet, and anyone who says otherwise is in the pocket of the producers of non-magical* drugs! *Everything else. Haven't you ever seen Pet Cemetery? I don't think that's a good thing :P Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Ironwood on May 02, 2007, 09:03:26 AM The only thing that stars Herman Munster that's actually scary.
Oh, and Denise Crosby. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Samwise on May 02, 2007, 09:11:19 AM Actually, know what's given me worse "hallucinations" than any of alcohol, pot, or sleep deprivation? Guitar Hero. Spend a few hours staring intently at vertically moving objects, then look away. Surprise, the floor is melting!
Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Roac on May 02, 2007, 09:21:23 AM Haven't you ever seen Pet Cemetery? I don't think that's a good thing :P Evil zombie pets are still better than living pets that mess the carpet. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on May 02, 2007, 09:32:30 AM Sometimes dead is bettuh.
Well, I'm convinced: We need a War On Alcohol, Sleep Deprivation, And Guitar Hero ASAP! Fair's fair. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Triforcer on May 02, 2007, 09:38:00 AM Sometimes dead is bettuh. Well, I'm convinced: We need a War On Alcohol, Sleep Deprivation, And Guitar Hero ASAP! Fair's fair. As a serious takeoff on this, the argument of "Alcohol and tobacco are just as bad (or worse) than pot, therefore we should allow pot" isn't necessarily internally consistent. You have to take into account social entrenchment. The costs of banning alcohol or tobacco NOW may be too high, even if we should have banned them from the beginning. Similarly, the cost of allowing pot NOW may be too high, even if in the first instance we should have allowed it. A simpler way to put it: Saying pot is "just as bad" as alcohol or tobacco may mean we screwed up on allowing alcohol and tobacco. But why does that mistake mean we have to throw up our hands now and open the floodgates to all bad things? Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: bhodi on May 02, 2007, 10:03:01 AM There are a lot of people draining funds and not contributing to society that are entrenched in prison...
Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Triforcer on May 02, 2007, 10:12:46 AM I'm not arguing that as a social utilitarian matter, we are better off with pot illegal than with it legal. I'm just saying that pot legalization arguments based on alcohol and tobacco are strawmen/logically flawed. The pot debate should stand on its own merits, not on shrill screeching that "ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO ARE WORSE, YOU ARE THUS HYPROCRITES FOR POINTING OUT WAYS IN WHICH POT IS BAD".
Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: bhodi on May 02, 2007, 10:22:26 AM No, you are totally correct on that point. I got it, but I couldn't resist a snarky comment. I'll stop now, since I've already said my spiel on this, and it's in the den. Thanks geld. Asshole.
Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Nebu on May 02, 2007, 10:24:34 AM I think that some of us would argue that we should let people kill themselves with benign substances in the privacy of their own home if they wish to do so. I see no reason for marijuana to be illegal. Junk food has more deleterious effect on our society than pot.
The war on drugs is as big a waste of resources as the war on terror. Make the lesser evils into a cash crop and use the money to aid those trying to better themselves. It's a win-win scenario. People are going to do drugs whether they are illegal or not. If they are legal, you can build a lower cost infrastructure for coping with addiction while reducing societal costs and stygma. The solution is so clear that it astounds me why more people aren't brave enough to admit that substance prohibition just doesn't work. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on May 02, 2007, 10:29:54 AM Why Triforcer didn't also include sleep deprivation and Guitar Hero in his rants is beyond me. I thought the two made teh funney in my post.
Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Samwise on May 02, 2007, 10:41:23 AM The costs of banning alcohol or tobacco NOW may be too high, even if we should have banned them from the beginning. Similarly, the cost of allowing pot NOW may be too high, even if in the first instance we should have allowed it. I can see where you're coming from with the first part (although I'm not sure I agree with it, at least not at the national level), but not the second. If we should have allowed pot from the beginning, what's the "cost" of allowing it now? Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Ironwood on May 02, 2007, 12:22:28 PM I love Sams Boobs.
Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: angry.bob on May 02, 2007, 05:00:36 PM I can see where you're coming from with the first part (although I'm not sure I agree with it, at least not at the national level), but not the second. If we should have allowed pot from the beginning, what's the "cost" of allowing it now? People will switch from the first two over to the third and impact large corporations negatively. After all - most people will be able to easily supply themselves rather than have to buy it. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: HaemishM on May 03, 2007, 09:05:54 AM A simpler way to put it: Saying pot is "just as bad" as alcohol or tobacco may mean we screwed up on allowing alcohol and tobacco. But why does that mistake mean we have to throw up our hands now and open the floodgates to all bad things? Because like alcohol, pot isn't necessarily BAD BAD BAD. The Bacchus myth is a pretty clear allegory from history teaching that alcohol isn't bad in moderation. The fact that both beer and wine in small daily quantities actually reduces the chances of heart disease shows that alcohol isn't all bad when used intelligently. Pot has some medical applications for treating pain without more serious pharmaceutical side effects. Legislating laws purely on black and white, mixed with an unhealthy dose of competitive lobbying by monied interests, IS BAD. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Merusk on May 03, 2007, 09:56:40 AM Political stances aside for a moment:
Those of you decrying the study as, "omg they have an agenda, pot is A-OK and doesn't do any of that!" aren't remembering the discussion we had about Alcohol & its effect on certain people. I think it was Stray that has that friend with the condition where even a little of the juice turns him into a raging, violent assbag. This study seems to be saying, "Hay.. pot can do that to some people, too. Interesting." The article didn't say, "OMG REEFER MADNESS, POT MUST STAY ILLEGAL 4tCHILDRENS" It's what's done with the results that are politic, not the results themselves. Right? K. Back to your usual corners, come out swinging again. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: bhodi on May 03, 2007, 10:05:48 AM OK, I lied. I'm back. Some comments on that story (http://utteroutrage.blogspot.com/2007/05/marijuana-duck-duck-goose-same-old.html).
I know you'll be shocked, but that headline was misleading! I know, I know. Some choice bits from that: Quote Quick Psych 101: Psychology is only useful for broad, sweeping statements and we don't have a true understanding of all aspects of the brain or how they work, let alone how drugs interact with it (note: Not talking out of my ass; I have a Psych degree and recently had a great conversation with a neuroscientist on this exact topic). From the article: the two main active components of marijuana are cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). CBD produces a calming effect. THC is associated with the paranoia, euphoria. There are upwards of 300 active compounds in marijuana. This study took the two most abundant (THC and CBD), and looked to see where the brain was affected. Because of anti-drug taboos, these studies are almost always conducted with synthesized THC. And an MRI will give you an image of activity or inactivity, but - as already mentioned - we don't know all the details of activity in certain areas of the brain. To sum up: Doctors treated patients with a synthesis of a compound known to cause mild paranoia. They then put their patients in this machine [mri imager] and reported that the brain scan showed affected areas related to paranoia. No shit. I am not trying to slam the study. The media and its fervor, however, can go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut on this one. Reuters has this article titled "Brain scans pinpoint cannabis health risk." But they didn't. The brain scans show activity or inactivity of the brain, and and the implications affect mental health outlook, while "health" implies physical health or brain damage. First sentence: "Brain scans showing how cannabis affects brain function...." Hold it right there. Function is not measured but by behavior. See previous explanation of what is being measured. "It's no longer a contentious issue. The expert community, by and large, accepts that cannabis contributes to the onset of psychotic symptoms in general and the severe form of psychosis, schizophrenia," [Professor Robin Murray, conference organizer] said. Wrong. That sounds like the "Weed makes you crazy" defense. Dr. Zerrin Atakan, author of the study, was found to be an astute, reasonable human being completely void of the sensationalism that would follow a story like this. He was quoted in the Telegraph in 2004 as saying: Cannabis psychosis is a very vague term. If we ever use the phrase, it is only to describe very short-term effects immediately following smoking, and it certainly doesn't refer to users having a psychotic disorder. People may feel frightened or paranoid, but these feelings pass in a matter of hours or, more rarely, days, and practically never require treatment. He even laid out some very lucid guidelines in a message to the 2005 Cannabis Education March & Rally, telling everyone to make up their own mind about marijuana, but hitting on some basic facts about smoking before your brain is done growing, smoking if you have mental illness, or smoking every day. Very understanding and well-understood. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Sky on May 03, 2007, 12:06:42 PM I really want to reply to this, but I can't without becoming more of an asshole than I'm comfortable with.
I'm just happy so many people are out there looking out for my fucking safety. Apparently I'm not to be trusted to make my own decisions. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: HaemishM on May 03, 2007, 12:52:04 PM This study seems to be saying, "Hay.. pot can do that to some people, too. Interesting." The article didn't say, "OMG REEFER MADNESS, POT MUST STAY ILLEGAL 4tCHILDRENS" That's not the problem. This study is a joke because even a raging Internet asshole like myself knows that 15 people is not an adequate sample size for a serious study, unless 15 people is the total number of people the study subject could possibly affect in the entire world. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Merusk on May 03, 2007, 03:14:15 PM Fucking-a lost my reply.
Anyway.. 15 folks is ok if you're just trying to find "does x cause y in anyone?". They found it did, and now can go to "How many folks" or - as implied in the article - "Why?" Or are you going to tell me that 15 people isn't enough to discover that poking them in the eye is painful? The problem most of you are having is what OTHER folks are doing with the study. As bhodi pointed out, the guy who did the study actually seems ok with folks smoking pot. It's other idiots causing the problems by twisting his words. That's shit you just can't fucking resolve, regardless of the issue. There's idiots out there explaining that all Muslims must die because they're all dangerous and want to drink your baby's blood. Education is the only counter. Saying that it's bad science because - omg pot DOES have some side-effects - is fucking silly. It's fundie thought process from the left rather than the right. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: HaemishM on May 04, 2007, 08:43:28 AM It's bad science because it tells me things any person even vaguely knowledgeable about pot already knows, and does so with such a small sample size that it creates no new data. It's just like studying whether poking 15 people in the eye is painful because of course it is. Spend your study money on figuring out WHY it's painful (or dope causes pyschosis in some), what the triggers are, what other mitigating factors are involved. In other words, do a big boy study with good sample sizes, because politically-minded fucktards will take your anecdotal study and read it to the uninformed masses as gospel.
Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Merusk on May 04, 2007, 09:15:56 AM Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. He likely couldn't get funding for the "Why" until he had the "Yep, it actually does." As mentioned, he's looking off into the "Why" now.
Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Murgos on May 04, 2007, 10:42:53 AM It's bad science because it tells me things any person even vaguely knowledgeable about pot already knows... I think the early parts of this thread deny your statement in full. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Sky on May 04, 2007, 11:29:54 AM I'm not arguing that as a social utilitarian matter, we are better off with pot illegal than with it legal. I'm just saying that pot legalization arguments based on alcohol and tobacco are strawmen/logically flawed. The pot debate should stand on its own merits, not on shrill screeching that "ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO ARE WORSE, YOU ARE THUS HYPROCRITES FOR POINTING OUT WAYS IN WHICH POT IS BAD". Sorry, I have to comment on this one, though.The point of that particular tactic is to point out that many federal legislators partake in one or both alcohol and tobacco, despite any health risk or negative consequences from misuse. Because most adults should be allowed to be responsible and make those decisions for themselves. No responsible person wants people driving drunk, wants kids drinking alcohol. We don't make alcohol illegal because of that, we don't lock up liquor store owners. The pot debate is a sham. There is no debate, it's being legislated by a class of people who largely don't give a shit because their recreational drug of choice is already legal. I don't need /any/ studies, I don't need to prove shit to anyone. Regulate it, tax it, sell it. Period. If you don't like it, don't buy it, same as a bottle of whisky. In return, I won't smoke a bong and jump behind the wheel. It's how adults act. It's the way America is supposed to be, or at least was supposed to be....mind your own fucking business and get off my fucking lawn. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Furiously on May 04, 2007, 11:53:15 AM We might be treading into the realm of politics here.
So - honest question regarding legalization of pot. (I'm going to apply the standard we apply to alcohol). Is someone high a danger to themselves and others if they get behind the wheel of a car? Is there a good method for testing if someone is high if they do get behind a wheel of a car? Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on May 04, 2007, 12:27:42 PM I think the early parts of this thread deny your statement in full. And invoking propaganda such as Reefer Madness wasn't hyperbolic on your part? Pot, kettle, and all that. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Sky on May 04, 2007, 12:55:48 PM We might be treading into the realm of politics here. Yeah, sorry for carrying it over into politics. Touchy subject and I used to be an activist for marijuana law reforms back in the 80s.Is someone high a danger to themselves and others if they get behind the wheel of a car? Is there a good method for testing if someone is high if they do get behind a wheel of a car? Yes, it's not a great idea to smoke and drive. I have (I've also driven drunk way too much, but don't anymore). Thing is, it's very subjective (as far as your reaction to marijuana, your ability to focus, etc). But no, it's not a good idea in general and I don't at all recommend messing around like that, as with alcohol, you might be ok and might not have problems, but it's only a matter of time, and it's definitely irresponsible. Testing is tough. Afaik, testing for marijuana will only show general usage over a period of months, which is why it's an awful idea to drug test your employees without direct evidence they're high on the job (which I am also against!). I once sent home a guy from walmart for being high...and went to his house and smoked with him after work. You just shouldn't smoke on the job imo. But there's no good way to isolate recent usage enough to be useful, no way to measure your intoxication as you can with alcohol, outside sobriety tests in general. Good point. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Murgos on May 04, 2007, 02:09:57 PM I think the early parts of this thread deny your statement in full. And invoking propaganda such as Reefer Madness wasn't hyperbolic on your part? Pot, kettle, and all that. One was hyperbole to attract attention and the other was hyperbole as partial proof of an argument on a course of action. Surely you can tell the difference? Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on May 04, 2007, 02:32:33 PM Not a big enough difference to warrant your "you guys are teh mean! Why aren't you taking this seriously?" comments. Enjoy the posts for what they are: lame jokes and exasperation at decades of blatant misinformation.
Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Murgos on May 04, 2007, 09:24:22 PM Enjoy the posts for what they are: lame jokes and exasperation at decades of blatant misinformation. Reefer madness was released in 1936, the decades of blatant misinformation has slipped far to the other side at this point. For example, admitted pot-heads who refuse to believe that there could possibly be negative effects from inhaling marijuana. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Damn Dirty Ape on May 05, 2007, 03:52:30 PM (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d8/The.Big.Lebowski.1998.Screenshot.2.jpg/350px-)
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Ironwood on May 06, 2007, 12:28:06 AM Heh.
Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Triforcer on May 06, 2007, 05:47:49 AM The greatest anti-drug source ever:
http://www.thewavemag.com/pagegen.php?pagename=article&articleid=22906 And to whoever asked about danger from getting behind the wheel of a car while high: this answers your question. Apparently you will drive your car purposefully off a high cliff, laughing hysterically about how awesome it is all the while. Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Sky on May 07, 2007, 06:57:16 AM For example, admitted pot-heads who refuse to believe that there could possibly be negative effects from inhaling marijuana. (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:2dRIwPXH3km5mM:http://www.imgred.com/http://www.saulmoran.com/strawman.jpg)Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Signe on May 07, 2007, 07:23:21 AM I don't inhale. Ever.
Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Lantyssa on May 07, 2007, 09:46:00 AM You're anaerobic?
Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Furiously on May 07, 2007, 10:14:52 AM Or maybe a Zombie.... Righ, don't let her near your BRAAAAAAINNNNNSSSSS!
Title: Re: Reefer Madness? No, really. Post by: Signe on May 07, 2007, 10:30:28 AM You're anaerobic? I used to be, but now I'm all about the jazzercise. PS If I wanted Righ's brain, I could have had it any time over the last 13 years or so, but I married him for his money! |