Pot/drugs: An all-encompassing explanation.

[Doktor Howl]

Yes, this is what happens when we read thoroughly. 

And the bullshit comment about making stuff up is much appreciated, jackass! 

That's what happens when you argue religion.   

[AFK]

twice as likely compared to what, btw?

compared to a control group of kids the same age who didn't use pot. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Oh the quotes I'm finding from this other study seem really great:

The potency of cannabis has increased over the past 10 years, with more concentrated forms now on sale. In 1995, skunk had 6% THC (Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) - the chemical which is held responsible for the psychotic symptoms. Now, according to a recent study, skunk contains 16-18% THC and it contains little or no CBD (cannabidiol), a molecule that appears to counteract the damaging effects of THC. Hash, on the other hand, has much less THC and an almost equal amount of CBD.

This is why "skunk" seemed like a weird label to me. It's not the street term, its some made up usage which apparently is referring to "all" marijuana that isn't grown outside. However, its numbers are horrifically off. Skunk (if we assume they're referencing all Kine Bud) has not increased 10% in potency over the past 15 years. Further, the idea that Hash would have LESS THC than plant matter is horrifically false. Even according to the ODNCP and the Drug Czar's report (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/MPMP-report.pdf). This report on potency for the first quarter of 2009 concludes that the average potency of high-potence pot averages at 8.53%, while the average potency of hash is at 20.76%.

As an aside, the Drug Czar's office had originally proclaimed that Marijuana Potency had finally topped 10% for the first time. However, after the report was publicized, it became obvious that the 10% number was ONLY if the potency of marijuana and hash were COMBINED and compared to the numbers for marijuana alone historically. The numbers in the study that claimed pot was at a potency of 16-18% for marijuana and "much less" for hash makes no sense... all the evidence and reports that I have read in the past place pot potency below 10% for Kine bud and place hash much higher than 10%.

From personal experience, hash is stronger, by far, than unprocessed marijuana.

However, this doesn't discount my position on kids and Pot, that is... Kinds shouldn't smoke Pot it appears to fuck up their life badly.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Actual science also proves this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35642202/ns/health-addictions/

Long-term pot use can double risk of psychosis
Young people who smoke marijuana more prone to delusions, study says

LONDON - Young people who smoke cannabis or marijuana for six years or more are twice as likely to have psychotic episodes, hallucinations or delusions than people who have never used the drug, scientists said on Monday.

What does that have to do with the Hopkins study on psilocybin?

[the last yatto]

who knew  slowly breaking the law over a period of time would tend to make one come apart at the schemes...

and actually rat, i think hash was used by 'the assassins' for a reason...

[Doktor Howl]

who knew  slowly breaking the law over a period of time would tend to make one come apart at the schemes...

YEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!

[East Coast Hustle]

Oh the quotes I'm finding from this other study seem really great:

The potency of cannabis has increased over the past 10 years, with more concentrated forms now on sale. In 1995, skunk had 6% THC (Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) - the chemical which is held responsible for the psychotic symptoms. Now, according to a recent study, skunk contains 16-18% THC and it contains little or no CBD (cannabidiol), a molecule that appears to counteract the damaging effects of THC. Hash, on the other hand, has much less THC and an almost equal amount of CBD.

This is why "skunk" seemed like a weird label to me. It's not the street term, its some made up usage which apparently is referring to "all" marijuana that isn't grown outside. However, its numbers are horrifically off. Skunk (if we assume they're referencing all Kine Bud) has not increased 10% in potency over the past 15 years. Further, the idea that Hash would have LESS THC than plant matter is horrifically false. Even according to the ODNCP and the Drug Czar's report (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/MPMP-report.pdf). This report on potency for the first quarter of 2009 concludes that the average potency of high-potence pot averages at 8.53%, while the average potency of hash is at 20.76%.

As an aside, the Drug Czar's office had originally proclaimed that Marijuana Potency had finally topped 10% for the first time. However, after the report was publicized, it became obvious that the 10% number was ONLY if the potency of marijuana and hash were COMBINED and compared to the numbers for marijuana alone historically. The numbers in the study that claimed pot was at a potency of 16-18% for marijuana and "much less" for hash makes no sense... all the evidence and reports that I have read in the past place pot potency below 10% for Kine bud and place hash much higher than 10%.

From personal experience, hash is stronger, by far, than unprocessed marijuana.

However, this doesn't discount my position on kids and Pot, that is... Kinds shouldn't smoke Pot it appears to fuck up their life badly.

this.

[East Coast Hustle]

Actual science also proves this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35642202/ns/health-addictions/

Long-term pot use can double risk of psychosis
Young people who smoke marijuana more prone to delusions, study says

LONDON - Young people who smoke cannabis or marijuana for six years or more are twice as likely to have psychotic episodes, hallucinations or delusions than people who have never used the drug, scientists said on Monday.

What does that have to do with the Hopkins study on psilocybin?

and this.

[Triple Zero]

Actual science also proves this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35642202/ns/health-addictions/

Long-term pot use can double risk of psychosis
Young people who smoke marijuana more prone to delusions, study says

LONDON - Young people who smoke cannabis or marijuana for six years or more are twice as likely to have psychotic episodes, hallucinations or delusions than people who have never used the drug, scientists said on Monday.

What does that have to do with the Hopkins study on psilocybin?

I think it means that for every scientific study that shows there can be benefits to drug use, RWHN can show us one that says they're dangerous or unhealthy.

Just in case you were trying to form your opinion on drugs by the time-tested method of scoring points.

[AFK]

See, it's this snide shit that doesn't make me miss this place as much as I might. 

[the last yatto]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2023/does-assassin-derive-from-hashish

[Triple Zero]

See, it's this snide shit that doesn't make me miss this place as much as I might. 

Well, snide or not, you did come across that way.

Someone posts "Psylocibin found to cause mystical experiences", to which you
directly reply "Cannabis found to increase risk of psychosis", how else am I
supposed to interpret this?

Because really, how are they related? The only common thing is they are
both about drugs and one shows an (arguably, IMO) "good" thing about drugs and
the other a (definitely) bad thing about drugs.

Since they are completely different kinds of drugs, and that your (IMO, also
pretty snide) remark was a direct reply to the other, how else am I supposed to
interpret it than some kind of attempt to push the "score" one point in the
direction "against drugs"?

That's what I was trying to say in my previous post. The snide version was just a
bit more concise.

[AFK]

What is the title of the fucking thread? 

"POT/drugs...."

But you guys are so intent on proving everything I ever say about drugs WRONG, you fucking pounce on anything I post.  Rat automatically goes to some bullshit about "skunk", when it was obvious if anyone read the fucking artice that they were describing two distinct studies.  But when the goal is to shoot everything I post down, pesky little things like details go out the fucking window. 

So spare me the bullshit about "scoring points", as you guys have been trying to "score points" against me from the first debate thread we had about drugs. 

[the last yatto]

[Triple Zero]

But you guys are so intent on proving everything I ever say about drugs WRONG, you fucking pounce on anything I post.  Rat automatically goes to some bullshit about "skunk", when it was obvious if anyone read the fucking artice that they were describing two distinct studies.  But when the goal is to shoot everything I post down, pesky little things like details go out the fucking window.

I was talking about YOUR reaction to somebody else posting research on psylocibin. My point was if anybody was pouncing, it was you.

It was BEFORE Rat said anything about skunk. Which he said about the article, not about YOU, so I dunno why you have to take that so personal. He even said the article was wrong but the research was right. How is that pouncing?

Maybe you didn't notice, but "us guys" aren't intent on proving everything YOU say about drugs wrong. In fact, I agree with a lot things YOU say about drugs. And a lot of "us guys" with me.

The articles you post, however, at least every single one I decided to check upon were biased crap I wouldn't want to be caught dead citing (you say "some bullshit about skunk", I say, "if they can't get that simple detail right, why should I trust the rest of the research to be done accurate?"). People point this out and you take that personally. You didn't write the article did you?

So spare me the bullshit about "scoring points", as you guys have been trying to "score points" against me from the first debate thread we had about drugs.

NOT EVERY THREAD ABOUT DRUGS IS ABOUT YOU.

NOT EVERY POST SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT DRUG RESEARCH IS SAYING SOMETHING BAD ABOUT YOU.

why do you take it all so personal?

you can't debate something very well if you insist that people never disagree with sources you cite.