Pot/drugs: An all-encompassing explanation.

[E.O.T.]

Pot may seriously handicap some people, rarely, with heavy use at a young age. The government's outlawing of pot and the way it handles those who break that law destroys hundreds of thousands of lives per year.

There's really no comparison.

[East Coast Hustle]

the hash sold in the uk commonly is weak as fuck.

geez, if it was a british study, it would be looking at british averages.

the good hash is really rare, back when i cuold smoke I was the only one of some of my suppliers customers that would even entertain smoking it because it has such a poor rep generally.

thusly i would get free grams or so of good hash cos no one could shift the stuff.

strange, but true yo

FYI, if your "hash" is weaker than your pot, it's because it's either not REALLY hash, or it's been heavily adulterated. Actual hashish is an extraction of the psychoactive resinous compounds from the inert vegetative material of the marijuana plant. The only way I could think of to make legitimate hash and have it be weaker than buds would be if you made hash from the male plant, which would still be retarded because you would be jeopardizing thousands of dollars of the value of your crop by keeping the male plants around and risking them pollinating the females, which causes the females to seed, lowering both the THC content and the value of the plant. My suspicion is that your low-grade hash is probably adulterated. One way to tell if it's any good or not is to take a crumb or two and see if it will actually catch fire. If it won't sustain a flame, it's probably junk.

[East Coast Hustle]

Pot may seriously handicap some people, rarely, with heavy use at a young age. The government's outlawing of pot and the way it handles those who break that law destroys hundreds of thousands of lives per year.

There's really no comparison.

Stop that nonsense. Withholding ANY federal financial aid for education to anyone who has ANY drug-related conviction at all FOR THE REST OF THEIR ENTIRE LIFE is a fair and sensible policy, and our fine nation can only be further improved by the furtherance of this and all similar policies.

[Requia ☣]

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.

You're implying the wrong causation.  People with mental issues are substantially more likely to end up being long term drug users.

[Bruno]

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.

You're implying the wrong causation.  People with mental issues are substantially more likely to end up being long term drug users.

I have doubts abour causation as well, but I won't dismiss the possibility that the pot may contribute. I also wonder about the use of prescribed ADHD medication's long term effects, and whether they might actually be worse.

[AFK]

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.

I'm not sure I've ever suggested every thread about drugs is about me.  Obviously this thread was begun and went 20 or so pages before I even bothered to post.  And then this article I posted was merely to demonstrate that while one study may suggest a short term benefit, one must also consider the long term impacts of prolonged use of any drug whether it be mushrooms or pot.  My issue is with how some disagree with me.  It's not enough to simply disagree, but then someone like Rat also needs to call into question my integrity and suggest that professionally I'm just making shit up.  The point of me posting the article was to highlight the research.  The one study that talked about the correlation between prolonged use and psychosis and the other about the impacts of more potent marijuana.  I'm not super concerned with whether or not the Brits are referring to the right kind of pot or not, because I don't fucking live in Britain and don't have to be concerned with that.  But potency is potency whether you call it skunk, antelope, or Marge Simpson.  But again, it's not the disagreeing, it's the disagreeing and calling my integrity into question that pisses me off. 

[AFK]

I am not simply gonna accept some random news article that is filled with lines which set off my Bullshit detector. The use of terms in the news article indicated that the author didn't know what they were talking about. So I went to the source. The actual study on psychosis (found and linked) is quite good. Its specific, its got details and it makes some very clear statements. It's conclusions are not the same as the conclusions presented in the news article though. The other study quoted is factually inaccurate. As it bases its conclusion ON inaccurate facts (hash is better that 'skunk' cause its not as potent), I have no confidence in the woman's study. I posted supporting evidence form the goddess-damned ONDCP, what more do you want?

Or should I just believe anything you link to, due to your sterling reputation of providing us with reliable studies and anecdotes on the topic?

And this is exactly what I'm talking about.  You can't just simply disagree with me.  You've gotta get a personal dig in as well. 

[AFK]

33 pages, and we're reduced  (on both sides) to ignoring or dismissing out of hand any articles or sources that disagree with our own beliefs.

RWHN brought up a good point about long-term side effects, with references, and it was howled down with no rebuttal.

Nigel bumped the article on shrooms having a good effect (can't remember who posted it in the first place), and a knee or two jerked instantly.

This has become about as productive as the standard Israel/Palestinian debate on any given politicaltard board, because both sides are yelling and nobody's listening.

OOK OOK!

For the record, I actually didn't have any direct commentary on that article that Nigel bumped.  I am a little suspect of the findings, but I'm not dismissing it out of hand.  However, what I would say is that the long term effects should continue to be studied to do a cost/benefit analysis of the benefit found in this study, versus long term impacts on mental and physical health. 

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Yea most british solid form cannabis is adulterated and horrible.

I remember having to hit that shit with a hammer to remove the cling film as to not inhale it. And I know the difference between good hash and skank hash.

Basically you guys  seem to be arguing over what is basically a cultural difference in terms and what is available commonly.

I am not sure about if cannabis psychosis is real or a main cause, but I did smoke daily from about 21 and am currently awaiting treatment for psychosis.

It may be a chicken/egg problem. It may be more that if you take a combination of different drugs (poly use) your more likely to fuck yourself up, which is the one variable that these studies never seem to explore.
Personally I hope its not the case in my case cos being able to smoke occaisionly would be nice in a couple years.

[AFK]

And I would suggest that further study in both the case of the marijuana study and the mushroom is warranted.  It's simply current understanding.  My thing was to point out that we are learning more and more about the impacts of drugs on the body.  And while some of these studies may turn up some benefits (moderate alcohol consumption has shown to have some positive effects) others put those studies into perspective (long term, heavy drinking leads to liver cancer). 

[Doktor Howl]

Pot may seriously handicap some people, rarely, with heavy use at a young age. The government's outlawing of pot and the way it handles those who break that law destroys hundreds of thousands of lives per year.

There's really no comparison.

THIS.

America:  We swallowed the spider to catch the fly.  Now get in the van.

[LMNO]

I suspect that underneath RWHN's beard, he's secretely hiding a MOUSTACHE.

[Richter]

Ratatosk's dig at RWHN, about if it was Ok to lie to discourage drug use, was a low way to go.

We've all seen the pics, I suspect the 'stache is affecting him, after all these years.   

[Cramulus]

these staches are pulling us apart!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I'm not super concerned with whether or not the Brits are referring to the right kind of pot or not, because I don't fucking live in Britain and don't have to be concerned with that.  But potency is potency whether you call it skunk, antelope, or Marge Simpson.  But again, it's not the disagreeing, it's the disagreeing and calling my integrity into question that pisses me off. 

Did you simply not fucking read what I wrote? Potency is not potency, at least not anywhere near the numbers quoted in the study. Skunk, Kine, Bud whatever you call it does NOT HAVE A FUCKING 18% THC Content!!!!!!!!! That IS FUCKING FALSE according to every other fucking study done on potency, including the US one done 3 months before that report was published. So the 'scientific' report uses slang rather than scientific terms, which is particularly problematic in the context. Let us say, for the sake of argument that the foundation of the report is true (that higher potency pot will cause mental problems)... the report claims that smoking "hash" is LESS DANGEROUS because it has a lower potency.

While this MAY be true in Britain, it is FALSE in most parts of the world. Generally, 'hash' is a reference to much HIGHER Potency stuff. So, at the least the report gives information that would be misleading to anyone except brits that understand brit slang. However. it still makes claims which doubles the known potency of Hydroponic marijuana. So it uses bad slang and is unclear, and it makes false statements... I WONDER WHY I DON"T TRUST THE FUCKING "STUDY"?

Either you can have a discussion here or you can't. If you're gonna get all butthurt, I suggest not discussing it because I'm not gonna pat you on the back and say "Good job RWHN, you found another crap report!"

On the other hand, if you want to discuss the topic and sack up when you liink to bad data, then I think that's great.