Pot/drugs: An all-encompassing explanation.

[Rumckle]

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!

This is why I usually avoid these threads.

It is usually interesting discussion for the first 10 pages, but then is usually just tears the board apart, and creates unnecessary rifts.

For fuck sakes, isn't 500 threads arguments on drugs enough?

[LMNO]

SHUT UP AND GET ON BOARD THE 'STACHE.

[Triple Zero]

Hey Rev, first off my apologies for flying a bit off the handle yesterday. I did mean what I said, but I could probably have worded it somewhat more friendly.

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.

yes, that's exactly what I meant by "scoring points":

the research linked in the article (let alone the article itself) was not relevant, cause it was about the dangers of long term usage of pot and the one you were replying to about a debatable benefit of single use of mushrooms.

it was only relevant in the sense of countering "research that seems to show benefit of drug usage" with "research that shows danger of drug usage".

maybe my issue is with you lumping together pot and mushrooms like that. you can't compare them.

The point of me posting the article was to highlight the research.

Well, you would have been better off linking the actual research, as the article drew incorrect conclusions from the research and was basically spreading FUD, which is not really useful in a debate.

And that's what I got from Rat's response, not questioning your integrity, but questioning the article.

Then, after Rat, very clearly debunked the article but not the research linked in the article, you took that as questioning your integrity, which prompted my response of not taking everything so damn personally.

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.  
[/quote]

Well in all fairness, you have posted links to studies that were not reliable* and anecdotes that were, to say the least, rather confusing** .

The point with citing sources is that people can check those sources. You agree with that right? If you don't we might want to lie down some ground rules for debate, first.

The result of this type of debate is, that if your sources are filled with FUD (like the article), or uses terminology you apparently aren't familiar with yourself (again like the article) or omissions and falsehoods (like the research in one of the previous threads), it actually undermines your argument instead of strengthening it.

This means that if you make an argument that relies upon a cited source, there are two ways of attacking that argument: Either you question the connection between the argument and the source (such as "what do the dangers of long-term pot usage have to do with the debatable benefits of one-time mushroomn usage?") or you question the validity of the source. Which can be multiple levels deep if you cite an article which in question cites some research.

You gotta be prepared to defend both, instead of taking the fact that people attacking either of those angles personally.

Otherwise it's really difficult to have a debate.

And also what ECH's ALL CAPS HOWL said. We're not here to paint you as the bad guy, we're here to have a discussion about drugs, to learn from eachother, form opinion and objectively compare researched facts. Like it is obvious to anyone that kids shouldn't do drugs, I am kind of hoping it's also obvious to everybody that most of the research on either side is not very objective.

Which is why the validity of ANY AND ALL sources cited should be completely open to discussion, preferably without the person that cited those sources taking that as a personal attack (because really it isn't, it attacks the sources, not the person citing them).

*the ones I read in the previous thread about drugs were severely biased and contained numerous falsehoods and omissions. when this was pointed out, you took that personally and the discussion went downhill from there, again about your integrity and no longer discussing the research.

**remember the "pharma parties" and "popping pills from a bowl like skittles" discussion? sure we resolved the confusion in the end, you never meant to imply kids grabbing a handful of pills blindly from a bowl, but it took pretty damn long before we cleared up that simple misunderstanding, mostly because you took it so very personally that people doubted your story.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Hey Rev, first off my apologies for flying a bit off the handle yesterday. I did mean what I said, but I could probably have worded it somewhat more friendly.

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.

yes, that's exactly what I meant by "scoring points":

the research linked in the article (let alone the article itself) was not relevant, cause it was about the dangers of long term usage of pot and the one you were replying to about a debatable benefit of single use of mushrooms.

it was only relevant in the sense of countering "research that seems to show benefit of drug usage" with "research that shows danger of drug usage".

maybe my issue is with you lumping together pot and mushrooms like that. you can't compare them.

The point of me posting the article was to highlight the research.

Well, you would have been better off linking the actual research, as the article drew incorrect conclusions from the research and was basically spreading FUD, which is not really useful in a debate.

And that's what I got from Rat's response, not questioning your integrity, but questioning the article.

Then, after Rat, very clearly debunked the article but not the research linked in the article, you took that as questioning your integrity, which prompted my response of not taking everything so damn personally.

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.  

Well in all fairness, you have posted links to studies that were not reliable* and anecdotes that were, to say the least, rather confusing** .

The point with citing sources is that people can check those sources. You agree with that right? If you don't we might want to lie down some ground rules for debate, first.

The result of this type of debate is, that if your sources are filled with FUD (like the article), or uses terminology you apparently aren't familiar with yourself (again like the article) or omissions and falsehoods (like the research in one of the previous threads), it actually undermines your argument instead of strengthening it.

This means that if you make an argument that relies upon a cited source, there are two ways of attacking that argument: Either you question the connection between the argument and the source (such as "what do the dangers of long-term pot usage have to do with the debatable benefits of one-time mushroomn usage?") or you question the validity of the source. Which can be multiple levels deep if you cite an article which in question cites some research.

You gotta be prepared to defend both, instead of taking the fact that people attacking either of those angles personally.

Otherwise it's really difficult to have a debate.

And also what ECH's ALL CAPS HOWL said. We're not here to paint you as the bad guy, we're here to have a discussion about drugs, to learn from eachother, form opinion and objectively compare researched facts. Like it is obvious to anyone that kids shouldn't do drugs, I am kind of hoping it's also obvious to everybody that most of the research on either side is not very objective.

Which is why the validity of ANY AND ALL sources cited should be completely open to discussion, preferably without the person that cited those sources taking that as a personal attack (because really it isn't, it attacks the sources, not the person citing them).

*the ones I read in the previous thread about drugs were severely biased and contained numerous falsehoods and omissions. when this was pointed out, you took that personally and the discussion went downhill from there, again about your integrity and no longer discussing the research.

**remember the "pharma parties" and "popping pills from a bowl like skittles" discussion? sure we resolved the confusion in the end, you never meant to imply kids grabbing a handful of pills blindly from a bowl, but it took pretty damn long before we cleared up that simple misunderstanding, mostly because you took it so very personally that people doubted your story.

This is 100% the correct motorcycle.

[Doktor Howl]

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.

There's nothing more refreshing than calm, reasoned debate. 

[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.

There's nothing more refreshing than calm, reasoned debate. 

I learn from the best, good Doktor.

[Rumckle]

SHUT UP AND GET ON BOARD THE 'STACHE.

I tried, but I can't


unless my friends supply me with some

[Doktor Howl]

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!

This is why I usually avoid these threads.

It is usually interesting discussion for the first 10 pages, but then is usually just tears the board apart, and creates unnecessary rifts.

For fuck sakes, isn't 500 threads arguments on drugs enough?

Yeah, I started this thread with the intent of addressing Toking and one other dude's insistence that weed gives you magickal powers and insights, or at least addressing WHY people choose to do various drugs.  It was supposed to be a poke at people who make excuses for something that doesn't require excuses, and it has once again turned into a huge sack of partisan assbaggery.

[LMNO]

SHUT UP AND GET ON BOARD THE 'STACHE.

I tried, but I can't


unless my friends supply me with some

THE FIRST 'STACHE IS FREE, MY FRIEND.


BUT BE CAREFUL -- YOU CAN'T TRUST THE BEARDOS.  


NEVER TRUST A BEARDO.

[Doktor Howl]

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.

There's nothing more refreshing than calm, reasoned debate. 

I learn from the best, good Doktor.

Arguably, you had no choice.  

Look what I MADE you do.

[Doktor Howl]

SHUT UP AND GET ON BOARD THE 'STACHE.

I tried, but I can't


unless my friends supply me with some

THE FIRST 'STACHE IS FREE, MY FRIEND.


BUT BE CAREFUL -- YOU CAN'T TRUST THE BEARDOS.  


NEVER TRUST A BEARDO.

I can quit 'stache any time I like.  I only do it because it's magickal, and lets me levitate.

[Richter]

Hi, I'm the Deacon Richter.

You may remember me from one podcast, some snazzy craftings, and a whole slew of irrelevant postings.  I'm here today to talk to you about 'stache.  

Some people, your friends, classmates, ma tell you that 'Stache is a harmless recreational hairstyle.  They may think it's fun to use stache after school, on weekends or at band practice.  You might see some of the popular jocks sneaking a stache in the locker room.

Well, stache is actually very harmful.  It's side effects include AWESOME, BearForce, or looking like a hipster fuck.  Stache abusers think it covers up their other stubble, and may go for days without shaving.  They may, in extreme cases, develop handlebars.

They may offer you BEARD as well as stache.  
"It's like rehersing a battle whith the universe" they'll say.  The truth they don't tell you is no one will want to kiss yout prickly, steel wool infested face.

I was once a Stache user, it led me into BEARD, and I'm STILL AWESOME.  
I CAN HANDLE IT
I CAN SHAVE ANYTIME I WANT.
YOU FUCKERS WHO CAN'T DEAL CAN WALK AROUND WITH YOUR BABY - BALL SMOOTH SHAVING HABITS, DON'T KNOW CRAP ABOUT MY VRILE WAXED HAIR CONTRUCTION.

Don't do stache.  Do other people.  
You'll catch regular STD's we KNOW how to treat.

[LMNO]

DON'T NEED FAMILY.

DON'T NEED THE STATE.

DON'T NEED RELIGION.

JUST NEED 'STACHE.


DON'T NEED POT.

DON'T NEED SHROOMS.

DON'T NEED FOOD.

JUST NEED 'STACHE.




GOTTA GET MORE.


MORE.

'STACHE.




MOR'STACHE.

[Triple Zero]

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.

This was a big issue in the Netherlands a couple of years ago.

From the research I have read and heard about it, basically it comes down to the following:

First off, just to get some definitions clear (I might gloss over some details I'm not a psychiatrist, but just so we're all on the same level).

- There are people that are predisposed to getting psychotic episodes. This is a trait these people have, even though they may not suffer any psychotic episode all their life.
- A psychosis is a singular event, if it happens regularly we call it schizophrenia (well, the truth is more complicated than that, but this works for now)

Now, what they have found, is that if you're already predisposed to psychotic episodes, using pot may trigger one of these, which on its own sucks bad enough, but if it happens more often increases the chance of developing into full-blown schizophrenia as well.

However in addition to that, schizophrenics and other people suffering psychosis are known for their chronic pot-usage. At least, in the Netherlands. My friend is a psychiatrist working at a clinic treating these people, and he told me that the psychotics were all on pot, or used to smoke pot heavily (multiple joints a day) for a prolonged period of time*.

Sooo the correlation really goes both ways.

It is, however, probably a good idea to stay away from pot if you know you have inclination to psychosis (sorry Pixie)

*Something, which btw, I think people shouldnt do anyway, whether they have inclination towards psychosis or not. Unless you're in pain, I guess. Because I don't wanna take peoples joints away if their joints hurt like hell.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

This was a big issue in the Netherlands a couple of years ago.

From the research I have read and heard about it, basically it comes down to the following:

First off, just to get some definitions clear (I might gloss over some details I'm not a psychiatrist, but just so we're all on the same level).

- There are people that are predisposed to getting psychotic episodes. This is a trait these people have, even though they may not suffer any psychotic episode all their life.
- A psychosis is a singular event, if it happens regularly we call it schizophrenia (well, the truth is more complicated than that, but this works for now)

Now, what they have found, is that if you're already predisposed to psychotic episodes, using pot may trigger one of these, which on its own sucks bad enough, but if it happens more often increases the chance of developing into full-blown schizophrenia as well.

However in addition to that, schizophrenics and other people suffering psychosis are known for their chronic pot-usage. At least, in the Netherlands. My friend is a psychiatrist working at a clinic treating these people, and he told me that the psychotics were all on pot, or used to smoke pot heavily (multiple joints a day) for a prolonged period of time*.

Sooo the correlation really goes both ways.

It is, however, probably a good idea to stay away from pot if you know you have inclination to psychosis (sorry Pixie)

*Something, which btw, I think people shouldnt do anyway, whether they have inclination towards psychosis or not. Unless you're in pain, I guess. Because I don't wanna take peoples joints away if their joints hurt like hell.

However, the new study (the one that actually reads like a scientific study) indicates that heavy marijuana use in young adults for an extended period of time almost doubles the risk for psychotic episodes. The study focused on 21 year olds that had been smoking heavily since age 15 (so 6 years). In contrast, those who smoked only a few times or occasionally didn't exhibit the tendency. To account for the genetic predisposition, they focused on siblings and did a through examination of thei family history of psychosis.

all in all the recent study was extremely interesting and supports my anecdotal experiences... if you are a young adult and you smoke pot, you may have some serious, serious problems in the very near future. Almost everyone I know who started smoking young appear to have serious issues.  Conversely, almost everyone I know who began smoking later in life seems to get along just fine.

EDIT: Of course, everyone of the people I know who started smoking young also had serious problems with their home life... so there may be multiple causes and effects going on.