[quote]anonym wrote:
“Marijuana participants were not excluded if they had used other illegal drugs in the past…”
:)[/quote]
Key point
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
“Marijuana participants were not excluded if they had used other illegal drugs in the past…”
:)[/quote]
Key point[/quote]
Want more?
- shit-tier sample size (only 40 participants; 20 pot smokers)
- “recreational” smokers averaging 11 joints per week
- only one MRI scan was performed on each participant – note that this makes the authors’ assertions about “exposure-dependent alterations” extremely suspect (i.e., how can you know if something has been changed if you’ve only ever seen it once?)
- as alluded to above, this was cross-sectional, not longitudinal
- funded via grants from, amongst others, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (not that this directly says anything, but it’s worth noting)
- not only were subjects not excluded for past drug use, there is no mention of assessing narcotic indulgences beyond a urine sample (results not disclosed) and evaluating whether or not they were “abusers” based on undisclosed criteria (here I remind you of the standards for what is considered “recreational” pot smoking)
- misrepresentation of data significance via p-values: the authors bolded all p-values showing statistical significance before correction and simply asterisked those that held up after correction (table 2, 4). The authors left Table 5 entirely uncorrected for multiple comparisons, and merely asterisked in the place of significant values. This (disingenuously, I’d say), inflates the robustness of their findings.
I’m not a neurologist, so I can’t get into the nuances of the seeming discrepancies in density, volume and surface morphometry, but with the high level of congruency between the groups in all three tests (Ten-Item Personality Inventory, State Trait Anxiety Inventory Form and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale), and with no other comparisons of neurologic/cognitive function, I’d hesitate to consider these findings as anything more than academically illustrative trivia.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^No. I’m talking about large scale, peer reviewed studies showing brain damage in occasional users and increased rates of schizophrenia, bipolar and other mental illnesses manifesting themselves in pot smokers.[/quote]
Can you post the report?[/quote]
http://jn.sfn.org/press/April-16-2014-Issue/zns01614005529.pdf[/quote]
Um, this is not a large scale study and it does not show increased rates of any mental illness in pot smokers.[/quote]
I didn’t proffer it as a large scale study. It’s one of dozens of studies to which I made reference. Studies on the harmful effects of marijuana are in the media(mainstream and otherwise) regularly. You can’t miss them. Potheads like to pretend they have missed them and that they don’t exist, don’t say what they’re reported to say or they discredit the studies themselves.
You mention the link between marijuana use and mental illness? Okay, I’ve done a google search for you and here are some of the studies that come up:
"A new large-scale study, published in 2013 in the journal Comprehensive Psychiatry, confirms the link between regular marijuana use and mental health problems…
A 20 year long study on the connection between marijuana use, mental illness and a wide range of negative consequences:
If you want to downplay the results of these studies or attack their specific methodologies that’s fine, but let’s not pretend they don’t exist. Let’s not play the “what studies? I don’t see any studies” game.
Edited
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^No. I’m talking about large scale, peer reviewed studies showing brain damage in occasional users and increased rates of schizophrenia, bipolar and other mental illnesses manifesting themselves in pot smokers.[/quote]
Can you post the report?[/quote]
http://jn.sfn.org/press/April-16-2014-Issue/zns01614005529.pdf[/quote]
Um, this is not a large scale study and it does not show increased rates of any mental illness in pot smokers.[/quote]
I didn’t proffer it as a large scale study. It’s one of dozens of studies to which I made reference. Studies on the harmful effects of marijuana are in the media(mainstream and otherwise) regularly. You can’t miss them. Potheads like to pretend they have missed them and that they don’t exist, don’t say what they’re reported to say or they discredit the studies themselves.
You mention the link between marijuana use and mental illness? Okay, I’ve done a google search for you and here are some of the studies that come up:
"A new large-scale study, published in 2013 in the journal Comprehensive Psychiatry, confirms the link between regular marijuana use and mental health problems…
A 20 year long study on the connection between marijuana use, mental illness and a wide range of negative consequences:
If you want to downplay the results of these studies or attack their specific methodologies that’s fine, but let’s not pretend they don’t exist. Let’s not play the “what studies? I don’t see any studies” game.
Edited[/quote]
I agree with you on this point. The study shows what is shows and no matter how innocent we make pot to be, it’s not completely innocent. It’s not a big bad boogie man either.
I think it should be legal, but it’s also important to be informed about the drugs you choose to use. It sure doesn’t hurt anything having extra knowledge and should something go awry with your health, the information can help you. There’s always a risk even with mild drugs. Use at your own risk is cliche, but it’s a true one.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I didn’t proffer it as a large scale study.[/quote]
Then why proffer it at all?
When you say you are “talking about” apples, and someone asks to see apples, it is silly to give them an orange and act perturbed when they say it looks like it would make shitty sauce.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s one of dozens of studies to which I made reference.[/quote]
That’s the thing, though: it literally is not. You said “I’m talking about large scale peer reviewed studies showing brain damage in occasional users and increased rates of schizophrenia, bipolar and other mental illnesses manifesting themselves in pot smokers”… then, when asked for a report of such a thing, you provided a report that was NOT large scale, did NOT involve “occasional” users, and did NOT address any type of adverse psychiatric outcomes at all.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You mention the link between marijuana use and mental illness? Okay, I’ve done a google search for you and here are some of the studies that come up:[/quote]
No, YOU mentioned the link between marijuana use and mental illness. What I mentioned was the ABSENCE of such a link within the context of your source.
As far as pretending such a link doesn’t exist: is this one of those hay people you folks around here are always getting mad at for running around and stuffing their words in your mouth?
So, no, I am not going to play the “what studies? I don’t see any studies” game with you (though FWIW I still don’t see any studies, just two news articles talking about them). I’m not interested in promoting any sort of agenda here - I just skimmed this thread with some spare time on my hands and decided to take a jab at search engine mastery masquerading as subject matter expertise.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Dude. I read all that and was inspired to do a pistol squat.[/quote]
Groovy exercise choice, my man.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Then why proffer it at all?
[/quote]
Because I was asked.
That’s not what happened. I mentioned numerous things - apples, oranges, bananas, pears etc. I was asked for a “report”. I wasn’t sure exactly what was wanted. Rather than posting links to all the different things I’d mentioned I just posted one link referring to one of the things I’d previously mentioned(as opposed to providing links for everything I’d mentioned - remember, I was asked simply for a “report” - singular.
You’ve missed the fundamental point. I was referencing many different studies and I was asked for “a” report with no further clarification.
Not all of the studies I was referring to were large scale. Read my sentence again and ponder upon how you have misinterpreted it. I have subsequently provided links to some of the large scale studies that I originally mentioned, which begs the question, why are you going on about me not providing something that I subsequently provided upon specific request.
I have posted links already. Upon request I can provide links to everything I made reference to. What I don’t understand is what your issue is. I’ve evidenced everything I stated. Furthermore, this stuff is common knowledge to anyone who reads the news.
The initial request did not specify which studies were wanted. Upon further clarification additional links were provided. Again, I don’t know what it is you are trying to say. I’ve evidenced what I was asked to evidence.
Rephrase if you want an answer. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I realise that marijuana addicts have learning difficulties so I try to be patient.
[quote]
So, no, I am not going to play the “what studies? I don’t see any studies” game with you (though FWIW I still don’t see any studies, just two news articles talking about them). I’m not interested in promoting any sort of agenda here - I just skimmed this thread with some spare time on my hands and decided to take a jab at search engine mastery masquerading as subject matter expertise.[/quote]
It doesn’t require “expertise” to follow the general trend in the science of marijuana use and health problems. As I said it’s been widely and regularly reported in the media over the last quarter century, which is why I get sick of the games marijuana addicts like to play pretending said reports don’t exist.
Dude, now you are just whining.
Your faux-bewilderment is ridiculous. But even if I WAS to entertain your confusion, what you are saying, essentially, is that the ONLY characteristic you felt necessary to oblige when mentioning your “large scale peer reviewed studies showing brain damage in occasional users and increased rates of schizophrenia, bipolar and other mental illnesses manifesting themselves in pot smokers”… was the “peer reviewed” part.
I mean, REALLY?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Not all of the studies I was referring to were large scale.[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m talking about large scale peer reviewed studies…[/quote]
lol
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I have subsequently provided links to some of the large scale studies that I originally mentioned…[/quote]
No, you provided links to articles of a writer’s regurgitation of an author’s assessment of a study.
Do those links even mention the TITLE of the studies they “discuss”?
(don’t bother answering that one)
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Rephrase if you want an answer. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I realise that marijuana addicts have learning difficulties so I try to be patient.[/quote]
You accused me of pretending that a link between marijuana and mental health doesn’t exist. Note that I did not, at any time, “proffer” an opinion on such a link beyond pointing out that your report doesn’t evidence it. Quit telling me what my position is.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It doesn’t require “expertise” to follow the general trend in the science of marijuana use and health problems.[/quote]
It is expected that you not only take the time to read the papers you cite as evidence, but understand them, as well.
You did neither. You did a quick Google Scholar, found something with a fancy title and a few big words, skimmed the abstract and got spanked for it.
Just own it and move on.
[quote] anonym wrote:
Dude, now you are just whining.
Your faux-bewilderment is ridiculous. But even if I WAS to entertain your confusion, what you are saying, essentially, is that the ONLY characteristic you felt necessary to oblige when mentioning your “large scale peer reviewed studies showing brain damage in occasional users and increased rates of schizophrenia, bipolar and other mental illnesses manifesting themselves in pot smokers”… was the “peer reviewed” part.
I mean, REALLY?
[/quote]
No idea what you’re talking about pothead. I don’t like to waste my time with “angry-confused” potheads.
Yes, okay pothead. I’ll humour you. I own “it” and now I shall move on.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] anonym wrote:
Dude, now you are just whining.
Your faux-bewilderment is ridiculous. But even if I WAS to entertain your confusion, what you are saying, essentially, is that the ONLY characteristic you felt necessary to oblige when mentioning your “large scale peer reviewed studies showing brain damage in occasional users and increased rates of schizophrenia, bipolar and other mental illnesses manifesting themselves in pot smokers”… was the “peer reviewed” part.
I mean, REALLY?
[/quote]
No idea what you’re talking about pothead. I don’t like to waste my time with “angry-confused” potheads.
Yes, okay pothead. I’ll humour you. I own “it” and now I shall move on.
[/quote]
He pointed out your statement about large/not large studies…no need to get snippy.
Pot is no worse than legal substances, actually it’s much safer. The focus should be that resources used to prosecute pot could be used to go after much more dangerous drugs…heroine, coke, pills ect.
I’d already posted links to a “large scale” study and another “20 year study” so he didn’t have a “point”.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’d already posted links to a “large scale” study and another “20 year study” so he didn’t have a “point”.[/quote]
Easy on the quotes there…
oh my, this was a funny half page to read
So about the Republicans not wanting to fund Obamas immigration reform (unless I’m mistaken on that one)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_SPENDING_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-11-21-42-15
Does anyone else have more insight on this? Is the Republican opposition just doing hand-waving and talking out of their ass to get elected?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
So about the Republicans not wanting to fund Obamas immigration reform (unless I’m mistaken on that one)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_SPENDING_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-11-21-42-15
Does anyone else have more insight on this? Is the Republican opposition just doing hand-waving and talking out of their ass to get elected?[/quote]
yes that is what they do best
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
yes that is what they do best[/quote]
Who, politicians or just Republicans?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
yes that is what they do best[/quote]
Who, politicians or just Republicans? [/quote]
Politicians in general. Both sides are full of shit.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
So about the Republicans not wanting to fund Obamas immigration reform (unless I’m mistaken on that one)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_SPENDING_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-11-21-42-15
Does anyone else have more insight on this? Is the Republican opposition just doing hand-waving and talking out of their ass to get elected?[/quote]
Hand waving is part of it, and you have to understand that no every republican just toes the party line. They actually have people within that will tell other republicans to fuck off. They aren’t lock step warriors anymore, like the dems still are.
There is a basic political strategy here at play, beyond a short term funding bill, that is getting lost in the weeds. I’m not saying I agree with it, or even understand it 100%, but to think they are just 100% morons doing the opposite of what they said they would do at every turn is silly.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
So about the Republicans not wanting to fund Obamas immigration reform (unless I’m mistaken on that one)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_SPENDING_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-11-21-42-15
Does anyone else have more insight on this? Is the Republican opposition just doing hand-waving and talking out of their ass to get elected?[/quote]
Hand waving is part of it, and you have to understand that no every republican just toes the party line. They actually have people within that will tell other republicans to fuck off. They aren’t lock step warriors anymore, like the dems still are.
There is a basic political strategy here at play, beyond a short term funding bill, that is getting lost in the weeds. I’m not saying I agree with it, or even understand it 100%, but to think they are just 100% morons doing the opposite of what they said they would do at every turn is silly. [/quote]
Yeah, just seems kind of strange considering they take over in less than a month, why fund something your voters oppose for 9 months is what I find odd. Which is why I’m wondering if they’re just pandering to where they get their money as I’ve read some of those parties benefit quite a bit from work done by illegal immigrants.
Continuing with Obama’s amnesty program, if you can call it that, I’m wondering if he’ll get better turn out than Obamacare lol. Although I read that Obama didn’t even sign an executive order