Post #388,597
4/15/14 8:25:33 PM
|
One for Mike: Regular pot use tied to brain changes.
http://medicalxpress...bnormalities.html
[...]
A recent Northwestern study showed chronic use of marijuana was linked to brain abnormalities. "With the findings of these two papers," Breiter said, "I've developed a severe worry about whether we should be allowing anybody under age 30 to use pot unless they have a terminal illness and need it for pain."
My take is that one has to be careful about the framing in this article. I wouldn't call 1-2 joints a week "casual" use. I'd call it something like "regular light" use. But, even with that, one should accept that messing with brain chemistry of still developing brains is likely to have effects that we don't understand very well. Of course, that doesn't answer the question about what should be done about it. Locking up people has consequences, too.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #388,603
4/15/14 11:12:41 PM
|
From my observations back in the day when . . .
. . marijuana wasn't nearly as strong as it is today, the major failure modes among the pot heads I knew were accidents and heart failure. I do not know, however, if they were or where not also using other drugs.
|
Post #388,625
4/16/14 10:42:49 AM
|
On the strength of cannibinoids and their delivery mechanism
http://www.badscienc...3/reefer-badness/
Entertaining quote:
To get their scare figure, The Independent have compared the worst cannabis from the past with the best cannabis of today. But you could have cooked the books in exactly the same way 30 years ago if youÂd wanted: in 1975 the weakest herbal cannabis analysed was 0.2%; in 1978 the strongest herbal cannabis was 12%. Oh my god: in just 3 years herbal cannabis has become 60 times stronger.
And in fact, whatÂs most amazing is that this scare isnÂt new. In the US, in the mid 1980s, during ReaganÂs Âwar on drugsÂ, it was claimed that cannabis was 14 times stronger than in 1970, which rather sets you thinking. If it was 14 times stronger in 1986 than in 1970, and itÂs 25 times stronger today than the beginning of the 1990s, does that mean it is now, in fact, 350 times stronger than 1970?
ThatÂs not even a crystal in a plant pot. ThatÂs impossible. That would require more THC to be present in the plant than the total volume of space taken up by the plant itself. That would require matter to be condensed. If I was a physics-minded branding manager, I would suggest Quark Gluon Plasma as the most appropriate street name for this substance: and I look forward to reading about the scare in the Independent tomorrow.
|
Post #388,634
4/16/14 12:10:42 PM
|
Well, that is certainly true . . .
. . and a textbook case of "Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure".
My judgment is first hand - from taking a few puffs on passed joints with no effect except a rough throat - then some 15 years later having about the same number of puffs and driving home on instruments.
|
Post #388,637
4/16/14 12:49:45 PM
|
Anecdotes aren't data
But whatever.
|
Post #388,638
4/16/14 1:11:00 PM
|
More reliable than the over-cooked data we get these days.
|
Post #388,639
4/16/14 1:24:54 PM
|
Eh, if you say so.
|
Post #388,640
4/16/14 1:38:55 PM
|
See your example above.
|
Post #388,643
4/16/14 2:14:41 PM
|
why?
It's got facts in it.
The fact that said facts contradict your anecdote is neither here nor there.
If you doubt the data, show how it's wrong.
Otherwise you're just telling stories and agreeing with yourself: which is fine, but saying "ooh he's cooked the figures because his findings contradict my anecdote" is daft in the extreme.
This is the kind of analysis that woomongers of all stripes employ.
|
Post #388,644
4/16/14 2:31:36 PM
|
My experience is not in any way contradicted by that data.
The fact that the quoted data display absurd increases in strength does not in any way contradict the probability that honest analysis would show more modest increases in strength have indeed occurred.
With all those growers selecting for the best varieties, as well as market pressures, it would be absurd to presume improvement in the actual strength of the product has not occurred.
|
Post #388,646
4/16/14 2:41:35 PM
|
Re: My experience is not in any way contradicted by that dat
Read it again.
|
Post #388,648
4/16/14 3:01:57 PM
|
The figures in the article show more than doubling . . .
. . in strength within 10 years.
That's in England. I suspect the increase is even more here in California where growing the stuff is a significant industry and the best imports fetch a good price.
|
Post #388,665
4/17/14 1:08:23 AM
|
Cherry-picking data is fun!
There is, of course, exceptionally strong cannabis to be found in some parts of the UK market today: but there always has been. The United Nations Drug Control Program has detailed vintage data for the UK online. In 1975 the LGC analysed 50 seized samples of herbal cannabis: 10 were from Thailand, with an average potency of 7.8%, and the highest was 17%. In 1975 they analysed 11 samples of seized cannabis resin, 6 from morocco, average strength 9%, with a range from 4% to 16%.
To get their scare figure, The Independent have compared the worst cannabis from the past with the best cannabis of today. But you could have cooked the books in exactly the same way 30 years ago if youÂd wanted: in 1975 the weakest herbal cannabis analysed was 0.2%; in 1978 the strongest herbal cannabis was 12%. Oh my god: in just 3 years herbal cannabis has become 60 times stronger.
Point being that a single anecdote (or even a handful) tells you nothing.
|
Post #388,668
4/17/14 5:12:18 AM
|
And you cherry pick quite insistently.
You continue to concentrate on that one paragraph that shows how you can "prove" anything you want - but you totally ignore the actual data.
The charts and table clearly show a doubling of the strength of the product as captured by the authorities (the average product available in England) over a recent 10 year period.
Of course, back in the time of my experiences, the pot industry was at a much earlier stage and certainly on a much steeper portion of the cost improvement curve. The rate of improvement over time was probably greater, and my samplings were over a longer period.
|
Post #388,669
4/17/14 8:09:51 AM
|
Availability! You are both right.
Before the common availability of HID lighting, very few people in the world had access to high potency cannabis. You got whatever was shipped into your region, and it was almost always seedy. Outdoor sinsimilla grows were rare. Genetics were haphazard. And there was no legal seed distribution.
But those with the best strains in the best regions could grow the best cannabis, and a single hit would make you fall over. I am talking 30 years ago.
Today anyone can setup a grow room with a couple of MH/HPS lights, order a packet of seeds, and grow exactly the same level of quality of the best of the best from back then.
Sure, selective breeding has made it possible to get a bit stronger, but with diminishing returns. It is a few percentage points, not doubling again and again. That's just silly.
|
Post #388,700
4/17/14 7:39:27 PM
|
please explain "driving home on instruments"
One of the things I always heard (but never experienced) was that creative types used pot to enhance creativity. I never considered myself a creative type, so I generally ignored that aspect. Sure, I could free associate better to help with a problem, but that was different.
Then about a year ago I smoked what I considered "too much". I had to lie down to just get past it. As I was lying there, I closed my eyes. And saw the most amazing "closed eye visuals" that I'd ever experienced, accompanied by incredible music. The visuals were full color very detailed movie like, the music was orchestral and complex. It was totally new, nothing I'd seen or heard before. Then I understood what they meant. If I was a musician or a movie director I'd be transcribing as fast as I could.
|
Post #388,702
4/17/14 7:43:04 PM
|
Re: please explain "driving home on instruments"
I had no real feeling for the vehicle, my speed or directional stability - so I paid very close attention to the speedometer and the lines painted on the road. Visual was still working to that extent.
|
Post #388,703
4/17/14 7:45:29 PM
4/17/14 7:47:15 PM
|
yep, understood. floating along, paying CLOSE attention
That's when you turn the music off, don't want any distractions.
Of course my dad's caddy felt like that all the time. Driving on a well padded couch.
Edited by crazy
April 17, 2014, 07:47:15 PM EDT
|
Post #388,707
4/17/14 8:02:21 PM
|
Just as a point of reference . . .
. . the subject event was in 1982 - the celebration for Gloria Molina's election to the California State Assembly - out in Santa Monica.
She was the first Latina elected to the state legislature. It's recently been proposed she run for Mayor of Los Angeles.
|
Post #388,662
4/16/14 6:50:49 PM
|
in the old days
We had crap Tennessee green, decent Mexican, good Columbian, ass kicking thai-stick, and mind blowing Hawaiian.
In the last couple of years the norm seems to be a bit better than the Columbian and occasionally hitting Thai-stick. If you are willing to spend double, you can get to Hawaiian level.
It seems to be a matter of availability. In the old days, you'd see Hawaiian level once a year. Now it is simply a matter of knowing the right person and having the cash to blow.
|
Post #388,624
4/16/14 10:14:27 AM
|
Thanks.
But, even with that, one should accept that messing with brain chemistry of still developing brains is likely to have effects that we don't understand very well.
Hence my opposition to legalizing it until those effects are known. ;0)
|
Post #388,627
4/16/14 10:53:34 AM
|
Depends on how it's done. "Just Say No" didn't work.
|
Post #388,628
4/16/14 11:04:41 AM
|
Perhaps I give young people too much credit.
The anti-drug propaganda contained so many inaccuracies that it was self-defeating. But an approach that said, honestly, what we do and do not know about the lasting effects of use among young people might work for the majority. The common mythology is that it is "harmless." Growing of age in the 1970's I heard that incessantly - once from a junior high school teacher during class (I even remember his name: Jensen). That is, of course, false. What remains unknown (but recent studies are alarming) are the long term consequences to brains due to even transient light use among young people. I would hope that honest assessment, if widely distributed, would give most young people pause. It might not (I am all too familiar with the distrust young people feel toward their elders - particularly when the discussion is about something young people "like" to do). But the effort would remain worthwhile, IMO, because the intent would be to inform and that is never a bad idea. States legalizing its use and setting the legal age of use at 21 sends entirely the wrong message.
|
Post #388,633
4/16/14 12:05:10 PM
|
Inaccuracies?
When I was a child (yes, it was back in the middle of a previous century), our teachers warned us about drugs - and not to lick our fingers when leafing through a book.
They told us drug dealers spread drugs on the corners of book pages, then patrolled the sidewalks looking for people with the dazed stare of drug addicts to recruit new customers.
This is not something I just made up - this is something I experienced first hand.
|
Post #388,636
4/16/14 12:25:28 PM
|
Developing vs developed brains
Well, I've had the opportunity to observe a small sample of former adolescents, now in their sixties, who were pretty regular users of the Killer Weed at least through their twenties, and a few to the present day. These include teenagers who have grown up to be attorneys (including one judge), a couple of physicians, a research physicist, an architect, an art conservator, a lot of tech folks (including one who headed up the entire MIS operation of a retail chain with a national presence), a couple of tech writers, an urban planner, a television producer, a corporate PR flack, two accountants, two real graphic designers...all reasonably successful, and to all appearances happy and well-adjusted. Now of course, I make no extravagant claims for the breadth of my sample: there are many more pot smokers I knew back in the day with whom I've long since lost touch, and it may be that all this lot are homeless or dead, or have graduated to snorting Janitor-in-a-Drum. I observe merely that with regard to those people whose careers I have subsequently followed, I have detected no apparent harm done during their formative years.
In college I once shared a relaxing doobie with an individual (already well-known in his field) who went on to be showered with honors and awards, including a year's term as U.S. Poet Laureate. Now it's true that at the time he was no longer in the first bloom of youth, but he did reminisce about smoking weed in the 1950s, when he would have been a snotnosed (or potnosed) kid. Again, the experience appears to have constituted no impediment to success.
Just my two cents, as A.S. likes to say.
cordially,
|
Post #388,726
4/18/14 10:51:47 AM
|
Anecdotes are as good as science. Film at 11.
|
Post #388,727
4/18/14 10:58:05 AM
|
The plural of "anecdote" is "data"
--
Drew
|
Post #388,729
4/18/14 11:51:27 AM
|
Conversely, all data is anecdotal in nature.
All data originates from observations by humans, whether directly or through instruments.
These humans, consciously or subconsciously, all have personal agendas which affect the data. There are many subtle ways observations can be distorted, deliberately or not, starting with the design of the program, or design of instruments if used.
All data is suspect from the start - until sufficiently confirmed by other humans with different agendas.
|
Post #388,739
4/18/14 2:31:48 PM
|
And don't forget the observer effect, right Scott? ;0)
|
Post #388,740
4/18/14 2:56:01 PM
|
Good instruments and techniques reduce that. ;-)
|
Post #388,812
4/20/14 7:41:58 PM
|
Spoilsport!!
Bastard..
Now.. we ain't gots No Place to hang our hunches on--and see if enough salute the resultant kaleidoscope, to pronounce it..
Trufiness-Enough.
..except maybe Siva: "Look (Arjuna), I have become Death--the Destroyer of Worlds."
Anyone who can traverse 11 (or is it up to 22 now?) Dimensions, millennia-before Physics had a clue..
Is My Guy/Gal whatever.
|
Post #388,728
4/18/14 10:59:21 AM
|
It's hard to have good science when research is hindered.
|
Post #388,695
4/17/14 6:09:21 PM
|
Where are the studies about alcohol?
or caffeine or nicotine or high fructose corn syrup? There is finite demand for recreational self-medication and the 'respectable' alternatives don't want THC cutting into their bottom line.
I am seeing the most ridiculous stories coming out of Colorado. Last week it was a story about an epidemic of dogs and cats suffering from second hand smoke exposure.
|
Post #388,705
4/17/14 7:53:39 PM
|
and you can be sure
Every time a whack job does something stupid or dangerous, it's the pot's fault.
http://denver.cbsloc...d-in-denver-home/
|
Post #388,723
4/18/14 9:45:43 AM
|
yup, edible loses again
http://hosted.ap.org...14-04-17-23-17-25
I'd support making all edibles illegal. Sell the bud, sell the concentrate, sell the oil. Sell the damn cookbooks with them. Force people to either smoke it or vape it. If they want to eat it, they will have to go through the steps to make their own cannabutter, which will take time and effort and only the people who really want it will do it. That'll knock out all impulse idiots from the game, and those that smoke/vape it will get hit hard enough/soon enough that it will be self limited dosing.
|
