UESP Forums

Also, my actually scientific evidence, when compared with your 'well, it's correlated, so I guess weed is bad lolz' evidence, makes it obvious that half the things you proposed weren't factual at all.

Rhyme Asylum wrote:Also, my actually scientific evidence, when compared with your 'well, it's correlated, so I guess weed is bad lolz' evidence, makes it obvious that half the things you proposed weren't factual at all.

You guys agree, no need to be a snob.

Rhyme Asylum wrote:Also, my actually scientific evidence, when compared with your 'well, it's correlated, so I guess weed is bad lolz' evidence, makes it obvious that half the things you proposed weren't factual at all.

Which was my reasoning for pointing out... what was it again?... Oh, yes.



CORRELATION != CAUSATION. THIS IS FACT.

Frost Mage wrote:You guys agree, no need to be a snob.

Sigh. Talking to Rag. That post was in further agreement with Wolf.

Frost Mage wrote:

Rhyme Asylum wrote:Also, my actually scientific evidence, when compared with your 'well, it's correlated, so I guess weed is bad lolz' evidence, makes it obvious that half the things you proposed weren't factual at all.

You guys agree, no need to be a snob.

I'm not being a snob. I'm responding in kind to his posts. I'm pointing out the flaws, and waiting on Morgan to back up with thorough evidence.

Rhyme Asylum wrote:

Frost Mage wrote:You guys agree, no need to be a snob.

Sigh. Talking to Rag. That post was in further agreement with Wolf.

Gotcha. No hard feelings.

Wolf wrote:

Frost Mage wrote:

Rhyme Asylum wrote:Also, my actually scientific evidence, when compared with your 'well, it's correlated, so I guess weed is bad lolz' evidence, makes it obvious that half the things you proposed weren't factual at all.

You guys agree, no need to be a snob.

I'm not being a snob. I'm responding in kind to his posts. I'm pointing out the flaws, and waiting on Morgan to back up with thorough evidence.

Not talking to you.

Wow, what a cluster-f.

Wolf wrote:

Rhyme Asylum wrote:Also, my actually scientific evidence, when compared with your 'well, it's correlated, so I guess weed is bad lolz' evidence, makes it obvious that half the things you proposed weren't factual at all.

Which was my reasoning for pointing out... what was it again?... Oh, yes.



CORRELATION != CAUSATION. THIS IS FACT.

keep repeating that mantra wolf. try it at the next "legalize all illicit drug" rally ...

as far as the "real" evidence, let's see what pubmed sez ... I'm not going to consider the advocacy organization's info since it's so heavily biased and propagandized, as I already pointed out ...

and seems this is just a tad bit biased as well ... mine simply stated the facts, but to dispel that let's look under the hood ... seems a foregone conclusion has been reached ...

"PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review explores what is known about the association of cannabis with schizophrenia, its effects on the brain, and whether the brain changes known to be present in schizophrenia could be caused by cannabis and thus lead to a psychosis."

okay ...

"RECENT FINDINGS: The heavy use of cannabis is known to be associated with some adverse consequences, such as the occurrence of acute psychotic episodes and the development of chronic schizophrenia in some people even after its use has terminated."

as I said ...

"Recent studies have produced controversy about whether cannabis in heavy use can cause irreversible brain damage, particularly to adolescents, and thus whether a chronic psychosis could be a result of brain changes caused by cannabis."

wait, okay, recent studies have caused "contoversy". "controversy" isn't conclusive, but ...

"SUMMARY: From the evidence that exists, it appears that the above view is unlikely and that cannabis may even have benign effects on brain structure, not producing deleterious damage. Its neurochemical interactions with the dopaminergic pathway, however, may, particularly in genetically vulnerable individuals, have adverse consequences."

but from "controversy" the author draws a conclsion? remember what I was saying about cognitive bias gee, I wonder if the researcher was hitting the bong a bit while working on this ...

and a lot of "These data suggest" comments ...

what was that line of yours wolf?

I could pick this crap apart all night ...

0/10

Not even mad.

>PubMed
>Heavily biased propaganda

Nope.jpg

You must have cognitive bias, Rag. Only explanation.

While we're all having fun with quotes ...

Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.
- Abraham Lincoln: Speech in the Illinois House of Representatives, Dec 18, 1840.

no wolf, the fact is, if you do drugs, you are cognitively compromised. THAT is my argument. and I'm going through the rest of the pubmed articles, many which agree ith what I already posted so there goes your "counter" evidence ...

Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults.
RESULTS: Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) in a dose-related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied.
INTERPRETATION: Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week.

Cannabidiol, a Cannabis sativa constituent, as an antipsychotic drug.
A high dose of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main Cannabis sativa (cannabis) component, induces anxiety and psychotic-like symptoms in healthy volunteers.

Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence.
RESULTS: On an individual level, cannabis use confers an overall twofold increase in the relative risk for later schizophrenia.
CONCLUSIONS: Cases of psychotic disorder could be prevented by discouraging cannabis use among vulnerable youths.

The toxicology of cannabis and cannabis prohibition.
The acute side effects caused by cannabis use are mainly related to psyche and cognition, and to circulation. Euphoria, anxiety, changes in sensory perception, impairment of memory and psychomotor performance are common effects after a dose is taken that exceeds an individually variable threshold. Cannabis consumption may increase heart rate and change blood pressure, which may have serious consequences in people with heart disease. Effects of chronic use may be induction of psychosis and development of dependency to the drug. Effects on cognitive abilities seem to be reversible after abstinence, except possibly in very heavy users. Cannabis exposure in utero may have negative consequences on brain development with subtle impairment of cognitive abilities in later life. Consequences of cannabis smoking may be similar to those of tobacco smoking and should be avoided. Use by young people has more detrimental effects than use by adults.

Cannabinoid function in learning, memory and plasticity.
Animal studies, which enable a more controlled drug regime and more constant behavioural testing, have confirmed human results and suggest, with respect to hippocampus, that exogenous cannabinoid treatment selectively affects encoding processes. This may be different in other brain areas, for instance the amygdala, where a predominant involvement in memory consolidation and forgetting has been firmly established. While cannabinoid receptor agonists impair memory formation, antagonists reverse these deficits or act as memory enhancers. These results are in good agreement with data obtained from electrophysiological recordings, which reveal reduction in neural plasticity following cannabinoid treatment, and increased plasticity following antagonist exposure. The mixed receptor properties of the pharmacological tool, however, make it difficult to define the exact role of any CB1 receptor population in memory processes with any certainty. This makes it all the more important that behavioural studies use selective administration of drugs to specific brain areas, rather than global administration to whole animals. The emerging role of the endogenous cannabinoid system in the hippocampus may be to facilitate the induction of long-term potentiation/the encoding of information. Administration of exogenous selective CB1 agonists may therefore disrupt hippocampus-dependent learning and memory by 'increasing the noise', rather than 'decreasing the signal' at potentiated inputs.

*edit*

Rhyme Asylum wrote:0/10

Not even mad.

>PubMed
>Heavily biased propaganda

Nope.jpg

trotting out more straw men? not what I said. not even close ... try reading the black parts next time ... its called "print" ...

At some point, you're all just going to have to agree to disagree.

Ignoring the complete fallacy which is 'your reasoning is worthless if you do drugs' (which would apply to you if it wasn't completely wrong), why are you pasting selective parts of the articles here? In the first part, you omitted over half the interpretation: 'A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence.'

In the second part, you omitted the actual results of the study... 'The results of two studies on healthy volunteers using perception of binocular depth inversion and ketamine-induced psychotic symptoms supported the proposal of the antipsychotic-like properties of CBD. In addition, open case reports of schizophrenic patients treated with CBD and a preliminary report of a controlled clinical trial comparing CBD with an atypical antipsychotic drug have confirmed that this cannabinoid can be a safe and well-tolerated alternative treatment for schizophrenia.'

Do I really have to do this? Do I have to go through your posts and point out where you're blatantly leaving out facts to try and skew the evidence? I genuinely have better things to do with my time. Either stop being so transparently dishonest, or stop debating. I read the articles. I sent you the articles. Did you honestly think I wasn't going to notice?

Rhyme Asylum wrote:Ignoring the complete fallacy which is 'your reasoning is worthless if you do drugs' (which would apply to you if it wasn't completely wrong), why are you pasting selective parts of the articles here? In the first part, you omitted over half the interpretation: 'A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence.'

In the second part, you omitted the actual results of the study... 'The results of two studies on healthy volunteers using perception of binocular depth inversion and ketamine-induced psychotic symptoms supported the proposal of the antipsychotic-like properties of CBD. In addition, open case reports of schizophrenic patients treated with CBD and a preliminary report of a controlled clinical trial comparing CBD with an atypical antipsychotic drug have confirmed that this cannabinoid can be a safe and well-tolerated alternative treatment for schizophrenia.'

Do I really have to do this? Do I have to go through your posts and point out where you're blatantly leaving out facts to try and skew the evidence? I genuinely have better things to do with my time. Either stop being so transparently dishonest, or stop debating. I read the articles. I sent you the articles. Did you honestly think I wasn't going to notice?

No. Agree to disagree people. Simple as that.

I think that's a quote from Plato, isn't it? 'Agree to disagree'? That's how all knowledge is gained, after all - not asking questions and running away from any kind of intellectual confrontation like a scared child.

Thanks for the advice.

Dark Lord Cam wrote:At some point, you're all just going to have to agree to disagree.

the only thing I'll agree to is the complete failure to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that pot is "harmless". there's no legitimate research anywhere that says that. repeatedly, the research keeps showing the exact opposite. that pot has detrimental and negative effects. period. end of story.

Rhyme Asylum wrote:Ignoring the complete fallacy which is 'your reasoning is worthless if you do drugs' (which would apply to you if it wasn't completely wrong), why are you pasting selective parts of the articles here? In the first part, you omitted over half the interpretation: 'A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence.'.

now who's leaving out what?

how can they legitimately "conclude" that when the very next sentance (which you omitted) states

"Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained."

Rhyme Asylum wrote:In the second part, you omitted the actual results of the study... 'The results of two studies on healthy volunteers using perception of binocular depth inversion and ketamine-induced psychotic symptoms supported the proposal of the antipsychotic-like properties of CBD. In addition, open case reports of schizophrenic patients treated with CBD and a preliminary report of a controlled clinical trial comparing CBD with an atypical antipsychotic drug have confirmed that this cannabinoid can be a safe and well-tolerated alternative treatment for schizophrenia.'.

uh, yeah, specifically, CBD, but CBD isn't "the main Cannabis sativa (cannabis) component". that is "delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol" which produces "anxiety and psychotic-like symptoms in healthy volunteers". CBD is "a cannabis constituent which is devoid of the typical effects of the plant." so moot to pot smoking.

Rhyme Asylum wrote:Do I really have to do this? Do I have to go through your posts and point out where you're blatantly leaving out facts to try and skew the evidence? I genuinely have better things to do with my time. Either stop being so transparently dishonest, or stop debating.

no, I was leaving out the filler as I just showed and sticking to the actual facts your side likes to twist and obfuscate with irrelevant data as I just demonstrated, so yes, please do. keep going. I'm rather enjoying showing how intellectually dishonest a bunch of junkies can be.

Rhyme Asylum wrote:I think that's a quote from Plato, isn't it? 'Agree to disagree'? That's how all knowledge is gained, after all - not asking questions and running away from any kind of intellectual confrontation like a scared child.

Thanks for the advice.

When neither side gives in, sometimes it is best to call it a day and go have tea.

just taking out the trash cam ...

*edit*

and yes, junkies = trash ...

Right.
Everyone, please keep the thread free of insults, sarcastic remarks, and pointless anger.
If you can't , then I'll have to lock this, and you'll lose what could have been a good discussion.

I'm stepping back and about to play some Minecraft. I suggest you guys do the same. Channel your frustrations over to the creepers that kill you while you have a stack of diamonds.

Ragnarok wrote:how can they legitimately "conclude" that when the very next sentance (which you omitted) states

"Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained."

Maybe because, as it explicitly states, they're more specific cognitive domains, but they know that intelligence itself is unaffected long-term? Why would I have given you sources if they didn't back up what I say? You can't honestly be that arrogant, as to think that you could use my own sources against me. I seem humble in comparison.

Ragnarok wrote:uh, yeah, specifically, CBD, but CBD isn't "the main Cannabis sativa (cannabis) component". that is "delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol" which produces "anxiety and psychotic-like symptoms in healthy volunteers". CBD is "a cannabis constituent which is devoid of the typical effects of the plant." so moot to pot smoking.

Uh... you realise what constituent means, right? Weed has CBD in it... I'm really not sure what you point is here... at all. The study shows that a component of weed can be used as a safe and effective treatment for schizophrenia. Not much else to say...

Ragnarok wrote: I'm rather enjoying showing how intellectually dishonest a bunch of junkies can be.
just taking out the trash cam ...

and yes, junkies = trash ...

Nice ad hominem. I would take that as evidence that you have no rational argument to fall back on, so you have to resort to petty attacks, but I much prefer the idea that you're just self-loathing, and projecting your former drug problems onto me. After all, I never mentioned using any illegal drugs in my life, yet you seem sure that I'm some junky. Seems a bit Freudian, no?

Rhyme Asylum wrote:

Ragnarok wrote:how can they legitimately "conclude" that when the very next sentance (which you omitted) states

"Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained."

Maybe because, as it explicitly states, they're more specific cognitive domains, but they know that intelligence itself is unaffected long-term? Why would I have given you sources if they didn't back up what I say? You can't honestly be that arrogant, as to think that you could use my own sources against me. I seem humble in comparison.?

nice try, but no. they state a conclusion regarding "global memory" but ignore spcific components of "global memory" being memory and attention. you can't conclude that overall system degredation hasn't occurred and simultaneously ignore the possibility of individual component degredation that affects overall system efficiency and reliability. who do you think you're dealing with or talking to? some rank amatuer?

Rhyme Asylum wrote:

Ragnarok wrote:uh, yeah, specifically, CBD, but CBD isn't "the main Cannabis sativa (cannabis) component". that is "delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol" which produces "anxiety and psychotic-like symptoms in healthy volunteers". CBD is "a cannabis constituent which is devoid of the typical effects of the plant." so moot to pot smoking.

Uh... you realise what constituent means, right? Weed has CBD in it... I'm really not sure what you point is here... at all. The study shows that a component of weed can be used as a safe and effective treatment for schizophrenia. Not much else to say...?

uh, you mistated that. "The study shows that a component of weed can be used as a safe and effective treatment for schizophrenia" when ISOLATED. what exactly do you think they mean when they say "a cannabis constituent which is devoid of the typical effects of the plant." in regard to CBD? they mean the typical effects of the plant are in regard to its main component "delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol" is "delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol" which produces "anxiety and psychotic-like symptoms in healthy volunteers". THAT is the "typical effects of the plant". you didn't score so high on "reading comprehension" did you? cut down on the dope, dope.

Rhyme Asylum wrote:

Ragnarok wrote: I'm rather enjoying showing how intellectually dishonest a bunch of junkies can be.
just taking out the trash cam ...

and yes, junkies = trash ...

Nice ad hominem. I would take that as evidence that you have no rational argument to fall back on, so you have to resort to petty attacks, but I much prefer the idea that you're just self-loathing, and projecting your former drug problems onto me. After all, I never mentioned using any illegal drugs in my life, yet you seem sure that I'm some junky. Seems a bit Freudian, no?

then prove me wrong and give me an actual challenge instead of this lightweight crap. prove me wrong that your not some brain-dead pothead. so far you've done nothing but parrot and regurgitate all the standard and usual doper rhetoric.

Arguing in favor of pot does not mean he smokes.

That's like saying that being sympathetic to abused dogs makes you an abused dog. Logic does not compute.

still no evidence of intelligent life

*edit*

yeah, and I guess arguing in favor of rape doesn't make you a rapist, but it still qualifies you as a low life ...

Lets see, I support the legalisation of MJ, but I don't smoke, nor would I take MJ and nor do I even drink alcohol.

More so, from what I've seen the support for MJ is stronger than that against it. And most cases I find completely contradictory statements between two different studies: "MJ smoke is more harmful than cigarette smoke" and then "MJ smoke is no where near as harmful".

I really should search up all those studies again and see who the researchers were, and whether they were independant or lackeys for drug companies trying to secure profits.