Happy 4/20!

[Olive]

4/20 - blaze it

A priori, drugs are bad.

I have tried almost everything I could get my hands on (count around 15 different sorts), never had a bad experience - apart from that time some dude wet himself on shrooms, new sheets et voila. Apart from the high itself, the social aspect of using has brought much joy, laughter and memorable experiences.

As is evident and non-disputable, it is not beneficial for your psychological and physiological condition. But hey, I still managed to pull through my bachelor studies without delay, with the possibility of attaining a masters degree while I am twenty-one years old. Use drugs in a responsible manner, know your limits. Do not forget about your responsibilities in daily-life, a.k.a. do not let it control your life. If you manage, you will enjoy its merits without being too exposed to the dangers.

The anti-drugs lobby is primarily concerned with the never-ending quest against the unknown. Blissful ignorance, that is.

ps: alcohol is hard drugs.

[Olive]

Oh, concerning marihuana:

It's short-term effects are negligible.

Long-term use (lets say, 5-10 years of smoking up daily), however, might act like a catalyst to people who are sensitive to schizofrenia. For young people it also hinders cell reproduction thus growth. This doesn't really count for non-cultivated weed though, since the THC:CBD ratio is still pretty much harmless in such sorts.

[Phytotron]

"Pft, when have you ever heard of someone overdosing from marijuana?"

"Pft, people never commit acts of violence while high on pot; absurd!"

"Pft, you can avoid the dangers of smoke by eating weed instead, making it totally harmless."

Marijuana 'edibles' pack a wallop

[ConVicT]

Yes,Phyto, everything you read on the internet is true *FACT*. This is why you're a C**t, you don't contribute, you just try to somehow make yourself look good by making others look bad, but the fact remains, you just give us shity links, as if we're not capable of google-ing this stuff...
Give some input, instead of shity links, or feck-off!

[takburger]

This is why you're a C**t

This is now written on internet therefore true.

[Z-Man]

Please keep the discussion level headed and/or light hearted. I'd hate to issue a lock.

[Clutch]

"If he thought he could fly why didn't he take off on the ground first"

[breeze]

From a peer-reviewed journal:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... -American1

Also,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/87383 ... -marijuana

Obviously, correlation doesn't mean causation and the journal is cautious not to draw any conclusions that aren't there. Perhaps, it's a coincidence, but there is some information; you can form your own opinion.

[Phytotron]

Does he understand that journalism and newspapers existed before and independent of the internet? In fact, physical newspapers still exist, believe it or not! The very article to which I linked I originally read in our local paper*, which we receive daily on the front stoop. As far as I'm aware, USA Today reporters don't just make a lot of shit up in order to annoy potheads.


* The new goddamn publisher at the Courier-Journal decided it would be a good idea to strip down the size of the paper, and when people protested his response was to just throw in USA Today along with it, the jackass.

[takburger]

Its not because it has been written by a journalist that it is scientifically reliable and/or true...

[Phytotron]

Above we have someone who doesn't understand critical thinking, or how to discern what constitutes proper journalism, and evidently assumes neither do I. He does this whilst breezing right past one essential point of my previous comment, one that should be easily deduced. But this is also a person who believes I'm a right-wing conservative (and Christian?) who watches FOXNews, so, consider the source. Get it? Consider the source? Pffft.

[takburger]

Above we have someone who doesn't understand critical thinking, or how to discern what constitutes proper journalism, and evidently assumes neither do I. He does this whilst breezing right past one essential point of my previous comment, one that should be easily deduced. But this is also a person who believes I'm a right-wing conservative (and Christian?) who watches FOXNews, so, consider the source. Get it? Consider the source? Pffft.

You make too many assumptions.

Annnd right, I dunno what is journalism, thats why I worked in that industry.

Sorry I cannot evaluate your source, even if it is a big one which of I know the name, I don't know them enough to be able to make conclusions on their quality.

I do not assume anything about you either, I was just pointing out a fact about journalism that one know when used to work with journalists.

Oh and just in case, that point is that you cannot weight in with a random press article relating a random fact while just before you someone quoted peer reviewed scientific papers.

PS: you should not have felt so insecure tho, since the beginning of the argument I was rather neutral on that topic... I was just trying to keep rational argumentations.

[sinewav]

Oh and just in case, that point is that you cannot weight in with a random press article relating a random fact while just before you someone quoted peer reviewed scientific papers.

Why not? Both require critical thinking to evaluate. Look at this statement again:

As far as I'm aware, USA Today reporters don't just make a lot of shit up in order to annoy potheads.

Do you have a reason to believe USA Today would make up a story like this? For what reason? is Kyle Naylor a fictional person? How about Levi Thamba Pongi or Richard Kirk? Genifer Murray appears to be a real person. What bias do you see in this article? News agencies deliver news. Did the events happen? Is there a reason to believe they didn't happen?

Peer-reviewed is good. Peer-duplicated is better. Which is more useful in this case: a shoddy scientific paper or a thoroughly researched magazine article?

[takburger]

Peer-reviewed is good. Peer-duplicated is better. Which is more useful in this case: a shoddy scientific paper or a thoroughly researched magazine article?

The best is the leading reasearch magazine on the subject. That is indeed right that small research magazines are not always very accurate and sometimes publish total bullshit (some time ago a guy shown he could publish research papers in many magazine with a random algorithm)

Why not? Both require critical thinking to evaluate. Look at this statement again:

Yes, but the approach is different. In newspaper you got to step back and see what is the side of the writer, what is his intent, do you agree. With research paper it is: does the research has valid data and, is the magazine trustworthy.

[breeze]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gu ... marijuana/

Sanjay Gupta appears to be a real person and a real doctor. He has the education and experience to make a better opinion than any of us, I would assume.

Why do you say the paper is "shoddy?" It uses numerous references when the newspaper article does not for any of it's implications. Of course the news will report the atrocities associated with it, which there apparently are. Though, it's much more venturesome to report the benefits, which there probably are as well. It's kind of like a selection bias. Sure, the events actually occurred, but I don't think it's fair to look at the quotes and implications with the same level of certainty.

Someone has to be the devil's advocate.