Meta at Science News reports on a new study (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1516648113) still paywalled at PNAS:
Marijuana is used more than any other recreational drug, with recent trends toward greater social and legal acceptance in some regions. Concerns remain, however, about a possible causal relationship suggested in scientific studies between marijuana use and decline in IQ.
A new study from two longitudinal studies of twins, examine the link between marijuana use and IQ using data from more than three thousand individuals from Southern California and Minnesota.
The study by scientists from UCLA and the University of Minnesota focused on three criteria they proposed as measures for evidence of a direct causal relationship between marijuana use and cognitive decline.
- If marijuana use causes IQ decline, as opposed to merely being associated, then poor cognition scores should only be evident after use begins, and not before.
- If a causal link exists, a dose-response relationship would be expected.– that is, higher decline with heavier marijuana use.
- finally, if the relationship is causal, then the association of marijuana use and IQ decline should remain, even after accounting for genetic and social factors.
In tests of abstract reasoning and problem solving associated (called "fluid intelligence") showed no significant differences between uses and non users.
[more]
The study did find decreases in ability among marijuana users compared to non-users in the ability to use previously learned knowledge. (Vocabulary and Information retrieval, or so called "crystallized intelligence".)
The authors noted, however, that the baseline IQ scores of eventual users were already significantly lower in the affected areas.
Here, marijuana use does not precede cognitive decline, and they point out prior evidence that suggests other factors such as behavioral disinhibition and conduct disorder that may predispose individuals to both lower IQ and substance use.
(So criteria 1 above was not met).
The study also found no relationship between heavier or more frequent marijuana use and the magnitude of IQ decline.
(Criteria 2 was not met).
Finally, the authors examined the effects of outside factors associated with IQ decline. They found the decrease in Vocabulary scores was reduced in one study and "completely eliminated" in the other when adjusted for participants who self-reported binge drinking and use of other drugs.
(Criteria 3 also failed).
The authors conclude that taken together, the results provide "little evidence to suggest that adolescent marijuana use has any direct effect on intellectual decline".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @08:16PM
let it burn
http://sci-hub.io/ [sci-hub.io]
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/scimag/index.php?s= [lib.rus.ec]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @08:25PM
I guess that means the two young gentlemen in the Community College classes that I taught were just terminally stupid rather than severely affected by the impressive/depressing quantities of marijuana that they used.
That's a shame.
I preferred to think they were merely impaired by the external influence of the smoke, rather than by some inherent deficiencies. Nice enough kids, but absolutely INSISTED that marijuana didn't have any adverse effects on them. They'd make that point several times an hour, whether or not anyone asked.
(Yes, anecdote is not evidence. One AC post should not be taken as proof of anything.)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @08:32PM
1. It could affect short term memory
2. Stupider people more likely to hit the bong
3. Weed users more likely to be binge drinking, which causes real damage
The study shows how to not be a statistic while using weed, except that daily heavy weed smokers with memory impairment are going to look stupid to most people even if the damage is not permanent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday January 19 2016, @08:58PM
There's probably an aspect of self medicating for depression or WTF mental issue, which makes the user feel better but just as ineffective at the game of life as before smoking up.
Observation from my youth is the weed never did anything too bad, but it did mess with people socially; that dude being a bad influence to hang out with isn't fixed by getting stoned, etc. Failing a class, feel bad, some would study, some would smoke up, guess how that turned out.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday January 19 2016, @11:39PM
I think you're running into the causation-correlation mix-up that allowed previous studies to show cannabis usage having an effect on a variety of outcomes for individuals. (Things like negative outcomes wrt relationships is a bit different ball of wax.) The nature of the mix-up are that people who are prone to having lives that are messes also have an easier access to cannabis flower.
Right now I'm self medicating with alcohol because SSRIs I've found are worse than ineffective. I guess they work for some people but not for me. When I have an easy access to cannabis for a prolonged period of time, I tend to drink far less and make better choices in general, like jogging a mile or two before work every day and doing strength exercises after work every other day. (Also little things like preparing a homemade lunch instead of eating junk. I'd prepare 5 or 6 300–400 kcal lunches/meals on Sunday for the rest of the week and put them in the fridge.) I don't think I'd felt healthier and actually was healthier according to the numbers before or after that period of my life.
I'd love to be able to figure out what cultivar works for me best by stopping by a gas station (or dispensary if we must) on the way home and trying different ones until I find it. I'll know I've found it when I start thinking I can comprehend fifth dimensional geometry. Also of course no psychoactive compound is without side effects. I imagine heavy, daily use has to have some effect vs. control. These days I'd probably look for vaporizer juice, but I've got a sneaking suspicion it isn't just THC that was helping me. There's a menagerie of cannabinoids that act on the endocannabinoid system in different subtle ways at different strengths in different cultivars.
I mean, of course somebody is a dumbass if their response to failing a class is anything except studying harder and seeking out resources to help them learn the subject matter. I don't think cannabis flower has much to do with their being a dumbass. Plenty of dumbasses find ways of being dumbasses without cannabis. Apply same argument to World of Warcraft for example.
Well, no, scratch that. There are way better games for dumbasses to waste time with!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @01:47AM
I started taking Fluoxetine (Prozac) about three months ago -- I guess I'm lucky because it really works for me. I wish I had tried it 15 years ago. I was worried it would make me stupid, but the opposite is really the case. I used to work on hard projects as a way to distract myself from my self-dialog/excessive negative thoughts/anxiety. Now I work on the same projects for fun. It's a difference that makes life seem worthwhile rather than a chore.
I know they don't work for everybody, and I'm empathetic toward you because they don't work for you, but for anyone who has been living with a constant barrage depression and internal negativity, it's worth a try. I was at the point where I really felt like I just wanted to die and figured I should at least try medications before buying a tank of nitrogen gas. Now I wish I would have tried prozac years and years ago, but, at the same time: "whatever". One thing about prozac, it has helped me build up what I consider a healthy sense of apathy -- if you care too much about everything you do always being perfect, and beat yourself to a pulp for the slightest failures, life is a horrible torture. It takes a little apathy to make life good -- some people will understand that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday January 20 2016, @03:27AM
My roommate has actually had great success with Zoloft after being burned by Prozac. I think each individual needs a tailored healthcare solution when it comes to depression.
Many of us are depressed for vastly different reasons, and that would I think at least imply different cures. I'm happy for you! Huge success!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @09:22PM
3. Weed users more likely to be binge drinking, which causes real damage
Which has little to do with the marijuana itself, and is more about the choices of the users.
The study shows how to not be a statistic while using weed, except that daily heavy weed smokers with memory impairment are going to look stupid to most people even if the damage is not permanent.
It's foolish that some people equate intelligence to memory. You need to be able to retain information to some extent, but strong critical thinking skills are far more important when you're talking about intelligence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @09:55PM
Memory is needed to function day-to-day as a human being. You are much less useful if you can't function socially due to vocabulary problems or have to look up information constantly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @10:00PM
Memory is needed to function day-to-day as a human being.
I said: "You need to be able to retain information to some extent"
I still say that it doesn't have much to do with intelligence. There are serious diminishing returns here. A person who can memorize everything instantly is not necessarily a person who can make amazing innovations; they are different abilities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @10:29PM
Yes, I know, you said "I've drawn this arbitrary and blurry line, and I will move it wherever I need in order to weasel out of any counter example presented to me."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @10:50PM
No, it's more like I acknowledged that you need to be able to retain information in order to function. Good job missing the larger point. Not everything is about weaseling out of something else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @02:40AM
Sagan, Feynman, Gould [famousscientists.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday January 19 2016, @09:53PM
Well, it definitely does substantively affect likelihood of psychosis. Psychosis can be far more debilitating to classroom achievement than fluid intelligence.
Many people think of psychosis as a condition that results in severe delusions or hallucinations, but the more common form of it just makes it very hard to string cohesive thoughts together in order. That's even the main diagnostic criterion: how likely a subject's speech is to change subject mid-sentence. To your general "sense" of how smart someone is, psychosis can read very negatively, while not necessarily having any apparent impact on focused interpretation like IQ measures.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @02:26AM
Well, it definitely does substantively affect likelihood of psychosis.
[Citation needed]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 20 2016, @05:17AM
Meta-analysis of existing research on the subject [procon.org]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday January 20 2016, @06:49PM
From your link:
The study did say there was an association between marijuana use and psychosis, but not that marijuana was the causative factor. I knew several crazy (as in later diagnosed as mentally ill) kids when I was a kid, and all of them wound up being stoners. I've known a lot of stoners, and the crazy ones were nuts before they took their first toke.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 20 2016, @07:04PM
That's a very generous reading of a summary that also includes language like this:
These longitudinal studies surveyed for self-reported cannabis use before psychosis onset and controlled for a variety of potential confounding factors (eg, other drug use and demographic, social, and psychological variables). Three meta-analyses of these and other studies concluded an increased risk of psychosis is associated with cannabis use, with an odds ratio of 1.4 to 2.9 (meaning the risk of developing psychosis with any history of cannabis use is up to 3-fold higher compared with those who did not use cannabis).
In addition, this association appears to be dose-related, with increasing amounts of cannabis use linked to greater risk—1 study found an odds ratio of 7 for psychosis among daily cannabis users.
As it goes on to note, that's not definitive proof of a causative function(which is hard to study for a controlled substance, which can't be administered in randomized trials), but if it doesn't make you go "That's a pretty substantial relationship", you're willfully glossing over the material to arrive at a predetermined answer.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday January 20 2016, @07:20PM
I'll admit I didn't read the whole study.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @10:51PM
Same AC here. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 20 2016, @11:57PM
I never said it was hard, I just assumed the relationship was common knowledge. Dunning Kruger effect: you write your competencies and knowledge onto other people around you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 21 2016, @04:52AM
I never said it was hard, I just assumed the relationship was common knowledge. Dunning Kruger effect: you write your competencies and knowledge onto other people around you.
Not a good assumption.
I mean, what with smoking up all the time, then freaking out and beating up homeless guys, busting plate glass windows or playing mailbox baseball, who can remember all the scholarly papers we read anyway?
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday January 20 2016, @03:40AM
I'm not surprised that they found no correlation between IQ decline and pot use, the parts of the brain that pot affects aren't related to IQ.
Parts of the brain effected by pot are mostly in the PFC which means that working memory, short term memory and general executive function are likely to be affected by pot and that's where you're much more likely to see issues than with IQ.
The other really interesting question is really how much is too much. Clearly one joint isn't going to damage the brain to any appreciable degree, but spending most of your life toasted is highly likely to have negative consequences for the brain.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday January 19 2016, @08:44PM
It's great to see studies like this to give some evidence one way or the other.
But for discussion among peers, I feel it's necessary to start with the premise that even if cannabis were to cause an IQ decline, that doesn't give anybody the right to stop anybody else from using it.
When that premise is not in place, the discussion is disrespectful and controlling from the very beginning.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @08:50PM
What's controlling isn't a discussion, but Schedule I status.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday January 19 2016, @09:33PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Gravis on Tuesday January 19 2016, @09:39PM
I feel it's necessary to start with the premise that even if cannabis were to cause an IQ decline, that doesn't give anybody the right to stop anybody else from using it.
When that premise is not in place, the discussion is disrespectful and controlling from the very beginning.
then you should make that your discussion because not everybody agrees with that. the fact that you find discussions to be "disrespectful and controlling" is because you fail to acknowledge that this is not a universally agreed upon concept.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @09:58PM
then you should make that your discussion because not everybody agrees with that.
Indeed, tyrants do disagree with that; they aren't exactly enthusiastic about freedom in general, after all. They also support things like mass surveillance, stop-and-frisk policies, and the TSA. Ah, but if they work, stripping people of their freedoms must be justified.
The people who don't agree should be regarded with nothing but absolute contempt, for they are advocating policies that will strip people of their freedoms. It's not just a matter of petty disagreement at that point.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jdavidb on Wednesday January 20 2016, @03:04AM
the fact that you find discussions to be "disrespectful and controlling" is because you fail to acknowledge that this is not a universally agreed upon concept.
I still consider such people to be acting disrespectfully and to be controlling, even if they don't agree that they are. It is extremely easy to be disrespectful and controlling without even knowing it. I used to be that way all the time. Probably still am, frequently, although I hope I've made a little bit of headway in dealing with it.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday January 20 2016, @03:35AM
the fact that you find discussions to be "disrespectful and controlling" is because you fail to acknowledge that this is not a universally agreed upon concept.
I still consider such people to be acting disrespectfully and to be controlling, even if they don't agree that they are.
what you have stated is that anyone that does not agree with your point of view on this issue is being disrespectful and controlling before you even meet them. there is name for that, prejudice.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jdavidb on Wednesday January 20 2016, @01:37PM
what you have stated is that anyone that does not agree with your point of view on this issue is being disrespectful and controlling before you even meet them. there is name for that, prejudice.
Some people believe that those who want to use marijuana should be controlled and forbidden from doing so. That is the very definition of controlling. I used to be open to that sort of viewpoint but after serious consideration I have rejected it. Furthermore I see this is why political discussions cannot be respectful: one or both sides want the other to be forced to submit to their point of view.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday January 20 2016, @05:05PM
what should be allowed and what should be prohibited is a matter of what is good for the general welfare. you have to remember that everyone is part of an interconnected society, so if what one person does infringes upon what is good for the general welfare, it's where your rights end. your particular issue is not unique but rather of a type because the same argument could easily be used by anti-vaxxers, tax dodgers, cult leaders and all sorts of people doing crazy things that are bad for the general welfare. you decided that regardless of the consequences of doing so, people should be able to use marijuana and anyone who thought otherwise was automatically controlling and disrespectful. the general welfare should always be considered when speaking of personal liberties... unless you are an anarchist.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday January 20 2016, @05:29PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday January 21 2016, @01:35AM
well then, only thing you have accomplishes here is proving you are both a fool and a hypocrite.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 21 2016, @05:52PM
A fool I can understand, but not "hypocrite".
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday January 21 2016, @05:48PM
what should be allowed and what should be prohibited is a matter of what is good for the general welfare
Never heard of individual liberties, then? Personally, I'm not a fan of tyranny of the majority, so I will have to disagree. If you seek to control what other people are allowed to put into their own bodies, you are nothing but a moral thug and should be treated with nothing but absolute contempt. Since I am not a coward who favors safety over liberty, such authoritarians are my enemies.
Pretty much everything is going to have some indirect effect on others. That is no excuse to ban something.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday January 21 2016, @07:38PM
If you seek to control what other people are allowed to put into their own bodies, you are nothing but a moral thug
this has nothing to do with morals. if something is proven to lower your IQ or be chemically addictive then it should be banned or heavily regulated because it will have a widespread negative cumulative effect on society. if you think this is wrong, perhaps you should investigate the absurd amount of people that have and will become diabetic.
Pretty much everything is going to have some indirect effect on others. That is no excuse to ban something.
should we allow people to put lead in paint and gasoline? should we let everyone pollute as much as they like? indirect effects are absolutely good enough reasons to ban something.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday January 21 2016, @08:54PM
this has nothing to do with morals.
Of course it does. You're suggesting that it's alright to violate people's fundamental right to control their own bodies in the name of safety. To me, you're no better than those who say we should have mass surveillance to stop the terrorists, or other such things. Even if you don't support mass surveillance simply because you don't think it is effective, you probably would support it if they made it effective, at least judging from what you've said so far. If so, that means you cannot ever be considered to be a real ally when it comes to matters of freedom, as you will abandon everyone's freedoms when you want to increase safety.
if something is proven to lower your IQ or be chemically addictive then it should be banned or heavily regulated because it will have a widespread negative cumulative effect on society.
Science doesn't tell us what we "should" do; it doesn't deal with such questions at all. So even if such proof is found, we could still say that we prefer freedom over a deeply authoritarian society that is more safe. Well, maybe not you, since you seem to think living in padded rooms is okay.
if you think this is wrong, perhaps you should investigate the absurd amount of people that have and will become diabetic.
Freedom is more important than safety, so the number of people who have and will become diabetic is irrelevant to this conversation.
should we allow people to put lead in paint and gasoline? should we let everyone pollute as much as they like?
What I said was that the mere existence of an indirect effect on others is not enough to ban something. You require something more than that. But your thought process appears to be so authoritarian in nature that it seems likely that you would find any given reason to ban something that you don't like to be good enough, so I'm wasting my time.
indirect effects are absolutely good enough reasons to ban something.
Ice skating is unnecessary and dangerous. You could have an accident, get injured, and then the taxpayers might have to foot the bill in some way. Obviously, this is unacceptable and we must ban ice skating or other similar activities that are unnecessary and could indirectly affect others in negative ways.
I'd rather just pay more taxes than live in the tyrannical society you seem to desire. That's an option too.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday January 21 2016, @09:44PM
To me, you're no better than those who say we should have mass surveillance to stop the terrorists
...
you will abandon everyone's freedoms when you want to increase safety.
...
Well, maybe not you, since you seem to think living in padded rooms is okay.
...
But your thought process appears to be so authoritarian in nature that it seems likely that you would find any given reason to ban something that you don't like to be good enough, so I'm wasting my time.
...
I'd rather just pay more taxes than live in the tyrannical society you seem to desire.
"Splitting (also called black and white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism used by many people.[1] The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual's actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground)."
you are your own problem, not me.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday January 22 2016, @12:05AM
Nice try, but that has nothing to do with the validity of what I said.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday January 22 2016, @08:38AM
to be clear, i'm not participating in a flame war, so i'm done discussing the matter with you.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Wednesday January 20 2016, @02:06PM
Please explain to me, Gravis, how prejudice is always a bad thing (I feel that is what your statement implied; if not, please feel free to disregard my request and instead educate me on your actual intent). Is it bad to be prejudiced against murder, for example? I feel like jdavid is simply expressing that he has an extreme prejudice against people who believe they should infringe on the freedoms of others.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by joekiser on Tuesday January 19 2016, @11:43PM
But for discussion among peers, I feel it's necessary to start with the premise that even if cannabis were to cause an IQ decline, that doesn't give anybody the right to stop anybody else from using it.
Agreed. Moreover, it is hypocritical that public opinion is trending against the use of tobacco and carbonated beverages, while moving towards the recreational use of marijuana.
Debt is the currency of slaves.
(Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Tuesday January 19 2016, @11:48PM
I think we will reach a point where we realize that drinking soda and other sugary beverages (including Gatorade and fruit juice) is far more damaging to health than vaping cannabis.
Guess which one can be found in school vending machines?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday January 20 2016, @02:48AM
In any attempt to create a free society, I feel it's necessary to start with the premise that no one has the right to tell anyone else what (e.g., marijuana, alcohol, airplane glue, fetuses, information, etc.) they should or shouldn't put in (or take out) of their bodies.
There. FTFY.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 20 2016, @02:57PM
they should or shouldn't put in (or take out) of their bodies.
Well...other than e.g. a bomb. But the "my right extends as far as..." was probably implied, right? :)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @10:48PM
they should or shouldn't put in (or take out) of their bodies.
Well...other than e.g. a bomb. But the "my right extends as far as..." was probably implied, right? :)
No! Bombs are freedom. Freedom to enforce the laws of Jesus. He died for your sins, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't as well.
All of you lib'rul elites think you're so damn smart. Well, country don't mean dumb.
You need to accept Jesus as your personal savior. Or I will kill you dead. But don't worry, if you've asked your Lord for forgiveness, you will sit at his hand in heaven forever.
But if not, or you're a godless commie pinko atheist, you will burn in hell for eternity!
The lord God is my savior, but nothing can save you from my wrath!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday January 21 2016, @05:41PM
any
no one
anyone
There's this thing called "context" [reference.com] of which you apparently aren't aware. The statement:
Those damn pedants, trying to demonstrate that absolutes are only rarely useful...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday January 21 2016, @05:48PM
Why post that here? Most likely no one but me will see it.
Why not post that drivel in the GCHQ discussion? That way other folks can see it too.
Have a lovely day, darling!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Touché) by Absolutely.Geek on Tuesday January 19 2016, @08:55PM
Marijuana is used more than any other recreational
I would say that alcohol is the most widely used recreational drug. maybe they meant illegal drug?
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Tuesday January 19 2016, @11:04PM
I think coffee/tea/energy drinks (caffeine) beats alcohol.
But alcohol is unique as there isn't a single culture, either primitive or modern, that doesn't revere it. Truly it is the water of life.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @12:05AM
Alcohol isn't looked upon well in many Indian states.
(Score: 2) by Absolutely.Geek on Wednesday January 20 2016, @01:24AM
A very good point; it is socially acceptable to consume caffeine whilst at work (I'm doing it right now); however consuming alcohol or THC at work would, I think, be frowned upon.
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday January 20 2016, @06:54PM
Well, DUH! Alcohol and pot impair your abilities, while caffeine doesn't and even enhances one's abilities.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday January 20 2016, @01:54AM
30% of the world drinks coffee, 65% drinks tea (*), the remainder simply don't have access to either. Both have a long history, tea's is especially old.
(*) Statistics made up on the spot, but India and China must be nearly a quarter of the world population on their own.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @02:51AM
The Koran forbids alcohol consumption.
Mormonism forbids it too.
Is Mormonism a culture? (I know it's a cult.)
A 75 percent vote in the USA made it illegal nationwide 1919 - 1933.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 20 2016, @03:01PM
Are you really OriginalOwner or just an AC being a dick and signing his name on your stuff to be petty?
If A) why not log in; if B) grow up.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @06:48PM
If you see something that includes that nym and is just an incoherent jumble of words (bot-generated purposely-injected noise), feel free to mark that as spam.
The string of posts which include that nym and use a particular 2-word phrase are also obvious spam.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @12:03PM
Yes, anything that is not pure water can pedantically be classified as a drug. How about vitamin supplements? I bet that is WAY more consumed than alcohol, and in many cases, more dangerous to the person taking them.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @09:07PM
The link to the research authors: Marin, C, and Chong, T., 1978. [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @09:10PM
This assumes you know what factors to account for. Which you don't. Anyway it is on the people who claim such an effect to account for all these other factors, which they can never do. That is why this NHST driven research is of little value (not zero value because sometimes we learn something incidentally about data collection or whatever from it). If you have a theory there is an effect, you need to make a precise prediction about the numerical value of the effect or functional form of the dose response, etc. Something not vague like "decreases IQ", which is on level with astrology.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday January 19 2016, @11:45PM
You don't have to account for all of the factors. If you account for the factors you can think of, and the IQ decline/difference disappears, you have found the right factors.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @01:09AM
I'm not sure what significance IQ has in the first place, as it appears to be mere pseudoscience at best. That's what you get when you take the social 'sciences' seriously.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @01:21AM
Can't factor A cancel out factor B? Instead I'd say account for everything you can think of and if the effect remains then you can attribute it to thc. But as said in the above post, there are just too many unless the effect is huge. Do what scientists always did before this NHST idea infested academia: Predict something precise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @09:21PM
Breaking: Excessive Cannabis Use Directly Correlated to Use of Periods in Headlines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @09:36PM
Breaking: Excessive Cannabis Use Directly Correlated To Use Of Periods In Headlines.
Fixed that for you. If you are going to use caps on the first word go all in ;)
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday January 20 2016, @01:59AM
Smoke another bowl dude, the use of all caps for all words in a title is the lazy man's way of highlighting and then selecting "initial caps". It is correct to not capitalize words like to, of, the, from, etc. providing that they aren't the first word in the sentence. Basically, if you are capitalizing articles and prepositions in a title, you are doing it wrong. /gnazi
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @07:22PM
Smoke another bowl dude
I also know the rules of capitalization. Its called humor and sarcasm. Give it a try its kinda fun. Ad-hominem attacks prove nothing to me :)
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 20 2016, @03:11PM
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization#Title_case [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @03:47PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Tuesday January 19 2016, @10:34PM
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday January 20 2016, @07:14PM
Oh wow!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday January 19 2016, @10:36PM
I can't be the only person who found that marihuana makes one lazy. Once in a while is fine but every day means nothing is getting done, period.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Wednesday January 20 2016, @01:09AM
It doesn't make me lazy, but it does get me somewhat distracted halfway through a task.
Start task 1, get partway through and realise there is something else I need to do, and then start on task 2 instead of finishing task 1, and occasionally, start on task 3 before finishing task 2.
I still do lots of things, they just take longer due to to the distractions.
Note: However, I have a toke and and nice, strong coffee, and the distractions become minimal.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @02:30AM
I'd rebut your scurrilous comment, but...
(Score: 1) by segwonk on Wednesday January 20 2016, @03:59AM
Generalize much?
Look, I get that a lot of folks do their part to perpetuate your stereotype. But anecdotally, I love smoking weed and then hiking, doing yard work, mountain biking, disc golfing, wood working –– whatever.
.......go til ya know.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @05:18AM
They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference. ~ Bill Hicks
(Score: 3, Interesting) by srobert on Tuesday January 19 2016, @10:56PM
... then which direction is the causality. Are people with high IQ's more likely or less likely to use marijuana than other people? Are marijuana users more likely to have higher IQ's or lower IQ's than non-users? What levels of usage and what ranges of IQ's were undertaken in the study? What's the prevalence of marijuana use among people of genius level IQ's?
As you can see, this just leaves me with more questions?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday January 19 2016, @11:43PM
Maybe poor people, who have lower IQs, are more likely to use cannabis, while richer people use cocaine.
Maybe smarter people are less likely to hang with a 420blazeit crowd, or simply use less cannabis per person, and have better self-control.
Proving that it does no harm cognitively is a valuable finding. Any remaining correlations to low IQs can be hand-waved away since they don't really matter.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday January 20 2016, @02:33AM
As you can see, this just leaves me with more questions?
"Never fear answers, only fear running out of questions." --Unknown
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Funny) by snufu on Wednesday January 20 2016, @01:56AM
You're a towel.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Wednesday January 20 2016, @05:37AM
The only other fan of towelie spam in weed articles I've ever met. Keep up the good work, and don't forget to bring a towel!
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @02:59PM
Proper towel use: it's important!
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday January 20 2016, @06:58PM
I see this kind of reference that I have no clue about rated +4 funny and think, damn, I'm getting old. Someone clue me in?
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday January 20 2016, @07:17PM
Do a quick search for "south park towelie" and you'll have all the answers you could ever want. Don't forget to bring a towel!
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday January 20 2016, @08:49PM
Hmmm... I have a LOT of South Park on DVD, but I haven't watched it in years.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 20 2016, @11:16AM
My brother-in-law is a long-term, heavy user. I've watched him for 20 years, and I can't say his cognition has changed much; he can reason and remember as well as he ever could. Something has changed in his brain. With his usual dose he's the sweetest, most easy going person, but if he goes more than a day without a hit he turns into the world's biggest asshole. Also, he's totally unable to cope with any interruptions to his routine. The unexpected brings him high levels of anxiety. I don't know if other heavy users experience this, if it's a by-product of its being illegal and requiring elaborate measures to avoid detection, or what, but it has been sad to watch such a naturally gregarious person transform into a virtual recluse because he can't deal with the unpredictability of others.
Sample size of one and all that, but the effects we've observed make us want to keep our kids away from it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @02:46PM
I know of at least 3 other people who are the same way.
I not sure it is a chemical dependency but it most certainly is a mental one.
They do not have the emotional fortitude to 'deal with it'. Their way to 'deal with it' is to get fucked up so they dont care. When they are not baked they realize 'oh wait I DO care and everything is fucked up' so they turn grumpy. Then they bake off another one 'to deal with it'.
My wife who has not touched it in 10 years is paranoid as ever (fun game for me is "Hey look a cop"). Like your brother-in-law is unable to cope in any way with any change in routine. I mean the smallest thing messes her up. Like "hey lets go out to eat instead of eating in tonight" she flips out. Then she realizes she is being irrational and apologizes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @03:42PM
It would not surprise me at all if what you're observing is that cannabis is an effective treatment for what many would call his nature mental state.