It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Top 10 Cannabis Studies the Government Wished it Had Never Funded

page: 3
57
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Biigs
What about the psychological effects?


What about freedom to choose what to with your own body and what not to do, without big brother gubmint telling you its OK or not?


originally posted by: Biigs
Getting high could be slowly ruining your life if they are right about that.


So COULD a multitude of other things to the irresponsible, immature individual.

Also, what is ruinous to a life is subjective and based on individual perspective.

Its not your job, nor mine, nor bloated ego politicians, to keep anyone "safe" from themselves. Thats actually destructive to a society, not preservative of it. You are holding back collective learning and experiencing, preventing natural growth from experimentation with new experiences, whatever they may be. Without those new experiences, a persons, or a societies, growth stalls.

There is a flow and natural progressive route that life takes, of which society is a part. Out of control progressively totalitarian regimes, like the US, that try to control every aspect of a persons life, are preventing that natural maturation of the species acquired via new experience and experimentation with new ideas.

Of course the top of the hierarchy couldnt exist as the mouthpiece of the subconscious will of the people without the consent of the base... so oddly, it is the peoples will that humanity as a society, as a species, stagnates at a dangerous emotional point by artificially limiting intrapersonal growth through criminalization of things "not safe".

Its all about "safety"... which means its all about not facing fear, and not changing with changing times; ie: fighting the flow instead of riding the tide.

"Its not the strongest of the species that survives, but the ones most responsive to change".

Humanity is not adapting; it is essentially the same emotionally as it was 200k years ago; scared, superstitious, domineering, and prone to extreme violence against pretty much anything, including itself. But reality cannot any longer support such a species, simply because such a species is programmed to self-destruct when it gets too large. Its an inherent flaw... or perhaps a safety mechanism, built into the human psyche.

This comes back to learning and growing as a species, which require new experiences and new knowledge to do. Clinging out of irrational fear to old dogmas, whether they be social, emotional, intellectual, etc, that were designed for a species wielding a fraction of the physical power it now has, and for population numbers much lower than it has, will eventually lead to disaster, and indeed, the process is well under way.

Humanity right now needs more than ever to rapidly evolve; rapidly grow emotionally, but it screams to the universe instead: "No! We will NOT evolve! We will NOT change! We are perfect, and will fight you and win!"

But no one defeats time. No static society ever weathers the ages. No unresponsive species ever survives the changing flow of reality around it.

Its disappointing, really. Humanity had potential. But it chose never to grow, and soon it will be that the world will have outgrown humanity, and moved on without it.




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AfterInfinity

What's that supposed to mean? If you want to provide evidence that marijuana makes you dumber you need to show that decrease in intelligence over a lifetime, not while they are wasted.


Btw, I have witnessed people who used pot in highschool turn into total losers in the real world years later after graduating from it...People who had such great potential to thrive in life really screwed themselves over because they wanted to look "cool" in public by smoking something illegal....to me that is also proof enough what drugs can do to you in the long run..they ruin your life and intelligence.

Edit...article adds evidence to my claim:
Young cannabis smokers run risk of lower IQ, report claims
www.bbc.com...


They assessed them as children - before any of them had started using cannabis - and then re-interviewed them repeatedly, up to the age of 38.

Having taken into account other factors such as alcohol or tobacco dependency or other drug use, as well the number of years spent in education, they found that those who persistently used cannabis - smoking it at least four times a week year after year through their teens, 20s and, in some cases, their 30s - suffered a decline in their IQ.

The more that people smoked, the greater the loss in IQ...

"What it shows is if you are a really heavy stoner there are going to be consequences, which I think most people would accept.




edit on 16-5-2014 by Skywatcher2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AfterInfinity

What's that supposed to mean? If you want to provide evidence that marijuana makes you dumber you need to show that decrease in intelligence over a lifetime, not while they are wasted.


Here is a Link- Does smoking pot lower your IQ? for you to read to start...



Also...marijuana is a drug...and people who use a drug regularly can become an addict...and addiction changes brain chemistry and function...


You clearly didn't read that article did you?

Because if you did, you'd know that the article introduces a study done at Duke university that claims what you have:


Last year, Madeline Meier and her group from Duke University reported results from the so-called Dunedin study which tracked a group of 1037 people from their birth to age 38. These volunteers’ pot smoking histories were monitored at periodic intervals from age 18 onwards. The study found a troubling decline of IQ and cognitive abilities among regular pot smokers, especially those whose habit kicked in during their teens. No explicit causal relationship was assigned between the two facts, but the correlation was positive and significant. The study naturally raised a lot of questions regarding the wisdom of early pot use, especially in light of its current legalization in two states.
\

Then the article spends the rest of it, showing how that study was flawed and that the same results could be reproduced other ways:


Now a study by Ole Rogeberg from the Ragnar Frisch Center for Research in Norway has called this study into question, both for its methodology and its conclusions. The first thing to realize about any such study, even if you don’t know the details, is that there are going to be several confounding socioeconomic factors in assessing any relationship between cannabis use and IQ. Medicine and psychology are not exact sciences, and following a large sample of people for 38 years and assessing correlation – let alone causation – between any two factors is going to be confounded by a large number of other correlated and uncorrelated variables in an inherently uncontrolled experiment. The second thing to realize is that effects of socioeconomic status (SES), including finances and education on IQ are well-documented. The so-called Flynn-Dickens model explores the interplay between inherited variability in IQ and the resulting socioeconomic effects which in turn influence IQ through a feedback loop; for instance, children with lower IQ are likely to be introduced to less cognitively challenging environments, which further impairs improvements in IQ.


Even the graph you posted is explained:


To more quantitatively explore the effects of SES rather than cannabis use on IQ, Rogeberg constructs a simulation model that excludes marijuana use. Instead the model relies on two assumptions; first, that SES actually predicts cannabis exposure (with poor SES correlating with more exposure) and second, that kids with low SES receive a boost in IQ from compulsory schooling, a boost that declines over time as this imposed environment withers away. The model finds that these two socioeconomic effects essentially reproduce the original data as shown in the figure below.




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Read my post above yours ^



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AfterInfinity

What's that supposed to mean? If you want to provide evidence that marijuana makes you dumber you need to show that decrease in intelligence over a lifetime, not while they are wasted.


Btw, I have witnessed people who used pot in highschool turn into total losers in the real world years later after graduating from it...People who had such great potential to thrive in life really screwed themselves over because they wanted to look "cool" in public by smoking something illegal....to me that is also proof enough what drugs can do to you in the long run..they ruin your life and intelligence.


That's anecdotal evidence and with every bit of your pot turns people into losers evidence, I have evidence of pot users who are just fine in life.


Edit...article adds evidence to my claim:
Young cannabis smokers run risk of lower IQ, report claims
www.bbc.com...


They assessed them as children - before any of them had started using cannabis - and then re-interviewed them repeatedly, up to the age of 38.

Having taken into account other factors such as alcohol or tobacco dependency or other drug use, as well the number of years spent in education, they found that those who persistently used cannabis - smoking it at least four times a week year after year through their teens, 20s and, in some cases, their 30s - suffered a decline in their IQ.

The more that people smoked, the greater the loss in IQ...

"What it shows is if you are a really heavy stoner there are going to be consequences, which I think most people would accept.





We already discussed this study in your other post where you unwittingly posted an article that raises concerns about that study. You should really take the time to read the articles you are linking before doing so.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Read my post above yours ^


Should I? I'm confused what I should read. You posted two articles that discuss the same study. One first says that the study is flawed and the other says it is fine. I call shenanigans on the whole thing. You stuck your foot in your mouth when you posted an article you didn't even read.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Skywatcher2011


So when there is a huge push by society to make something legal...governments will re-evaluate their stance on the issue and come up with a consensus...but by doing so, they are also looking for ways of generating revenues through a tax on something. And in this case, why not legalize pot to make society happy, and then tax the drug to make the government happy...win win situation?

The fact that the federal government is still so resistant to legalization even after conducting all these studies, and even though there's so many people who want it legalized, and even though they could collect a huge amount of taxes from it, should really show you how wrong you are. Do a search on marijuana and its health effects and you'll get more anti-marijuana propaganda from mainstream sources than you'll know what to do with. If the federal government was so pro-marijuana they wouldn't have their mainstream media mouthpieces spreading so much anti-marijuana material. The agenda couldn't be any clearer if they tried, and the fact you fail to see or understand these clear indications of your faulty premise is amazing.
edit on 16/5/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


(post by Skywatcher2011 removed for a manners violation)

posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
Mod edit: (post by Skywatcher2011 removed for a manners violation)


There you go, resort to ad hominem attacks. YOU make a mistake posting an article you clearly didn't fully read (heck you didn't even skim it) then post another article about the same exact study from the first article (further proving you didn't read the first article and making it seem like you didn't read the second one). Then I read the article, call you on your shenanigans and you fall to insulting me and try to shut the argument down. I have only been questioning your motives for about half a page and you are already resorting to ad hominems and the "I'm not responding to you anymore" defense. Very telling of your side of things huh? I guess hoping for you to just apologize for posting conflicting information that you didn't read, admit you made a mistake and then we both move on is just out of the cards huh?
edit on 16-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/5/14 by JustMike because: Removed quoted post, as it was deleted for a T&C violation.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Skywatcher2011

The BBC is not a worthwhile source when it comes to these topics. Being British Ive seen countless hit pieces by the beeb about the evils of pot. We have a pretty backward attitude to drugs in this country. Bizarre considering the damage alcohol and gambling contribute to society, yet are promoted by both government and big business.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Anyone that wants to just own an acre of land and grow hemp to eat and smoke. Then turns to the use of solar panals to offset electric cost is an enemy of the system. This stuff is posion that makes you want to mind your own business and not be part of the system you were born into. It is just a matter of time before they have everyone eating it and all having one mind. As a nation that stands for imprisoning the people and exploiting the earth we can not stand by and watch our country turn into some hippie monster.

It seems to me that we should keep lumping all drugs into a group when speaking of this firey plant. That way it will stick in their minds when they hear off weed they can think of powdered substances that when induced one will take every oppertunity to get more and even live out sick fantasies that come along with haveing no food in systems. Of coarse if we keep it illegal then we can continue to show that criminals use it.

Let's make it seem as though if you smoke it you will become fat by eating everything. That will be easy because it makes you wanna snack even though there are not many people that only induldge in smoking just the plant that have weight problems.

Will will have to stay prudent in keeping a bad face on weed because internal studies show that users no longer give a care for our methoeds of control over the population. Stay strong cronies


On the other hand if i were the devil and wanted mental minipulation oer all people and could pour my spirit into a plant i would need it to have many great properities. One that could reveloutionize an economy and fullfill all prior biblical expections of peace on earth. I could use this spiritual influence to keep all fears away and pave the way for mass culling of humans if so choosed. I could then put on my cloak of righteousness and show up and save everyone that wanted to leave this place and go home with me. As for all the rest that choose to stay well they would die when i hit the reset button with an astroid in about 15 yrs. Bottom line learn to destroy astroids or love and serve me and my alter ego. I'm just saying that it's could be a possibility if i were the devil.
edit on 16-5-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Tread lightly folks... This thread was doing well, on topic and not running afoul of the T & C's... There's been a divergence... Don't make me go all Sith Lord on you...



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




THE “GATEWAY EFFECT” MAY BE A MIRAGE:

This has irked me for years. Calling cannabis a gateway drug is absolutely ridiculous.
Cigarettes are the gateway drug. Think about it. How many people that don't smoke cigarettes would smoke a joint? Very few IMO, very few. They're non smokers already so they're unlikely to inhale on a joint for their first ever smoke.
No, cigarettes are definitely the gateway drug, and just as a side note, i believe that if cigarettes were only invented today they would be banned immediately.
Cigarettes=addictive
Cannabis=non addictive
Therefore cigarettes are the gateway drug.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: SecretKnowledge

Gateway Drug was just a catch phrase invented by the Reagan era to demonize cannabis. It means nothing, I will say sugar is the ultimate gateway drug because ever drug addict in the US has tried pure sugar before switching to harder stuff.

Over the past 20 years the shift in views on cannabis is amazing. I was fortunate to have parents who were reasonable about drugs and cannabis and felt like they never lied to me about drugs, however learning about the ways of the world, government, and laws throughout my school years I was amazed at the all the fact-less arguments for the drug war and how many people just accepted all the anti-drug catch phrases as if they were the word of God.

To the poster who mentioned Florida's medical bill being an easy pass, I do not think so. It needs 60% of the popular vote which is tough to do with any bill and Florida voters are especially fickle. It almost did not make the ballot, despite overwhelming popular support because Governor Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi found a loophole to throw it out earlier this year. Had attorney John Morgan not had some dirt about Pam Bondi's partying days he was willing to make public, the bill would have been quietly thrown out.

edit on 16-5-2014 by jrod because: 1



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join