Salvia

[OANST]

There is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life.

I still feel like I have to dispute this. The evidence is all anecdotal.

[Bullet Magnet]

Not at all. Here's another study, this one using sibling pair analysis to help distinguish between the effects of cannabis use and genetic predetermination.

[OANST]

But it's anecdotal. It doesn't say that the twin was a wonderful person, smoked pot, AND THEN HOLY SHIT IT'S A FUCKING WHIRLWIND OF MADNESS WATCH OUT! No. The one that smoked pot was also the one that had problems. This is called anecdotal evidence, and is know in the scientific community as absolute nonsense.

[Bullet Magnet]

These are professions we're talking about.

MEASUREMENT OF POTENTIAL CONFOUNDERS AND OTHER EXPLANATORY FACTORS

It is feasible that early psychotic-like experiences could influence both subsequent cannabis use and psychosis-related outcomes at the 21-year follow-up. At the 14-year follow-up, 2 items from the Youth Self-Report were chosen for their face validity as psychotic-like experiences: “I hear sounds or voices that other people think aren’t there” and “I see things that other people think aren’t there.” Based on this same cohort, we previously reported that these items were associated with both an increased risk of nonaffective psychosis and high scores on the PDI at the 21-year follow-up. Subjects were dichotomized into those who responded “never” vs “sometimes” or “often.”
Parental mental illness is a potential confounding factor because this could influence both the risk of cannabis use and psychotic-related outcomes in the offspring. At the 5, 14, and 21-year follow-ups, mothers of the cohort members were asked to report on specific parental mental illnesses (maternal or paternal history of schizophrenia, alcohol abuse/dependence, and depression or anxiety disorders). Subjects were dichotomized into parental history of mental disorder present or absent.

[OANST]

An-ec-do-tal

Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

[Wings of Fire]

3801 participants is as about as scientific as it gets.

[Bullet Magnet]

These aren't anecdotes, it is a sample of 3801 individuals comprising those who used cannabis for different periods and different quantites and those who did and did not receive a non-affective psychosis diagnosis and/or report at least of CIDI hallucination item, to which were applied various statistical analyses that accounted for prior conditions and family history.

Those who did not use cannabis at all were excluded. As the paper says:

It could be argued that siblings discordant for cannabis use (ie, one sibling who had never used cannabis and a sibling who had used cannabis for several years) may differ in a range of factors that could impact both the exposure variables (ie, propensity to use illicit drugs) and subsequent mental health. Thus, we undertook an additional planned sensitivity analysis where we restricted the sibling pairs to those who both used cannabis. This analysis allowed an even greater focus on the critical nonshared exposure (ie, duration since first cannabis use) and the psychosis-related outcomes.

As a result, it is the degree of exposure to cannabis that is being analysed, not simply the use of it. The findings are that the longer it was used, the greater the chance of psychosis or psychosis related outcomes.

[OANST]

3801 participants is as about as scientific as it gets.

It doesn't matter how many people you have. I can extrapolate from this data that people with emotional problems are more likely to smoke pot. This does not show causation in any way. To say otherwise is absurd.

[Wings of Fire]

There's this thing called statistics and there are these things called multivariate models of regression. Admittedly the longer the study goes on the weaker the statistical power gets, but you can scientifically test for causality like this.

[scrabface]

this turned into a debate of whether cannabis is dangerous or not.

I don't think I've ever had to go to another country for a bit of grass before.

I tried salvia once and thought it was shit. Biggest waste of time and money in my opinion. Mull that over.

as Ridg3 seems to be the only one who tried out Salvia yet, I would like to know more about why it was shit.

[OANST]

There's this thing called statistics and there are these things called multivariate models of regression. Admittedly the longer the study goes on the weaker the statistical power gets, but you can scientifically test for causality like this.

Except that this is much much much more subjective, because the odds of people with emotional problems wanting to escape and smoke pot is quite likely greater than the opposite. Which is exactly what these numbers mean to me. They can in no way show any kind of causation.

[Bullet Magnet]

Except that this is much much much more subjective, because the odds of people with emotional problems wanting to escape and smoke pot is quite likely greater than the opposite. Which is exactly what these numbers mean to me. They can in no way show any kind of causation.

As I just pointed out, this study analyses the outcomes against the length of time in which cannabis is used, not the use of it as opposed to not using it.

The study specifically excluded subjects who did not use cannabis at all for the very reasons you describe.

[OANST]

That doesn't speak to what I'm speaking to. At all.

[Bullet Magnet]

Then explain, because you mustn't have been clear.

[Strike Witch]

Drugs are for faggots.

Same with booze.

[Mr. Bungle]

Should be just fine for you, then.

[Sekto Springs]

Are you insinuating Hunter Thompson is a faggot?

[Leto]

Drugs are for faggots.

Same with booze.

aka cool story bro.

[Mac Sirloin]

Drugs are for faggots.

Same with booze.

Shame that you're the only person in the world who can like what you like without taking drugs.



EDIT: Actually that isn't a shame at all. How silly of me.

[Phylum]

I know, look, irony and sarcasm travels very badly across the internet so I'm giving up now

Maybe you ought to stop using it. You generally portrey it very poorly.

[Nate]

Shame that you're the only person in the world who can like what you like without taking drugs.

Wait... Strike Witch is in to girls.

You don't like girls?

[Strike Witch]

wow, heterosexuality is caused by substance abuse.

It all makes sense!

[Mac Sirloin]

Wait... Strike Witch is in to girls.

You don't like girls?

Sigh

Jeeze, can't a guy make snarky remarks in peace?

[Strike Witch]

Only while high

[STM]

And now without consequences. I dunno.

[MA]

Drugs are for faggots.

Same with booze.

Same with booze.

fuck off! what happened to you, man? you used to be cool.

[Majic]

salvia : tripping :: Carlos Mencia : comedy

The emotional stress and subsequent memory of smoking marijuana for the first time might be significant enough to exacerbate a predisposition toward psychosis-like tendencies (on an idiosyncratic basis, of course), but due to its general lack of neurological reorganization, marijuana is *highly* unlikely to be the sole source of causation for such happenings. Whether or not said psychosis tendencies would ever manifest themselves without the theoretical "trigger" of marijuana is up for debate, but I'd say the likely answer is "yes, but at a later point of unknown distance in time from an occurrence of equivalent impact." Whether or not the earlier manifestation results in good/bad long-term happenings is likewise idiosyncratic (earlier onset of treatment could benefit, after all).

Smoking anything isn't particularly natural, but smoking marijuana and smoking tobacco are of two entirely separate leagues of health consequence. Within a couple months of cessation from even chronic marijuana use, there's going to be little difference in measurable variable between a smoker/non. Tobacco is going to require years to level the playing field for issues as serious as probability of developing various cancers, which is extra LOL when you take into account marijuana's documented anti-tumor/neurological damage properties. Teenagers who only smoke pot (no alcohol, no tobacco) have demonstrated an increase in overall mental well-being later in life; those who used all three was the opposite.

What does all this mean? Further research is needed, which I'm about to go embark on, if you guys catch my drift. Except for the salvia part, because salvia is retarded.

[scrabface]

finally! I tried out salvia about an hour ago, and it was really relaxing and interesting. I used a small bong and 5x extract. first when I looked down at my arms, I felt them drifting apart. I just leaned back and closed my eyes and I was listening to ambient music. I am glad I gave it a try and I am going to do it again.

[OANST]

Did it drive you insane?

[scrabface]

Did it drive you insane?

no, seems like it did drive me sane.

YEEEEAAAAH