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

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.

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.

These are professions we're talking about.

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.

3801 participants is as about as scientific as it gets.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Drugs are for faggots.

Same with booze.

Should be just fine for you, then.

Are you insinuating Hunter Thompson is a faggot?

http://i.imgur.com/O1aQp.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vrLio.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Zx4Np.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/qEiOL.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OAkWK.jpg

aka cool story bro.

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.

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

Wait... Strike Witch is in to girls.

You don't like girls?

wow, heterosexuality is caused by substance abuse.

It all makes sense!

Sigh

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

Only while high

And now without consequences. I dunno.

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

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.

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.

Did it drive you insane?

no, seems like it did drive me sane.

YEEEEAAAAH