7 ms·

It's great to see the advances in research that are being done around Psilocybin, MDMA, and Ketamine as the results that are coming out look incredibly promisin

It's great to see the advances in research that are being done around Psilocybin, MDMA, and Ketamine as the results that are coming out look incredibly promising. That being said, godDAMN how in the hell is anyone ever going to take studies like this seriously when they're being reported as "Magic Mushrooms" in Scientific American of all places? This isn't raver kiddies eating dried who-knows-what out of ziplock bags at raves, this is a controlled dosing of psilocybin in a medical setting for treatment of a serious illness. The stigma around researching these drugs is never going to go away unless the language itself changes.

arxpoetica 10y ago
A return to alchemy...
- nxzero 10y ago
  A return to science...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
fluxquanta 10y ago
Whenever pot-culture words come up in "reporting" about medical treatments I immediately tune out. That's not to say there aren't any potential health benefits but "toking herb" (or whatever) isn't the best way to present them to people who still demonize it.
- civilian 10y ago
  I know there's been an effort to use the word "Cannabis" as a way to sound legitimate, instead of pot/weed/marijuana. Do you react better to 'cannabis'?
  - protomyth 10y ago
    You're right, I don't react better at all. They should stick with saying "THC and related compounds" instead. Its basically the same argument I have for the thorium folks, do not use "reactor" or "nuclear" in any naming or marketing.
    - mjevans 10y ago
      Sort of like my own personal stance on 'breeder reactors' being 'waste reduction reactors'. The problem with most of that 'waste' (at least the non-byproducts kind) is that it's exactly that, actual waste instead of burnt fuel.
      - fapjacks 10y ago
        What about "spent nuclear waste reactors"? It's a big long-winded, but fully conveys that it runs on spent nuclear waste. I suppose it could be parsed weirdly.
    - yarou 10y ago
      I think the word you're looking for is cannabinoids. You don't call opiates "morphine and related compounds".
      - protomyth 10y ago
        True, but morphine and opiates in a known bad along with cannabinoids not sounding much better. Acronyms and "compounds" don't set off the hate generally.
        mistercow 10y ago
        I don't see a strong argument that "THC" is any better. Everyone knows what THC is.
        protomyth 10y ago
- nsxwolf 10y ago
  Well every medical marijuana dispensary I've seen looks like a head shop. Granny walks in with arthritis and walks out with her "blueberry kush" and wearing a crochet rainbow hat.
  - marssaxman 10y ago
    Nothing wrong with head shops.
- cnp 10y ago
  > That's not to say there aren't any potential health benefits but "toking herb" (or whatever) isn't the best way to present them to people who still demonize it > Whenever pot-culture words come up in "reporting" about medical treatments I immediately tune out Ever think that you're contributing to the problem? Just ignore the editorializing.
  - fluxquanta 10y ago
    >Ever think that you're contributing to the problem? How? The articles aren't for me. I'm fine with pot being legal for medical purposes or otherwise. The articles usually seemed to be aimed at (probably older) people who think marijuana is the devil's weed, and using stoner slang as part of an article to illustrate the positive side effects is counterproductive, in my opinion. Why does it matter if I ignore the article at that point?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
davidw 10y ago
> Scientific American My wife got that for a year, and I was quite unimpressed. It's not that detailed, mostly, and there's a lot of not very rigorous editorializing, from what I recall. Also, their 'please renew' campaign was quite deceiptful, sending us some kind of "you owe $$$!!!" notice that was really "you owe $$$ if you want to resubscribe".
- function_seven 10y ago
  > Also, their 'please renew' campaign was quite deceiptful, sending us some kind of "you owe $$$!!!" notice that was really "you owe $$$ if you want to resubscribe". It amazes me how the entire magazine industry is like this. The most staid and respectable publications have circulation departments that make my local used car dealer look like a saint. It's a huge disconnect, and has always bothered me.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    I remember when I was subscribing to The Economist, and they had a dark pattern in the process to trick you into paying for another publication. I strongly considered cancelling (and only didn't because I was ordering for other people as well.)
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  I've had that with them, too. While it's true that they're not super detailed, I'm also not an expert in every field, and in the majority of articles I found it a good balance. But years later, perhaps I've moved beyond that. I subscribed for several years until I got tired of their political agenda. I think the straw that broke the camel's back was a feature article on cleaning up landmines in southeast asia. Now, surely this is an important topic, but it's not what I come to a science magazine to read about. From there I moved to American Scientist magazine, which I found a bit deeper in many cases, and much better regarding editorializing.
  - sageikosa 10y ago
    Maybe I'll check that out. I stopped reading Scientific American in the 1990s due to the editorial bent.
jmilloy 10y ago
Note that it was also published simultaneously in Nature, which is I think the original.
legulere 10y ago
That's also why I can't take medical cannabis serious. With medicine you want exact doses and cut all stuff that's potentially giving by-effects. So what you want is e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabiximols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabiximols
- instakill 10y ago
  That's not how it works though. Many of the people running the cannabis studies have mentioned that the THC or CBD cannabanoids don't work alone. Cannabis has over 100 such cannabanoids. Nobody is definitively certain of the effects of this list outside of the 5 main ones. So "cutting all stuff that's potentially giving by-effects" is idealistic and not currently possible without reducing the efficacy of the cannabis.
- elif 10y ago
  There are about 113 cannabinoids in weed, while that pot spray only contains 2. With reefer, exact doses do not matter because unlike most medicine, its active ingredients are endogenous and non-toxic. I'm sorry that 420 culture causes your bias, but that's not a fault of the plant.

arxpoetica 10y ago

A return to alchemy...

nxzero 10y ago
A return to science...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

fluxquanta 10y ago

Whenever pot-culture words come up in "reporting" about medical treatments I immediately tune out. That's not to say there aren't any potential health benefits but "toking herb" (or whatever) isn't the best way to present them to people who still demonize it.

civilian 10y ago
I know there's been an effort to use the word "Cannabis" as a way to sound legitimate, instead of pot/weed/marijuana. Do you react better to 'cannabis'?
- protomyth 10y ago
  You're right, I don't react better at all. They should stick with saying "THC and related compounds" instead. Its basically the same argument I have for the thorium folks, do not use "reactor" or "nuclear" in any naming or marketing.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    Sort of like my own personal stance on 'breeder reactors' being 'waste reduction reactors'. The problem with most of that 'waste' (at least the non-byproducts kind) is that it's exactly that, actual waste instead of burnt fuel.
    - fapjacks 10y ago
      What about "spent nuclear waste reactors"? It's a big long-winded, but fully conveys that it runs on spent nuclear waste. I suppose it could be parsed weirdly.
  - yarou 10y ago
    I think the word you're looking for is cannabinoids. You don't call opiates "morphine and related compounds".
    - protomyth 10y ago
      True, but morphine and opiates in a known bad along with cannabinoids not sounding much better. Acronyms and "compounds" don't set off the hate generally.
      - mistercow 10y ago
        I don't see a strong argument that "THC" is any better. Everyone knows what THC is.
        protomyth 10y ago
nsxwolf 10y ago
Well every medical marijuana dispensary I've seen looks like a head shop. Granny walks in with arthritis and walks out with her "blueberry kush" and wearing a crochet rainbow hat.
- marssaxman 10y ago
  Nothing wrong with head shops.
cnp 10y ago
> That's not to say there aren't any potential health benefits but "toking herb" (or whatever) isn't the best way to present them to people who still demonize it > Whenever pot-culture words come up in "reporting" about medical treatments I immediately tune out Ever think that you're contributing to the problem? Just ignore the editorializing.
- fluxquanta 10y ago
  >Ever think that you're contributing to the problem? How? The articles aren't for me. I'm fine with pot being legal for medical purposes or otherwise. The articles usually seemed to be aimed at (probably older) people who think marijuana is the devil's weed, and using stoner slang as part of an article to illustrate the positive side effects is counterproductive, in my opinion. Why does it matter if I ignore the article at that point?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

davidw 10y ago

> Scientific American My wife got that for a year, and I was quite unimpressed. It's not that detailed, mostly, and there's a lot of not very rigorous editorializing, from what I recall. Also, their 'please renew' campaign was quite deceiptful, sending us some kind of "you owe $$$!!!" notice that was really "you owe $$$ if you want to resubscribe".

function_seven 10y ago
> Also, their 'please renew' campaign was quite deceiptful, sending us some kind of "you owe $$$!!!" notice that was really "you owe $$$ if you want to resubscribe". It amazes me how the entire magazine industry is like this. The most staid and respectable publications have circulation departments that make my local used car dealer look like a saint. It's a huge disconnect, and has always bothered me.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  I remember when I was subscribing to The Economist, and they had a dark pattern in the process to trick you into paying for another publication. I strongly considered cancelling (and only didn't because I was ordering for other people as well.)
CWuestefeld 10y ago
I've had that with them, too. While it's true that they're not super detailed, I'm also not an expert in every field, and in the majority of articles I found it a good balance. But years later, perhaps I've moved beyond that. I subscribed for several years until I got tired of their political agenda. I think the straw that broke the camel's back was a feature article on cleaning up landmines in southeast asia. Now, surely this is an important topic, but it's not what I come to a science magazine to read about. From there I moved to American Scientist magazine, which I found a bit deeper in many cases, and much better regarding editorializing.
- sageikosa 10y ago
  Maybe I'll check that out. I stopped reading Scientific American in the 1990s due to the editorial bent.

jmilloy 10y ago

Note that it was also published simultaneously in Nature, which is I think the original.

legulere 10y ago

That's also why I can't take medical cannabis serious. With medicine you want exact doses and cut all stuff that's potentially giving by-effects. So what you want is e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabiximols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabiximols

instakill 10y ago
That's not how it works though. Many of the people running the cannabis studies have mentioned that the THC or CBD cannabanoids don't work alone. Cannabis has over 100 such cannabanoids. Nobody is definitively certain of the effects of this list outside of the 5 main ones. So "cutting all stuff that's potentially giving by-effects" is idealistic and not currently possible without reducing the efficacy of the cannabis.
elif 10y ago
There are about 113 cannabinoids in weed, while that pot spray only contains 2. With reefer, exact doses do not matter because unlike most medicine, its active ingredients are endogenous and non-toxic. I'm sorry that 420 culture causes your bias, but that's not a fault of the plant.