5 ms·

Not the OP, but this is not anecdotal. Weed can develop schizophrenia in 4-5% of the population that carries a specific gene. Ref: https://www.drugabuse.gov/pub

Not the OP, but this is not anecdotal. Weed can develop schizophrenia in 4-5% of the population that carries a specific gene. Ref: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/there-link-between-marijuana-use-psychiatric-disorders https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/mari...

rosser 7y ago
drugabuse.gov should probably not be considered an un-biased source on the topic of drugs of abuse. Some of their material will be propaganda and FUD.
- losteric 7y ago
  So that's as far as you got? Didn't like the domain, therefore the study results are bunk? 75% of the authors are affiliated with other institutions, only 3 are with the National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIDA itself is well-grounded. There have been some instances where they take a more conservative stance given uncertainty in results, but this is still a national scientific institute - not DARE or the DoJ. Finally, the paper is on PMC: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426185/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426185/ - why do you disagree with their conclusion?
  - rosser 7y ago
    Would you care to speculate again about how much time I've spent reading their literature before this discussion? I promise you, it's non-zero. Please try not to dismiss people's positions that shallowly; it's a disservice to the conversation we're trying to have, and it's rude. I am involved in a number of communities that engage intentionally, even sacramentally, with psychedelics. The amount of sheer bullshit they continue to promulgate on that matter, about which I consider myself advanced-lay to burgeoning-expert, is staggering, and is sufficient for me to be default skeptical of anything else they might have to say. When you lie to me about things I know something about, I'm obligated to trust the rest of your oeuvre somewhat less, aren't I? Finally, I said nothing whatsoever about the conclusion of the paper under general discussion. In point of fact, I generally agree with it.
    - monktastic1 7y ago
      Not OP, but FWIW your italicizing of drugabuse.gov also gave me the impression that you were dismissing it purely by domain. I did not ready any rudeness in your parent.
      - rosser 7y ago
        Thanks for your perspective, I appreciate it. I can see that being a legitimate read of the comment, if one punts on the guideline to assume good faith, and interpret people's arguments in the strongest light, rather than, e.g., dismiss them on the basis of formatting. It's just disappointing when that happens, because I try to engage that way, and assume my comments will be treated the same. EDIT: That said, I didn't exactly offer much in the way of argument there, did I?
    - ozzmotik 7y ago
      oh thank the cosmos there is someone else who notices. im absolutely fascinated with psychedelic inspired communities, but that being said i certainly do notice a lot of people that tend to just devolve into a mostly coherent glossolalia in order to fit into some perceived archetype of a "woke shaman" or some such, and as someone with a vested interest in the pursuit of shamanism as an aspect of spiritual pursuits, it certainly frustrates me. i mean, to each their own, but i think it kinda poisons the well a bit. words and stuff ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
      - rosser 7y ago
        I'm not quite sure what you're referring to with "glossolalia", offhand. The shamans I work with variously use a mix of Spanish, English, and Quechua, or Shipibo-Conibo, and although all of those (if moreso the indigenous tongues) have what seem to be "filler words" with no specific (known) meaning, the overwhelming majority of the sounds they utter are recognizably from those languages, or whistling, or whatever.
- ticmasta 7y ago
  your statement is soundly countered in a similarly unsupported opinion above. You may not like their domain name but the paper and science behind it appear pretty sound.
  - rosser 7y ago
    Right, because it's clearly the domain name I take issue with, and not at all the literal lies that have been published under it.
x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago
And how much of the general population carries that specific gene? The 4-5 is a conditional probability.
bregma 7y ago
Do you really think a publication from a place with a URL 'drugabuse.gov' is going to be a reliable source of unbiased information?
- bduerst 7y ago
  Which of their cited sources are wrong? https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/references https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/mari... Specifically, these peer reviewed science articles: * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22831980 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22831980 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26886046 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26886046 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15866551 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15866551
  - mudcrab 7y ago
    All of them are either wrong or irrelevant because none of them factor in weed helping.
  - bregma 7y ago
    Citing a source doesn't make your message unbiased. There is a saying "even the devil can quote scripture."
    - bduerst 7y ago
      And then even the devil gets pointed out how they used the scripture wrong. The point being that the data itself is addressed, rather than just ad hom'ing the devil.
- DanBC 7y ago
  They're not self-published.
- wysifnwyg 7y ago
  Have you checked the math on the statistical analysis?
dmix 7y ago
> The strongest evidence to date concerns links between marijuana use and substance use disorders and between marijuana use and psychiatric disorders in those with a preexisting genetic or other vulnerability. > After adjusting for various confounding factors, no association between marijuana use and mood and anxiety disorders was found. The only significant associations were increased risk of alcohol use disorders, nicotine dependence, marijuana use disorder, and other drug use disorders. It's pretty well established even in hardcore drug communities that drugs aren't for everybody and it's rarely ever the drug itself that caused it. Even without scientific evidence.
imhelpingu 7y ago
Wow what a paragon of truth and levelheaded reason, posting some propaganda article that any dumbass can poke holes in and which every dumbass has poked holes in. I love society now, and all of its earnest regard for public discourse and truth instead of just commies, who think they know whats best for everyone, marketing their worldview at any cost.

rosser 7y ago

drugabuse.gov should probably not be considered an un-biased source on the topic of drugs of abuse. Some of their material will be propaganda and FUD.

losteric 7y ago
So that's as far as you got? Didn't like the domain, therefore the study results are bunk? 75% of the authors are affiliated with other institutions, only 3 are with the National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIDA itself is well-grounded. There have been some instances where they take a more conservative stance given uncertainty in results, but this is still a national scientific institute - not DARE or the DoJ. Finally, the paper is on PMC: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426185/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426185/ - why do you disagree with their conclusion?
- rosser 7y ago
  Would you care to speculate again about how much time I've spent reading their literature before this discussion? I promise you, it's non-zero. Please try not to dismiss people's positions that shallowly; it's a disservice to the conversation we're trying to have, and it's rude. I am involved in a number of communities that engage intentionally, even sacramentally, with psychedelics. The amount of sheer bullshit they continue to promulgate on that matter, about which I consider myself advanced-lay to burgeoning-expert, is staggering, and is sufficient for me to be default skeptical of anything else they might have to say. When you lie to me about things I know something about, I'm obligated to trust the rest of your oeuvre somewhat less, aren't I? Finally, I said nothing whatsoever about the conclusion of the paper under general discussion. In point of fact, I generally agree with it.
  - monktastic1 7y ago
    Not OP, but FWIW your italicizing of drugabuse.gov also gave me the impression that you were dismissing it purely by domain. I did not ready any rudeness in your parent.
    - rosser 7y ago
      Thanks for your perspective, I appreciate it. I can see that being a legitimate read of the comment, if one punts on the guideline to assume good faith, and interpret people's arguments in the strongest light, rather than, e.g., dismiss them on the basis of formatting. It's just disappointing when that happens, because I try to engage that way, and assume my comments will be treated the same. EDIT: That said, I didn't exactly offer much in the way of argument there, did I?
  - ozzmotik 7y ago
    oh thank the cosmos there is someone else who notices. im absolutely fascinated with psychedelic inspired communities, but that being said i certainly do notice a lot of people that tend to just devolve into a mostly coherent glossolalia in order to fit into some perceived archetype of a "woke shaman" or some such, and as someone with a vested interest in the pursuit of shamanism as an aspect of spiritual pursuits, it certainly frustrates me. i mean, to each their own, but i think it kinda poisons the well a bit. words and stuff ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
    - rosser 7y ago
      I'm not quite sure what you're referring to with "glossolalia", offhand. The shamans I work with variously use a mix of Spanish, English, and Quechua, or Shipibo-Conibo, and although all of those (if moreso the indigenous tongues) have what seem to be "filler words" with no specific (known) meaning, the overwhelming majority of the sounds they utter are recognizably from those languages, or whistling, or whatever.
ticmasta 7y ago
your statement is soundly countered in a similarly unsupported opinion above. You may not like their domain name but the paper and science behind it appear pretty sound.
- rosser 7y ago
  Right, because it's clearly the domain name I take issue with, and not at all the literal lies that have been published under it.

x86_64Ubuntu 7y ago

And how much of the general population carries that specific gene? The 4-5 is a conditional probability.

bregma 7y ago

Do you really think a publication from a place with a URL 'drugabuse.gov' is going to be a reliable source of unbiased information?

bduerst 7y ago
Which of their cited sources are wrong? https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/references https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/mari... Specifically, these peer reviewed science articles: * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22831980 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22831980 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26886046 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26886046 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15866551 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15866551
- mudcrab 7y ago
  All of them are either wrong or irrelevant because none of them factor in weed helping.
- bregma 7y ago
  Citing a source doesn't make your message unbiased. There is a saying "even the devil can quote scripture."
  - bduerst 7y ago
    And then even the devil gets pointed out how they used the scripture wrong. The point being that the data itself is addressed, rather than just ad hom'ing the devil.
DanBC 7y ago
They're not self-published.
wysifnwyg 7y ago
Have you checked the math on the statistical analysis?

dmix 7y ago

> The strongest evidence to date concerns links between marijuana use and substance use disorders and between marijuana use and psychiatric disorders in those with a preexisting genetic or other vulnerability. > After adjusting for various confounding factors, no association between marijuana use and mood and anxiety disorders was found. The only significant associations were increased risk of alcohol use disorders, nicotine dependence, marijuana use disorder, and other drug use disorders. It's pretty well established even in hardcore drug communities that drugs aren't for everybody and it's rarely ever the drug itself that caused it. Even without scientific evidence.

imhelpingu 7y ago

Wow what a paragon of truth and levelheaded reason, posting some propaganda article that any dumbass can poke holes in and which every dumbass has poked holes in. I love society now, and all of its earnest regard for public discourse and truth instead of just commies, who think they know whats best for everyone, marketing their worldview at any cost.