3 ms·

Man these comments sound like they’re from parents in the 1960’s. What year is it? “While our study did not differentiate between methods of cannabis consumpti

Man these comments sound like they’re from parents in the 1960’s. What year is it? “While our study did not differentiate between methods of cannabis consumption, cannabis is most commonly consumed by smoking,” Kokot said in an email. “The association we found likely pertains mainly to smoked cannabis.” That was kind of a “no shit, Sherlock” moment for me. Why even conduct this study if there is no control for smoke vs edibles? This makes the entire study, effectively, useless. I promise I’m not a weed apologist, by any means, just a casual user when I catch up with old friends. I actually want to know the answer to this question. I veerrrrry rarely smoke. I’ve always hated it. I’ve smoked it maybe 10-15 times in my entire life, but I’ve eaten plenty of weed gummies. Them shits is delicious too. All it takes is one each for me and my friends, and we have a hell of a time talking shop about our various professions. Yet a couple of these comments still repeat the same tired argument that only stupid lazy people use it. Not saying you’re a racist, but you’re using the arguments racists used to lock up and murder tons of minorities, soooooo maybe you’re just sadly propagandized. It happens. Do better though, now that you know. The people in the room, by the way: audio engineer, software engineer, head of logistics, car-t cell therapy something something, I forget. Hell Feinman smoked weed. People really need to get better about getting over their stubborn need to believe the propaganda they fell for. Everyone falls for propaganda at some point. Figure out a process for yourself to undo the damage, once you realize you’ve been had. I really don’t understand why some folks just need to hold onto a hyper specific position that contradicts all evidence to the contrary.

imiric 2y ago
I agree with you, but the argument that smart people smoking weed somehow makes it OK holds no water. After all, doctors were promoting cigarettes not long ago, and many, many of the smartest people on Earth smoked them.
- Gud 2y ago
  Why does it “hold no water”? Why do I need to justify my weed use at all?
  - InvertedRhodium 2y ago
    That is a very good question, why did you? Note that I vape weed several times a week, so I’m not passing judgement. Just seems odd to justify the use over several paragraphs and then ask that question.
    - atlas_hugged 2y ago
      Wrong guy
  - imiric 2y ago
    Justify it or don't, I don't care. I'm just saying that using the argument that smart people doing it makes it OK is a fallacy (appeal to authority).
    - atlas_hugged 2y ago
      Useless pedantry it is then.
- atlas_hugged 2y ago
  The context, which is always important, was too provide several counter examples of there being no obviously major impairment to intelligence that would make a person dumb and lazy. Laziness is basically a myth/misunderstanding of the underlying cause. The use of the word is made in ignorance of the science. Though I’ll admit, while high, my thinking is different, it isn’t dumber. I don’t suddenly forget facts I knew beforehand. The speed at which I solve a puzzle would be slower, thus I wouldn’t operate heavy machinery, but that’s not because I have lost the knowledge of how to do so. It’s (partly) related to the altered state of the mechanisms that affect my perception of time (among other things). For a supposedly pro-science website, there always so many (often proudly) ignorant takes on scientific research. I think I’m just now starting to realize that by trying to avoid the arm chair quarterbacking amateurs that couldn’t perform anything they criticize people about (in athletics), I’ve just traded it for armchair quarterbacking of scientists about something they know nothing about. Yet here I am getting sucked into doing (almost) the same thing (with only a motivational difference of attempting to identify poorly constructed studies that will end up being fuel for the anti-bodily autonomy crowd.

imiric 2y ago

I agree with you, but the argument that smart people smoking weed somehow makes it OK holds no water. After all, doctors were promoting cigarettes not long ago, and many, many of the smartest people on Earth smoked them.

Gud 2y ago
Why does it “hold no water”? Why do I need to justify my weed use at all?
- InvertedRhodium 2y ago
  That is a very good question, why did you? Note that I vape weed several times a week, so I’m not passing judgement. Just seems odd to justify the use over several paragraphs and then ask that question.
  - atlas_hugged 2y ago
    Wrong guy
- imiric 2y ago
  Justify it or don't, I don't care. I'm just saying that using the argument that smart people doing it makes it OK is a fallacy (appeal to authority).
  - atlas_hugged 2y ago
    Useless pedantry it is then.
atlas_hugged 2y ago
The context, which is always important, was too provide several counter examples of there being no obviously major impairment to intelligence that would make a person dumb and lazy. Laziness is basically a myth/misunderstanding of the underlying cause. The use of the word is made in ignorance of the science. Though I’ll admit, while high, my thinking is different, it isn’t dumber. I don’t suddenly forget facts I knew beforehand. The speed at which I solve a puzzle would be slower, thus I wouldn’t operate heavy machinery, but that’s not because I have lost the knowledge of how to do so. It’s (partly) related to the altered state of the mechanisms that affect my perception of time (among other things). For a supposedly pro-science website, there always so many (often proudly) ignorant takes on scientific research. I think I’m just now starting to realize that by trying to avoid the arm chair quarterbacking amateurs that couldn’t perform anything they criticize people about (in athletics), I’ve just traded it for armchair quarterbacking of scientists about something they know nothing about. Yet here I am getting sucked into doing (almost) the same thing (with only a motivational difference of attempting to identify poorly constructed studies that will end up being fuel for the anti-bodily autonomy crowd.