It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)I'm starting to like Ron Paul(149 posts)(149 posts)
(149 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Posted March 13, 2012
Apathy is a bigger problem as far as I can tell, and I would guess that it would come before drug use for many of those in which the correlation was noticed.
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
michaelleung: Do you have proof for any of this? Actual scientific studies?

I like how you're attacking my politicial leanings as well. You should really get a show on talkback radio.
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: I sure do but this has more to do with religion rather than political affiliation, but lefties are generally Atheist:


http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?Volume=161&page=2303&journalID=13
No, I was asking for studies about the link between marijuana use and apathy.

Also, your generalisation that left-wing people are generally atheist is laughable.

avatar
XmXFLUXmX: I'm not attacking your beliefs, you just need to accept that there are behaviors that manifest when you adhere to left-wing ideas.
I'm not attacking your beliefs, you just need to accept that there are behaviours that manifest when you adhere to right-wing ideas. Full text.
Post edited March 13, 2012 by michaelleung
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
michaelleung: Are you also saying that people who defend decriminalisation of drugs to all be, or mostly be drug users themselves?
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: Hands down, yes. Most people who want legalization are addicts. Anyone who defends drugs, but never has used drugs or been around friends/family who had a problem is a useful idiot, but they have my sympathy and I hope they can actually get informed on the subject rather than the process of "Oh cool, Joe Rogan said drugs are awesome, so they must be!"

Why somebody would be for drug legalization, but not use drugs themselves because they know they are bad is simply baffling. I think anyone who wants drug legalization should be required to go to a drug filled neighborhood, and stay there for a month. See how they like the concept of drugs and crime everywhere. I suggest Southern California or Chicago, maybe East St Louis if any of you have the guts.
I'm left wing, but I did NOT advocate legalization. Where the fuck do you get off putting words into my mouth? Go on, read it again. I even said I don't use drugs. I don't use meth, weed, fuck all. I barely drink and I don't smoke. Next time you want to run your fucking mouth off, take the time to read the fucking thing.

Now tell me, what do people on LSD and Cannabis do?

http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/lsd/dangers.htm
LSD, Let's see.... Nothing say that they lash out against other people, unless it's something they would be doing without it anyway.

I can't find a good study for Cannabis, but I've seen users too. All they did was giggle like idiots and eat like they hadn't seen food in a week. It's probably the same as LSD, it's reflecting what you already do, stupid or violent or otherwise.

So hey, what about that alcohol? Doesn't it do.... pretty much the same damn thing? Why aren't you going off on that? Difference is you can drink to death but I've never heard of smoking yourself to death. LSD..... No idea, all I know about it is that you can get high off skin contact. Again, I didn't say I wanted to legalize it, any of it. All I said was that those two are the least likely of the illegal drugs to make people start attacking every person in sight.
Post edited March 13, 2012 by QC
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
michaelleung: I'm not attacking your beliefs, you just need to accept that there are behaviours that manifest when you adhere to right-wing ideas. Full text.
Calling this guy "right-wing" is an insult to the centre-right (such as myself).
He's just an ignorant Republican redneck.

avatar
XmXFLUXmX: LOL, the "GOOD DRUGS GUIDE" as a reputable source. How about citing somebody who is non-partisan who also has integrity?
Oh dear, sweet irony.
Post edited March 13, 2012 by FraterPerdurabo
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
michaelleung: Are you also saying that people who defend decriminalisation of drugs to all be, or mostly be drug users themselves?
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: Hands down, yes. Most people who want legalization are addicts. Anyone who defends drugs, but never has used drugs or been around friends/family who had a problem is a useful idiot, but they have my sympathy and I hope they can actually get informed on the subject rather than the process of "Oh cool, Joe Rogan said drugs are awesome, so they must be!"

Why somebody would be for drug legalization, but not use drugs themselves because they know they are bad is simply baffling. I think anyone who wants drug legalization should be required to go to a drug filled neighborhood, and stay there for a month. See how they like the concept of drugs and crime everywhere. I suggest Southern California or Chicago, maybe East St Louis if any of you have the guts.
Aaaaaaaaaand to this one, I live near St. Louis. Know what we have? Meth labs. There was one found inside our water tower a couple years ago, another one blew up at the apartment complex I used to live, and there was a drug raid up the street last year. So hey, yeah. Meth, exploding, the same thing I called a terrible person killing thing that makes you itchy violent. As in, I fucking want nothing to do with it.
avatar
QC: I'm left wing, but I did NOT advocate legalization. Where the fuck do you get off putting words into my mouth? Go on, read it again. I even said I don't use drugs. I don't use meth, weed, fuck all. I barely drink and I don't smoke. Next time you want to run your fucking mouth off, take the time to read the fucking thing.

Now tell me, what do people on LSD and Cannabis do?

http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/lsd/dangers.htm
LSD, Let's see.... Nothing say that they lash out against other people, unless it's something they would be doing without it anyway.

I can't find a good study for Cannabis, but I've seen users too. All they did was giggle like idiots and eat like they hadn't seen food in a week.

So hey, what about that alcohol? Doesn't it do.... pretty much the same damn thing? Why aren't you going off on that? Difference is you can drink to death but I've never heard of smoking yourself to death. LSD..... No idea, all I know about it is that you can get high off skin contact. Again, I didn't say I wanted to legalize it, any of it. All I said was that those two are the least likely of the illegal drugs to make people start attacking every person in sight.
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: LOL, the "GOOD DRUGS GUIDE" as a reputable source. How about citing somebody who is non-partisan who also has integrity?


Also, alcohol is a scourge on society, just like the rest of drugs. But we weren't talking about alcohol, which is why I didn't speak about it.
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm

http://www.thecyn.com/marijuana-addiction/social-effects-marijuana.html

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/lsd/f/lsd_faq04.htm

Good enough? Let's look at these then..... Nope, nothing that says you're going to attack other people, WHICH WAS THE GOD DAMN THING I WAS SAYING!!!!!! I DID NOT FUCKING SAY IT WASN'T BAD FOR THE USER OF THEIR LIVES!!!!! All I said was that they weren't going to go punching people like someone on PCP or Heroin.
Post edited March 13, 2012 by QC
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
Kezardin: Best guess as to which candidate will bask in the warm glow of approval from the Bilderberg Group.
You mean the reptilians surely?
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
michaelleung: No, I was asking for studies about the link between marijuana use and apathy.

Also, your generalisation that left-wing people are generally atheist is laughable.
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: Again with the sarcasm, how about confronting my ideas head on with evidence of your own? I can keep shoveling evidence on you, but it doesn't seem to be having any affect, other than you just keep resorting to ego defense maneuvers.

Also, here is this: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/nc1g.htm

CTRL+ F for " Amotivational syndrome"

As with alcoholism, it is quite often impossible to distinguish whether the described effects result from drug use or represent personality traits or changes which would have been present without the drug use.
So this study isn't entirely sure if marijuana causes these mental changes or not? Oooh boy. Strap in.

When marihuana consumption was irregular, mental deterioration was not evidenced (Freedman and Rockmore, 1946) in 310 users with an average history of seven years of use.
So if you had a joint every once in a while, there is no evidence of mental deterioration. What the hell kind of study is this?

Sixty-seven heavy users in New York showed no evidence of dementia attributable to drug use although they did have underlying personality disorders. Another investigation (Mayor's Committee, 1944) of individuals who used a daily average of seven marihuana cigarettes (two to 18 range) for average of eight years (two-and-a-half to 16 range) showed no evidence of brain damage or mental deterioration.
So serious tokers with underlying disorders don't have any mental problems attributed to weed? Looks like marijuana isn't so bad after all.

However, Miras believes that this effect is related to the quantity and frequency of hashish use. He describes three categories of long-term hashish users. Type A uses low doses intermittently and is socially and mentally unaffected. Type B1 uses low doses daily and no interference is caused in function. Type B 2 uses high doses daily causing dependence and performance decrements. Type C uses very high doses daily allegedly causing mental deterioration and abnormal behavior described above. Fink and Dornbush (1971) are currently intensively studying this population. The results will be described in a later section.
So if you smoke an insane amount of weed a day, you have mental issues? That's nothing - people who drink a lot every day (whisky for breakfast, lunch, dinner, that kind of thing) would also have mental issues. And liver issues. And probably relationship issues. People who have a tiny bit of weed daily don't have any problems functioning, it seems.


In Western countries, Bromberg (1939) and Allentuck and Bowman (1952) reported on acute psychotic episodes with clear-cut onset during the marihuana intoxication. Most symptoms cleared within a few days although several had a, prolonged illness. These rare acute psychotic episodes, discussed earlier, have been described recently by a variety of authors in scattered countries (Smith, 1968; Weil, 1970; Bialos, 1970; Keeler, 1967; Milman, 1971; Pesyko, 1970 Kaplan, 1971; Prince et al., 1970; Baker and Lucas, 1969; Grossman, 1969; Beaubrim, 1971; Spencer, 1970).

Some of these reported cases are quite transient and clear rapidly with support of others and may be more like acute panic reaction than psychosis. Still others appear to fit the picture of transient toxic psychosis.
So psychotic symptoms go away after a while for most people anyways! That's probably like having a seriously bad hangover. And for those that don't, they can still be treated anyway. Not exactly the evil drug that causes apathy here.

Kornhaber (1971) believes that at least twice daily marihuana use for a year, in a 13-to-18-yearold population, has a deleterious effect upon the developing adolescent. The intoxicated state facilitates a regression from logical-mathematical thought processes to a more primitive conceptual mode of fantasy and magical thinking and impairs learning ability and judgment by decreasing attention and concentration. Thus, the developing youth turns away from reality toward fantasy and from structure and activity to passive dependency.
To be fair, if you're letting 13 year olds smoke weed, that's kind of... not right.

First,, persons who already exhibit these, traits may simply be attracted to the use of cannabis. Sociologists tend to favor this explanation, arguing that the relationship between cannabis use and various behavioral indicators is not causal, but simply one manifestation of a general pattern of youthful deviance or rebellion (Goode, 1970).

Utilizing a large sample, Johnson (1971) found that marihuana use is associated with impaired school performance and several forms of deviance; however, other indicators such as premarital sex and high school truancy predicted the dependent variable as well or better. Tobacco and alcohol use were nearly as good predictors as marihuana.
So essentially, marijuana's effect on people in the context of amotivational syndrome is similar to smoking tobacco or alcohol? Oh, no! We must ban those too!

A second related explanation is that the illegal. context in which the drug is taken forces the adoption of a nonconforming life style. The users is thus further alienated from the dominant culture through his close ties with the cannabis-using group.
So make it legal. Then it won't be "cool" anymore.

Third, cannabis use and associated activities may largely substitute for other interests. The individual may focus so much of his time and energy on cannabis that he has little time for other endeavors.
I do that when I browse the Internet at 4 in the morning. People engrossed into any activity they enjoy are often like that.

In summary, if cannabis use produces personality and behavior changes via one or more of the above mechanisms, the extent of such changes is likely to be strongly related to the amount consumed and the age of the user. According to evidence found in Western literature, frequent use may be quite disruptive during the formative years of adolescence.

On the other hand, the Eastern literature indicates that, although the very heavy user (200 mg. THC or more per day) is largely incapacitated, manual laborers often function adequately while consuming amounts containing 30 to 50 mg. THC per day (Roland and Teste, 1958; Chopra and Chopra, 1939). Similarly, many musicians and entertainers in the United States have lived productive lives while using marihuana (Winick, 1960).
So marijuana depends on the person. Some do well with it, some don't do as well with it. Others can't live without it, others do quite well with small amounts.

This study of yours seems to agree with me more than it does with you. Have you actually read the study or did you just post the first thing that showed up on Google?

Fun fact: the people who commissioned this study, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse were appointed by the US government to look into the effects of marijuana and its role in shaping American drug policy. The commission came to the conclusion that there was no real evidence that marijuana ruins lives or society. The commission also came to the conclusion that it wasn't right to send people to jail for smoking weed, opting to decriminalise it instead. They found it was roughly the same as alcohol as a drug (which, obviously is legal).

Nixon didn't follow anything the commission said.
Post edited March 13, 2012 by michaelleung
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: I like how you underplay the study, when it mentions anything negative about Marijuanna use. Awesome integrity, just what I would expect from a left-winger.
I think the study did a pretty good job of downplaying marijuana's negative effects.

I suggest you go back and read the study, and what I said about it. I did not in anyway suggest that marijuana is good and that everyone should smoke it, but I do emphasise that marijuana isn't as bad as you think it is. That's my one sentence CliffsNotes on the study.

But please, find me the most negative thing about marijuana in that study. The most damning thing about weed you can find in that study.

You can't, can you? Because you've glanced at the study and you've realised what a bumbling fool you've been.
Post edited March 13, 2012 by michaelleung
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: I like how you underplay the study, when it mentions anything negative about Marijuanna use. Awesome integrity, just what I would expect from a left-winger.
Deflecting his argument instead of addressing it. Typical reactionist.
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: I like how you underplay the study, when it mentions anything negative about Marijuanna use. Awesome integrity, just what I would expect from a left-winger.
So anything he says (even if he's citing the same source as you), you dismiss as "leftist." Even though it isn't. And even if it were, as if that made it inherently incorrect?

Should I laugh or cry?

edit:
Also, I'd like to cite an interesting reader's letter that was posted in The Economist (Feb 25- March 2 issue) that sprung to mind:
"SIR - We are coming out of the deepest economic crisis since the 1930s. There are vital questions to be asked about the respective roles of the state and the market. The middle class is acutely worried about its future for the first time since, when, ever? An authoritarian China with little respect for human rights is on the rise. Iran is close to attaining nukes and Israel wants to bomb the country.
But the Republicans want to make a political issue about limiting access to birth control through Obamacare? I mean, seriously?"

Richard McClellan
Kansas City, Missouri
Post edited March 13, 2012 by FraterPerdurabo
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: To address what you wrote: So because there are problems in this world, we should force tax payers to foot the bill of sexual deviants? Awesome logic. I guess you don't work or pay taxes?
Sexual deviants? You've got to be kidding. Over 99% of sexually active American women have used contraceptives at some point. That is very nearly every woman in America, independent of age, race, religion or political orientation.
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: So because there are problems in this world, we should force tax payers to foot the bill of sexual deviants?
I think you have your definitions mixed up. Sexual deviant does not mean engaging in sexual intercourse.
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: Republican primary [states won]:

Mitt Romney: 6

Rick Santorum: 4

Newt Gingrich: 1

Ron Paul: 0
With these kind of candidates the Republican party should just admit that they have defeated themselves, withdraw from the election and give Obama a good pat on the back and wish him good luck.
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: First point: Every time the study pointed out negative qualities of Marijuanna use, he resorted to witty one liners, as an attempt to down play the fact that there are negative qualities to Marijuanna. Sorry, i'm not playing anymore word games, he knows what he read and what he wrote, and so do I.


To address what you wrote: So because there are problems in this world, we should force tax payers to foot the bill of sexual deviants? Awesome logic. I guess you don't work or pay taxes?
No, you're right. I don't work. I'm starting in February next year. And will be taxed much higher than you'd imagine.
And thanks for bringing taxes into this, gave me yet another titter.
You're nothing but a parrot for the Tea Party.

I won't respond to you any more. Have a nice life.

avatar
XmXFLUXmX: To address what you wrote: So because there are problems in this world, we should force tax payers to foot the bill of sexual deviants? Awesome logic. I guess you don't work or pay taxes?
avatar
spindown: Sexual deviants? You've got to be kidding. Over 99% of sexually active American women have used contraceptives at some point. That is very nearly every woman in America, independent of age, race, religion or political orientation.
Interestingly enough, even 98% of Catholics said that they use contraception. I wonder which 2% our little friend fits in?

avatar
XmXFLUXmX: Republican primary [states won]:

Mitt Romney: 6

Rick Santorum: 4

Newt Gingrich: 1

Ron Paul: 0
avatar
Sargon: With these kind of candidates the Republican party should just admit that they have defeated themselves, withdraw from the election and give Obama a good pat on the back and wish him good luck.
Didn't even realise that he was using this as some kind of argument.
Hilarious.
Post edited March 13, 2012 by FraterPerdurabo
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: To address what you wrote: So because there are problems in this world, we should force tax payers to foot the bill of sexual deviants? Awesome logic. I guess you don't work or pay taxes?
avatar
spindown: Sexual deviants? You've got to be kidding. Over 99% of sexually active American women have used contraceptives at some point. That is very nearly every woman in America, independent of age, race, religion or political orientation.
If he had any clue about what birth control pills really were, he would know that they aren't just used to prevent ovulation, but also to relieve the symptoms of menstruation. It's not as if you take it exclusively if you feel like having lots of sex.

He's like Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh's evil science experiment let loose on the Internet.
Post edited March 13, 2012 by michaelleung
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)I'm starting to like Ron Paul(149 posts)(149 posts)
(149 posts)