Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory: Marijuana Use and the Developing Brain

hhs.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 352 posts

Re: U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory: Marijuana Use and the Developing Brain

#221

Post by craftyguy »

rewgs wrote: post #207
Medicalidiot wrote: post #192

THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) activates cannabinol receptors in one's brain whenever they smoke cannabis. These receptors are responsible to stimulating hunger (why you get munchies) but they also stimulate something called long term depression, which is the process by which your brain forgets memories. The effects take years to decades for anything significant enough to precipitate. Now, I'm not against smoking cannabi…

> The effects take years to decades for anything significant enough to precipitate. This sentence is weird to me. Can you rephrase?

They are trying to say that THC can cause depression, but it can take many years. I'm just clarifying (and not downvoting, like the rest of 'hacker' 'news'.. lol) and do not necessarily agree/disagree with OP

Re: U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory: Marijuana Use and the Developing Brain

#222

Post by DenisM »

chris_wot wrote: post #219
DenisM wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that there might be a huge population of people out there who smoked weed and did not develop any problems, thus never coming into your orbit? And your observation could be easily explained in reverse: "I have witnessed secondhand that people who were susceptible to anxiety, agitation, paranoia, and psychosis due to {trauma|genetics|isolation|etc} and other misfortunes in life were also likely to…

That’s some faulty logic. Either your reading of the facts is valid or his reading of the facts is valid, but given they are facts it is not necessarily the case that neither of you is valid. Note that I’m not saying you are wrong, nor am I saying he is wrong - but I am pointing out that your conclusion that neither of you can claim any truth is an unsound argument. Furthermore, you also cannot conclude that a huge p…

I did not say neither is true, I said neither can claim to be true. The logic here is perfectly sound:

If there was only one possible reading of the facts then that reading could be considered the truth. If there are two equally reasonable readings neither can be deemed to be the truth, and further investigation is required to clarify the matter.

Re: U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory: Marijuana Use and the Developing Brain

#223

Post by sitkack »

meiraleal wrote: post #188

I smoke heavily for 10 years and if I could say something about the cognitive changes, it was for better. I learnt two foreign languages, more programming languages that I can count with one hand and got out of depression by means of self-awareness and meditation after a joint. Weed+Youtube surely is harmful, but so it is only Youtube (with less fun).

I agree with everything except the youtube comment, https://www.3blue1brown.com/ is amazing when viewed from any dimension.

Re: U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory: Marijuana Use and the Developing Brain

#224

Post by [deleted] »

xena wrote: post #216
serf wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I couldn't function normally and had really tough trips, thinking about so many end results in the same time. Minutes took hours and basically it was an agony, while everybody had pretty joyful time laughing. Curiosity : Why did you continue for two years with such poor experiences?

Cannabis addiction is a bitch. It also is really tough to get off of. If you use too much too often, you can get crazy sweats, horrifying nightmares (that are more real than being awake), irritability and headaches that make you want to relapse. The worst part about cannabis addiction is it's mostly psychological.

[deleted]

Re: U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory: Marijuana Use and the Developing Brain

#225

Post by [deleted] »

xena wrote: post #216
serf wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I couldn't function normally and had really tough trips, thinking about so many end results in the same time. Minutes took hours and basically it was an agony, while everybody had pretty joyful time laughing. Curiosity : Why did you continue for two years with such poor experiences?

Cannabis addiction is a bitch. It also is really tough to get off of. If you use too much too often, you can get crazy sweats, horrifying nightmares (that are more real than being awake), irritability and headaches that make you want to relapse. The worst part about cannabis addiction is it's mostly psychological.

[deleted]

Re: U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory: Marijuana Use and the Developing Brain

#226

Post by hprotagonist »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #123
djsumdog wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In ever US state where it is legal (Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Alaska, Mass., and 2020 Illinois and Michigan) I think the minimum age is 21. Sure people underage can get it, but there is an attempt being made to limit it to people at least 21. I knew parents who let their teenagers know they used it, but also told them they didn't want their kids using it until they were at least 18 (but if they wanted…

> In ever US state where it is legal I'm assuming you know that marijuana remains illegal due to (a) federal law and (b) the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. I mean this with complete sincerity and genuine curiosity: Why did you choose wording that suggests the activity is wholly legal in those states?

Pragmatically, this is a question of enforcement.

Federal LEOs shall not compel state LEOs to enforce federal law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act and the 10th Amendment for why, but this fact has very long precedent.

So if nice Mr DEA man goes to the state police and say "help me bust these grow operations", the head of the state police says "go piss up a rope, those are tax-paying law abiding citizens who are breaking no law I have the responsibility to enforce."

And this is called state's rights.

Rhetorically I am well within the realm of sanity to describe purchasing weed at the dispensary down the street as legal. Feel free to insert the implicit footnoted "persuant to the laws of the state of oregon" in your head, if you like, for completeness.

Re: U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory: Marijuana Use and the Developing Brain

#227

Post by chris_wot »

DenisM wrote: post #222
chris_wot wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s some faulty logic. Either your reading of the facts is valid or his reading of the facts is valid, but given they are facts it is not necessarily the case that neither of you is valid. Note that I’m not saying you are wrong, nor am I saying he is wrong - but I am pointing out that your conclusion that neither of you can claim any truth is an unsound argument. Furthermore, you also cannot conclude that a huge p…

I did not say neither is true, I said neither can claim to be true. The logic here is perfectly sound: If there was only one possible reading of the facts then that reading could be considered the truth. If there are two equally reasonable readings neither can be deemed to be the truth, and further investigation is required to clarify the matter.

So what you are saying is that one could claim to be true based on future investigation. In actual fact you are saying that you do not know which is true based on the limited information presented, not that neither can claim to be true.

In fact, one could be true based on enough evidence. Your claim of reasonableness is a red herring - it could be that one interpretation may seem reasonable but on further investigation it is not.

I’m merely pointing out you don’t know which proposition is true, not that neither can claim to be true. In fact, if one happens to be true then it can claim to be true, and will actually be true. That’s an important distinction.

Re: U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory: Marijuana Use and the Developing Brain

#228

Post by sitkack »

yhoneycomb wrote: post #101
high_derivative wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It totally weirds me out how defensive people are about your anecdote here. Talking to any clinical psychotherapist dealing with young adults, you will hear lots of stories about weed-induced psychosis and anxiety. What I wonder is why it matters to people that it's not as safe as they may believe? Cognitive dissonance? We do lots of unsafe things.

It’s not even anecdotal. The relative risk for developing schizophrenia for cannabis smokers vs non cannabis smokers is 2.3. This means that you are 2.3 times more likely to develop schizophrenia if you smoke cannabis. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4988731/ With that said, I think it should be legal. I just think people shouldn’t downplay the risks.

Schizophrenia is an imbalance in the polyphony of minds occupying our heads. Our minds and bodies take training to pilot properly. If we want to have agency, we need to be methodical and purposeful in what we do and don't vastly surpass our current limits. You can't go squat 400 lbs w/o training. The same goes for mind altering substances.

Re: U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory: Marijuana Use and the Developing Brain

#229

Post by hprotagonist »

liability wrote: post #128
emsy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sure people underage can get it, but there is an attempt being made to limit it to people at least 21. This is actually an argument for legalization. Who would you rather snitch on if you got caught with weed as an underage teen: your dispensary employee/friend or your street dealer?

My weed dealer when I was in highschool was a jackass wannabe-surfer (never saw the ocean) whom I didn't particularly like, but was totally harmless. I'd much rather betray him than a friend. I know it happens sometimes, but the stereotype that weed dealers are/were often violent criminals is a bit silly. I'm sure if you were buying in bulk from organized crime things could easily get dicy, but a teenager buying a di…

it's a QA issue not a "my dealer poses a threat" issue. You're right, 90% of dealers are shaun of the dead-type folks.

I want a well-regulated market with solid CLIA-certified lab tests. I'm totally willing to pay the extra money for it.

Post reply on HN