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

Cannabis use produces persistent cognitive impairments: meta review

addictionjournal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 568 posts

Re: Cannabis use produces persistent cognitive impairments: meta review

#281

Post by pawelmurias »

scaramanga wrote: post #241
eddyerburgh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why smoke at all? Don’t you want to operate in life at your cognitive best?

> So why smoke at all? Don’t you want to operate in life at your cognitive best? For all you know, GP is Einstein and he's working in the patent office, but with no chance of being recognized. Does he really have to be deprived of even one small joy in life so he can be at peak cognitive performance for shuffling patent applications around tomorrow? Who is he supposed to be performing for?

I think you might just have discovered who is approving all those bullshit patents.

Re: Cannabis use produces persistent cognitive impairments: meta review

#282

Post by rex_lupi »

fogihujy wrote: post #172
rex_lupi wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not "natural" in the sense that humans don't consume ethyl alcohol to survive, in fact it is often quite damaging to biological systems. Apart from some microbes I'm not aware of any other organisms that use alcohol as their energy source. Alcohol/thc/caffeine/nicotine (you name it) do not fall in the "natural" diet of humans. Most psychoactive substances are metabolites which plants/fungi store in them to d…

SSRI's or Benzodapines have severe side-effects, yet relying on them to survive isn't seen as disruptive to society. There may be an argument against self-medicating with Alcohol or Cannabis, but them being un-natural isn't it.

That's totally not the argument I'm trying to counter.

Re: Cannabis use produces persistent cognitive impairments: meta review

#283

Post by rex_lupi »

dnh44 wrote: post #140
rex_lupi wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not "natural" in the sense that humans don't consume ethyl alcohol to survive, in fact it is often quite damaging to biological systems. Apart from some microbes I'm not aware of any other organisms that use alcohol as their energy source. Alcohol/thc/caffeine/nicotine (you name it) do not fall in the "natural" diet of humans. Most psychoactive substances are metabolites which plants/fungi store in them to d…

Humans aren't the only mammals on this planet that consume alcohol. https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/07/01/drunken-monkeys-and-our...

That'd still be "recreational use", not as staple food

Re: Cannabis use produces persistent cognitive impairments: meta review

#284

Post by throwawaynay »

throw1away8436 wrote: post #272

I see a lot of people defending cannabis and I hate to be that guy but: be freaking cautious with cannabis. Yes it cannot make you an addict, yes it can help you to have a good time with people. But it can also fuck you up. I have PTSD since 2018 because of an accidental over dosing of cannabis oil. Weed is really high on THC nowadays, which can easily make you panic or make you paranioac. As for most people it's bou…

Can you give more details about what happened? I took way too much many many times the worst that happened was: vomiting+awful headaches then falling asleep/"passing out". At which point can it cause PTSD?

Re: Cannabis use produces persistent cognitive impairments: meta review

#285

Post by stevev »

dathinab wrote: post #72
fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #4

My personal experience certainly agrees with this. I definitely shouldn’t smoke on a work night, and it’s not a good idea on Sunday either. The more hours until I need to perform cognitively, the better. I abstained for months before the last time I did job interviews. On the other hand, I know people also gainfully employed at top companies who code while high and claim to have no issues. Your mileage may vary, I gu…

> code while high I sometimes feel I code better when I'm slightly mentally impaired, because my mind stops getting in the way of getting things done and over analyzing problems. But then I'm very rarely mentally impaired, as I normally neither drink nor consume cannabis or anything like that, so idk. EDIT: Oh, just realized the answer is probably simple => less stress.

I also have the same belief when I code. To be specific, I realize what’s missing, and how it could be done better. You are probably righr, Stress.

Re: Cannabis use produces persistent cognitive impairments: meta review

#286

Post by post-it »

musicjohn wrote: post #167
playcache wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really no different to people using caffeine (aside to the legality). They are both drugs, the main difference being I bet more folks suffer from the effects of caffeine (anxiety, loss of sleep, stress), than the do cannabis.

Caffeine is one of the few stimulants that seems to be beneficial to the human health. Moderate use is linked to a lower likelihood of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, liver and endometrial cancers, Parkinson’s disease... Certainly more beneficial than smoking cannabis (in most cases together with tobacco). Damage to the lungs is one of the first thing that comes to my mind.

> smoking cannabis (in most cases together with tobacco)

In most cases? Where in the world? In Canada at least, frequent cannabis smokers and frequent cigarette smokers are nearly disjoint groups.

Re: Cannabis use produces persistent cognitive impairments: meta review

#287

Post by eivarv »

yuretz wrote: post #68
aaomidi wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. Also, from the things we surround ourselves with. It's probably the most natural.

Appeal to nature might be a logical fallacy in arguments, but in practice is a useful heuristic anyway.

Out of curiosity: How does any argument become more or less logical depending on its context?

Your comment reads to me as if the concept of logical fallacies is only useful or valid within the framework of rhetorical competitions – or alternatively that logically invalid reasoning is useful if you're only interested in making a decision, rather than making a correct or well-informed one.

Re: Cannabis use produces persistent cognitive impairments: meta review

#288

Post by grive »

oblio wrote: post #266
SirHound wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will never disappear and chemically altering your mind is IMO an unalienable right as a human being in possession of their own body. Plenty of experiences have downsides at scale, no reason to shut them off.

Think of it this way: what if to become a next level civilization, to live forever and travel to space and teleport and whatever, there's a general consensus that we need to stop using them. I think people would do it.

'General consensus' does not exist.

Take the Covid vaccine: it is clearly shown to reduce the risks compared to getting Covid without it, and still there is no consensus about getting vaccinated, and there never will be. Getting to 100% vaccination rate will be a social trauma.

Another example, climate change: the science is clear and easy to understand. The root cause is known for more than hundred of years, and the effect has been clearly measured since the 1960s. The scale of the issue has been made clearer and clearer these last decades. And yet, even beyond people holding interest in the current status quo, there are still people resisting this consensus, attributing any attempt to make society change there a polarizing and partisan issue.

So no, people would not do it.

Re: Cannabis use produces persistent cognitive impairments: meta review

#289

Post by declnz »

malandrew wrote: post #45
nindalf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sucks, I empathise. If it’s any help the same thing happens to me and I smoked and drank very rarely. There could be a link between substance use and cognitive impairment but part of it could just be getting older.

Agree. Most people our senior (boomers, silent generation) never smoked or smoked briefly and what they smoked was very weak by modern standards. Yet many from those generations also suffered with cognitive decline despit little to no marijuana use.

Umm we're talking about being young in the 60s here though right?

Re: Cannabis use produces persistent cognitive impairments: meta review

#290

Post by oblio »

grive wrote: post #278
oblio wrote: post #251

People here probably don't want to hear this, but if there's going to be any social evolution to the next level, it will probably be 50+ years from now, when future generations will recognize that consumption/excessive consumption of the following substances should be banned: * tobacco (completely banned, I don't think there's any reasonable amount of tobacco its users could use where its positive aspects outweigh th…

> I imagine that 200 years from now we might look back at using all these substances as something as dumb as drawing blood with leeches for a migraine or something. The reason to take those substance is to get a modified state of mind. In that effect, they are successful. It's not comparable to something that was just doing 'nothing' toward its stated goal. The goal is not to live to 120+ years. No one takes coffee t…

I agree with you, the goal is obviously instant gratification. Which is the problem. Most of the stuff that is good for us is in the delayed gratification camp.

We're discovering that due to increased aggression (alcohol), increased aging rates and increased cancer risk (alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, vaping, etc), these substances as a whole contribute to lower life expectancies. For alcohol and tobacco it's usually the worst kind, their users reduce life expectancies for >.

It's not super clear cut and research is still ongoing. Plus a government ban without popular support was the Prohibition, which everyone considers a dumb move these days.

This whole thing would need popular support, even more than that, >. People need to realize these problems and find solutions for them, and only then ban them, to formalize this decision.

Post reply on HN