Independent of the effect of lead on intelligence isn't it impossible to reduce the IQ of half the population because IQ is a comparative calculation across that population. Ie as intelligence goes down the definition of 100 IQ points changes? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
The IQ should be defined for the human race, in a time independent way, not for a specific nation or group. This allows us to make comparisons between different times, between different societies, etc. Otherwise, if the IQ is redefined to always follow the current mean, it can only be used to classify people between smarter than average and "dumber" than average, which is not so useful.
Lead exposure in last century shrunk IQ scores of half of Americans: study
231–240 of 508 posts
Re: Lead exposure in last century shrunk IQ scores of half of Americans: study
#232I have a strong worries that our current generation will have a similar huge reckoning with marijuana. We are already seeing studies that show regular marijuana use is correlated with permanent decreases in intelligence, memory loss, motivation, and mental health. And anecdotally, this seems very apparent in my peer group. And Americans are using copious amounts of the stuff right now, and younger than ever before. I…
Interesting. What about porn abuse?
Re: Lead exposure in last century shrunk IQ scores of half of Americans: study
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same goes for sugar. We know the dangers it poses, we are also seeing how much it increases risk of death due to covid. I don't think we should be surpsied, as much as pushing to regulate this garbage. As an aside, Michelle Obama's campaign when Obama was in office was about improvement children's health. Her focus was going to be on nutrition (lunch food). Shortly thereafter Coke and Pepsi came in with "donations" a…
You can’t ban everything… Marijuanna and sugar and a million other potential vices like alcohol and video games should be available. But we should teach kids discipline, critical thinking, and impulse control - rather than playing whack-a-mole with every vice that comes along.
Sweeteners are heavily subsidized in the US which is why they're in everything.
Re: Lead exposure in last century shrunk IQ scores of half of Americans: study
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
This much is clear. Scheduling MJ is extremely unwise. But I would also extend this to everything in the psychedelic / hallucinogenic category. They do no psychological harm and an increasing body of evidence indicates that they, in all likelihood, do a significant amount of mental good for responsible users. An acute example of this is a psychedelic called “DMT”. This psychedelic is nearly everywhere in nature, incl…
Saying they do no psychological harm is quite am extreme statement and is just blatantly untrue. I tend to agree that these drugs should be dicriminalized, but you're doing the exact same thing thats been done with marijuana where the benefits of the drug are praised while the negatives are ignored.
Re: Lead exposure in last century shrunk IQ scores of half of Americans: study
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The societal risks are the same and additional worse ones with alcohol I don't think this is correct, personally. (I'm pretty sure you'll find studies arguing for both sides, so we can only go on personal wisdom.)
> I'm pretty sure you'll find studies arguing for both sides, so we can only go on personal wisdom. Without opinion on the relative damage of both, I'll note that considering this a logical statement is really flawed. You can pretty much always find "studies arguing for both sides" on an issue, but that doesn't mean much in and of itself.
I can't understand what you are saying here.
> You can pretty much always find "studies arguing for both sides" on an issue, but that doesn't mean much in and of itself.
Just trying to cut off the expected "studies show X" comments before they get started. Because if studies aren't definitive, which they rarely are, there isn't any point in raising that. And a simpler way to explain this is "studies conflict."
Re: Lead exposure in last century shrunk IQ scores of half of Americans: study
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marijuana needs to be reclassified off of Schedule I Status in the USA, so it can be more thoroughly studied. Schedule I category shouldn't include recreational drugs like marijuana, which has no overdose possibility and has limited withdrawal side-effects. This wrong classification, going back to ignorant viewpoints of the early-mid 1900's, has heavily limited our scientific understanding of marijuana's effects on h…
> This wrong classification, going back to ignorant viewpoints of the early-mid 1900's It "goes back" to Nixon needing a tool to criminalize the anti-war and racial justice movement. https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich... By the time Nixon came out with that policy, multiple commissions around the world had concluded that pot was largely harmless and should be decriminalized. People in his ow…
The alleged Ehrlichman quote is brought up every single time drug prohibition is mentioned but it should be taken with at least some skepticism.
The surviving members of his family don't believe he made the quote:
>...Multiple family members of Ehrlichman (who died in 1999) challenge the veracity of the quote: The 1994 alleged 'quote' we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father...We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father's death, when dad can no longer respond.[22]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman
This is a very explosive quote - if Baum had included it in his book in 1996 I am sure it would have garnered a huge amount of attention for the book. Instead Baum did not include it in his book, but instead would wait for many years before making the claim when Ehrlichman was no longer around to dispute the quote.
If the quote was actually said by Ehrlichman, it isn't a very accurate description of the overall drug polices of the Nixon administration. While Nixon is remembered for "war on drugs" rhetoric, the actual substance of his policies is a bit different than what people think it was:
>...I have been fortunate over the years to discuss the distorted memory of Nixon's drug policies with almost all of his key advisors as well as with historians. Their consensus is that because he was dramatically expanding the U.S. treatment system (by 350% in just 18 months!) and cutting criminal penalties, he had to reassure his right wing that he hadn’t gone soft. So he laid on some of the toughest anti-drug rhetoric in history, including making a White House speech declaring a “war on drugs” and calling drugs “public enemy number one”. It worked so well as cover that many people remember that “tough” press event and forget that what Nixon did at it was introduce not a general or a cop or a preacher to be his drug policy chief but…a medical doctor (Jerry Jaffe, a sweet, bookish man who had longish hair and sideburns and often wore the Mickey Mouse tie his kids had given him).
https://www.samefacts.com/who-started-the-war-on-drugs/
>..."Enforcement must be coupled with a rational approach to the reclamation of the drug user himself," Nixon told Congress in 1971. "We must rehabilitate the drug user if we are to eliminate drug abuse and all the antisocial activities that flow from drug abuse."
>The numbers back this up. According to the federal government's budget numbers for anti-drug programs, the "demand" side of the war on drugs (treatment, education, and prevention) consistently got more funding during Nixon's time in office (1969 to 1974) than the "supply" side (law enforcement and interdiction).
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11325750/nixon-war-on-drugs
>Reagan, however, was the one who really ratcheted up the criminalization aspect:
To say Reagan "ratcheted up the criminalization aspect" ignores the structure of the US federal government. The president does not make laws, the president can merely sign or veto laws made by the legislature. Unfortunately the drug policies of the 1980s were a bipartisan affair. The real bipartisan push for harsher penalties in the US came in the 1980s after basketball star Len Bias died of cocaine overdose.
>…Immediately after Bias's death, the speaker of the House of Representatives, Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr., from the Boston area (where Bias had just signed with the Celtics), issued a demand to his fellow Democrats for anti-drug legislation. Senior congressional staffers began meeting regularly in the speaker's conference room as practically every committee in the House wrote Len Bias-inspired legislation attacking the drug problem. News conferences around the Capitol featured members of Congress extolling their efforts to clamp down on cocaine and crack.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2006/06/24/u...
>...It became the sole focus of legislative activity for the remainder of the session on both sides of the aisle. Literally every committee, from the Committee on Agriculture to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries were somehow getting involved. Suddenly, the Len Bias case was the driving force behind every piece of legislation. Members of Congress were setting up hearings about the drug problem and every subcommittee chairman was looking to get a piece of the action...
https://www.salon.com/2011/06/19/len_bias_cocaine_tragedy_st...
If you want to go back further, a good person to start with is Harry Anslinger who headed the Federal Bureau of Narcotics:
>...Prior to the end of alcohol prohibition, Anslinger had claimed that cannabis was not a problem, did not harm people, and "There is probably no more absurd fallacy"[15] than the idea it makes people violent. His critics argue he shifted not due to objective evidence but self-interest due to the obsolescence of the Department of Prohibition he headed when alcohol prohibition ceased - campaigning for a new Prohibition against its use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
A difference with Nixon is that he was one of the first to try to greatly expand drug treatment and also reform sentencing in at least a small way:
>...the mandatory minimum sentence in a federal prison for marijuana possession was 2-10 years until Nixon slashed it to 1 year with a judicial option to waive even that sentence. No federal mandatory drug sentence would be rolled back again for 40 years (in the Obama Administration).
Re: Lead exposure in last century shrunk IQ scores of half of Americans: study
#237It makes me angry to think of how wreckless the generations before millenials were. Lead's risks and damages were well-known long before 1996. And they still didn't ban it until then.
Re: Lead exposure in last century shrunk IQ scores of half of Americans: study
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
This much is clear. Scheduling MJ is extremely unwise. But I would also extend this to everything in the psychedelic / hallucinogenic category. They do no psychological harm and an increasing body of evidence indicates that they, in all likelihood, do a significant amount of mental good for responsible users. An acute example of this is a psychedelic called “DMT”. This psychedelic is nearly everywhere in nature, incl…
> It does no harm to a user, to third parties, nor to society, Except it opens doors in people's minds which allows them to think differently for themselves. This results in them behaving less like sheeple. Why would that ever be scary for society?
Re: Lead exposure in last century shrunk IQ scores of half of Americans: study
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The societal risks are the same and additional worse ones with alcohol I don't think this is correct, personally. (I'm pretty sure you'll find studies arguing for both sides, so we can only go on personal wisdom.)
It's not even comparable. You an ignore the fact that far more people use Alcohol regularly, that it has countless other deleterious health affects and just look at pure death rates directly attributable to Alcohol. It's just not even in the same universe. >(I'm pretty sure you'll find studies arguing for both sides, so we can only go on personal wisdom.) This is blatantly false. Find me 1 study that shows definitive…
I wouldn't contest that more people die from alcohol than marajuana. That wasn't the issue under discussion. The issue is, which is worse for society.
Part of why I find your comment so aggressive is because you're being very sharp with me, but you don't realize you aren't talking about the same thing.
> This is blatantly false. Find me 1 study that shows definitively that MJ is worse than Alcohol for society.
Having worked in academia as a researcher, I don't actually believe studies can reliably be understood by anyone other than those who conducted it and their immediate peers in the field.
A weaker form of that, which I also agree with, would be, "studies are rarely definitive." But you're asking for a definitive study. That doesn't seem fair.
Anyway, it isn't incumbent on me to do the work for you that you are asking me to do.
Re: Lead exposure in last century shrunk IQ scores of half of Americans: study
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fluids consume large amounts of shelf space by volume regardless of what fluid it is, not much we can do about this, so a large amount of shelf space does not mean a large percentage of the store's total items, in theory. By percentage of total items, it's likely very small for most supermarkets. See also the large amount of shelf space typically required to stock bottled water and soft drinks.
The variety of alcohol on offer does seem a tad perverse, in a way that status quo bias renders difficult to perceive. How many brands of bottled water do you usually see? Half a dozen, tops? And much of the volume in that aisle is occupied by huge 16-packs and giant carriers. Meanwhile the average wine aisle has hundreds of different brands, nearly all no more than 75cl, and might even stretch to two aisles in a lar…
I suspect you have not been in a dispensary recently if you think a supermarket would stock 10x as much; the range of products in most US dispensaries is truly enormous now across edibles, waxes, flowers, tinctures etc. I would strongly argue we would see a smaller range of products in the supermarket, should it become legal to sell there. This is exactly like alcohol too, where dedicated booze stores often have a wider range. It would still be significant in size though - lots of people like weed.