Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children • Hacker News Board

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#341

Post by diab0lic » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 5:01 PM UTC

Maursault wrote: post #137

diab0lic wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alcohol has been in use for ~7000 years yet society only began broadly recognizing it as harmful during pregnancy in the 1970s. [0] I don’t think the form of your argument holds any weight. Would you make the same claim regarding the use of alcohol during pregnancy? [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26137906/

This is a straw man argument. You have introduced alcohol to set up your straw man so that you can attack it. As such, your argument is fallacious, and would be no different if you had used bleach instead of alcohol. Neither bleach nor alcohol is cannabis.

Let me be very clear, I am not disagreeing with your point. Nor am I agreeing. I’m simply stating that your conclusion does not follow for the form of your argument, and providing an alternative example.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#342

Post by ttpphd » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 5:07 PM UTC

viridian wrote: post #339

ttpphd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. Weird that from that result the focus of the conversation is on cannabis.

Alcohol and tobacco cessation are heavily pushed on you the second you begin to try to conceive. Doctors tell you there is no safe amount of alcohol. The only place weed was even mentioned to me was in the Mayo clinic guide to pregnancy, once. You are a dozen times more likely to get the smoking lecture and hundreds of times more likely to get the booze lecture at any given time.

What about the unplanned pregnancy lecture? Seems like exactly the kind of stressful life event that would exacerbate maternal health!

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#343

Post by MichaelCollins » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

jamesssssss833 wrote: post #208

MichaelCollins wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FDA could go after any merchants making those claims, but for the most part those memes are spread by randos on reddit/etc. The FDA doesn't and shouldn't go after random people saying stupid shit they probably earnestly believe.

The FDA does and should if the person spreading the bs about the Miracle Cure That Has Doctors Mad is also selling the miracle cure. Thats the real issue.

As I said, the FDA can go after the merchants. But most of the people spreading dumb meme beliefs about cannabis aren't selling it. If the FDA wants to make a meaningful dent in the spread of these beliefs, they'll have to earn the public's trust and convince people of the truth.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#344

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

yucky wrote: post #325

Dylan16807 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't "equivalent intoxication" mean the driver in both cases equally shouldn't be behind the wheel? No, "equivalent" here is general-purpose intoxication, not something calibrated to driving. Since the effects are so different, we should expect significantly different levels of driving impairment to be likely.

What is this based on?

That the drugs work in very different ways so we shouldn't assume they have the same intoxication profile? I feel like that's basic knowledge.

For where I say we're looking at general purpose vs. driving-specific, that just seems to me like the most reasonable statement they would have been making.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#345

Post by meowfly » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

vintermann wrote: post #312

Bakary wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We assume that the loss of inhibition will automatically make people more likely to interact. But what if a person would like to interact less in the moment, but feels compelled to do so via social rules? In this case, being less inhibited would make them less sociable, not more.

The loss of inhibition is culturally learned, not biochemical. You can relax and let loose because society judges you less harshly when drunk (and, if you have internalized it, you judge yourself less harshly too). In some cultures it's not present at all, and even in some you may visit it's much weaker. Be aware of this if you get drunk as a tourist.

This doesn't make sense to me.

Alcohol binds to the GABA receptor mimicking GABA, hence providing a calming feeling. It allows people to feel less anxious in situations they might normally feel awkward. That is definitely not cultural.

Drinking regularly may desensitize your GABA receptors and hence cause a person to end up with more anxiety as a result of drinking. I rarely drink because I found it was exasperating my mental health issues.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#346

Post by hellohowareu » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 6:15 PM UTC

Maursault wrote: post #132

hellohowareu wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"misogyny" Uh, no. Criticism does not equate to hatred. And the more the word "misogyny" is misused by being thrown around frivolously, the less useful it is as an accurate descriptor. You do our language and society a disservice by conflating the concepts of hate vs critique.

When the criticism boils down to "you aren't doing what we tell you to do," or "I don't approve what you do with your body," then, oh, no, when directed towards women by men this is nothing less than misogyny, and denying it doesn't cut the mustard. Leave women alone, and then we'll know you're not a misogynist. Otherwise, the descriptor fits.

Saying something is real, does not make that thing real.

You are not the gatekeeper of what is and is not "misogyny".

Leave women alone? Are women somehow ordained with a shield against any criticism? No one can ever criticize a woman-- following that logic... women are always correct?

That sounds authoritarian to me.

Definition of authoritarian

1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority 2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people an authoritarian regime.

__________

The logic in: criticism != hatred is quite sound.

a definition of criticism: the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.

a definition of critique: a detailed analysis and assessment of something

a definition of hatred: intense dislike or ill will

_________

TLDR: disapproval does not equal intense dislike

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#347

Post by PointlessLogin » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 6:22 PM UTC

tsol wrote: post #337

PointlessLogin wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People cannot cope with even the slightest gray area, so they end up saying and doing ridiculous things. Everything has to be 100% good or 100% bad. I suggest this binary positioning is a very American phenomenon; the cultural reasons for which I'm unable to suggest a reason for.

You think only Americans behave that way? Seems like a very binary way of thinking..

> You think only Americans behave that way?

No I didn't type that. Your reading it that way is..... binary?

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#348

Post by yucky » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 6:35 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #344

yucky wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is this based on?

That the drugs work in very different ways so we shouldn't assume they have the same intoxication profile? I feel like that's basic knowledge. For where I say we're looking at general purpose vs. driving-specific, that just seems to me like the most reasonable statement they would have been making.

I think the confusion might lie in the use of your term "equivalent intoxication" then. Especially when you then mentioned their different intoxication profiles. How exactly would you define equivalent intoxication levels in something with different intoxication profiles?

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#349

Post by serverholic » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 7:19 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #335

serverholic wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve noticed binary thinking everywhere, even among smart people. I think thought leaders know this which is why, for example, the woke cult doesn’t allow any disagreement with any piece of the transgender narrative. It’s all or nothing because they’re afraid that allowing any disagreement will cause people’s binary thinking to switch to the other side.

> woke cult doesn’t allow any disagreement with any piece of the transgender narrative. sigh please don't use terms of abuse such as "woke cult" on HN. And yes, people are being incredibly defensive because there are a number of misinformation campaigns circulating trying to get trans healthcare banned for everyone. The war on drugs, for testosterone and estrogen.

I’m not going to stop using accurate language just because it makes you feel bad.

They are a cult. It’s a group of people who fervently worship an ideology filled with hatred, falsehoods, manipulation and deception. They even have original sin, and excommunication.

All under the guise of protecting oppressed people.

However if they actually cared about the causes they claim, then they would try to make their ideas as easy to digest for the average sane person as possible. But it’s not actually about helping people, it’s about moral superiority and pushing people away who aren’t “pure” enough.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#350

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 7:53 PM UTC

yucky wrote: post #348

Dylan16807 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the drugs work in very different ways so we shouldn't assume they have the same intoxication profile? I feel like that's basic knowledge. For where I say we're looking at general purpose vs. driving-specific, that just seems to me like the most reasonable statement they would have been making.

I think the confusion might lie in the use of your term "equivalent intoxication" then. Especially when you then mentioned their different intoxication profiles. How exactly would you define equivalent intoxication levels in something with different intoxication profiles?

Not my term, but some kind of test might make sense, or the average of several things. I mean, how do you define intoxication levels at all? You can't just, like, measure reaction time and say you're done.