301–310 of 381 posts
I really can't understand it when people claim to be addicted to weed. From what I hear, it's not chemically addictive, so can it really be claimed so if the addiction is placebic?
Part of that is a kind of devil's bargain where "offenders" are put into a treatment program that's doomed to be quack medicine for most of the participants who have no addiction. Better than jail I suppose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would rather drive on LSD than drive tired, no question.
Can't LSD cause you to hallucinate? Hallucinations seem like the #1 thing you wouldn't want to happen to you while you are driving.
When you're on acid, you don't change as a person, your reactions don't change. If you see something weird you say "woah, that's weird" but, unless you're deep in a trip and forget you are on a substance, you can usually handle it like a normal person.
I'm glad that Gupta has made this public apology. It takes a lot of courage to make that statement especially for someone with great public influence. I'm just curious as to why it took him this long. Medical marijuana has been prescribed in hospitals for some time with great benefit. I mean, just from a clinical standpoint, he should've seen the great upsides and limited downsides to using the drug. Patients, typica…
For what it's worth, there is relatively recent research showing that marijuana can be harmful to brains as they're still developing ([1] is the first one I remember reading), so his recommendation that his kids avoid it until they're older is probably sound. That being said, yes, I'm glad there's a higher profile scientist speaking out in favor of marijuana legalization, or at least more even-handed research of it.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being pleased about a new opinion and being cynical about its motivations are not mutually exclusive. I think it's perfectly acceptable to question a public figure's motives when their changing outlook (regardless of stated reasons) are highly correlated with changes in public opinion.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would rather drive on LSD than drive tired, no question.
Can't LSD cause you to hallucinate? Hallucinations seem like the #1 thing you wouldn't want to happen to you while you are driving.
What you see is distorted, but everything you see is actually there. The walls might look like they're dripping or wavy, the branches on a tree appear to reach out at you, and colors become more vibrant, but you won't ever see gigantic bunnies or flying unicorns or some other stupid shit that often ends up in film depictions of a psychedelic experience.
As dosage increases, your mind increasingly tends to interpret what you're seeing as something else, like a shadow may appear briefly to be a person. When this starts to happen I would no longer feel comfortable driving, but for me this occurs at the peak of 500 ug + experiences, the equivalent of 5 standard doses. Not saying that driving on LSD is a great idea, but on a single standard dose it's not nearly as dangerous as driving after you've pulled an all-nighter IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a little more than that, he is saying that US research has an obvious bias that he was not aware of.
I'm not sure if your post is intended as sarcasm or not. If the bias was obvious, how could he not be aware of it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being a bit pedantic here, I'd just like to point out that development of schizophrenia is not a mild side effect. With higher THC% strains, we have no idea the extent of latent mental disorders we're stimulating.
As a person who had a roommate whose schizophrenia was likely induced by heavy marijuana use (along with his tripping on multiple bottles of Robitussin), the fact of the matter is that the harm done to this small percentage of people is vastly outweighed by the damage done to people who can't get access to it for their medical needs. And that's ignoring the huge harm caused by prosecuting recreational users due to an…
The U.S. made >6,000,000 arrests in 2011 [1] for the possession or sale of marijuana. Many of those arrested were incapacitated for an extended period of time (in custody), and had their life permanently changed for the worse. Even if 10,000 people a year get schizophrenia from heavy marijuana use, to try to mitigate this by ruining the lives of millions more is the height of absurdity.
[1] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Osteopaths are doctors. They aren't chiropractors.
See my other responses. In summary, DOs are fully trained doctors who also believe that a completely pseudoscientific methodology (OMM) is valid medicine. I have very little confidence in such a person's ability to critically weigh evidence, and it seems crazy to me to let them give people drugs.
I think what happened here is that you overreached; you claimed that chiropractors could prescribe drugs, were corrected, and then scrambled to recover your argument instead of just admitting you were wrong. Now we're in a totally pointless and, from what I can tell, one-sided discussion about the legitimacy of DOs, despite the total irrelevance of osteopathy to the thread we're on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love this argument. It needs to become a reflexive and memetic response whenever anyone places someone in a damned-if-you-do situation for improving their position.
you sounding real crazy right now... giving false scientific opinions when you make a living as a medical 'educator' because its better for you personally is cool now? Dude coulda, woulda, shoulda been surgeon general with that much influence i would expect this dude to actually scientifically analyze stuff before giving his scientific evaluation.
On other topics, especially in economics, the punditry is full of people who have been hilariously wrong for years, having made predictions a long time ago that have been clearly incorrect, and who still have never once even hinted that their models were wrong.
Yes, Gupta should have done his research earlier. But compared to a lot of the scum in the media, he is basically a saint. He deserves to be praised, if only to encourage others to follow his lead and admit when they were wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is time to grow your own weed, on a $100/week script, my man.
I have a friend who grows and unless you are re-selling it to shops, you're unlikely to break even growing your own. The equipment is relatively costly and the care and attention required to consistently grow is very time consuming.
The first few (maybe 2-3) grows will turn out pretty bad, but it will still be enough to last you to the next grow. You have to find a balance in the nutrients and water which only really comes with trial and error, but the recommended dose is generally pretty close.
On the time issue: Once everything is set up, it's surprising relatively low time commitment. Especially if you're only growing 2-3 plants for personal use, you're looking at _maybe_ 3 hours per week for maintenance just to water every 3-4 days, prune dead leaves, sweep the area up, ect. I've also known people who use an Arduino or RaPi to rig a drip irrigation system which they can leave unattended for up to 2-weeks with no issues. Those growing for dispensaries in mass quantities are growing hundreds of plants at a time all at different stages and that is certainly a full-time job to maintain.
The nice thing about growing your own is there's no obligation to grow right after you finish one, and keeping the buds frozen preserves them completely for months until you need it. So, if you aren't looking at giving it up in the next 2 years I think its an extremely viable option which will save you money in the long run.
If you tell me how many grams you consume weekly or monthly I could give you a pretty good idea of where to start and how many plants you'd need to maintain that.
Source: I live in Colorado, grew my own in college with my roommate for 4 years, and have several friends still maintaining large and small operations I occasionally help out with.