Obama orders over half a ton of Marijuana for 'medical research' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=HeatPipe;44731996]Basically yes. Sorry, forgot to write 'if'. Fixed it now. Reason: I believe that eidetic memory is very tuned and fragile thing and anything psychoactive can break it. Also I don't know any successful scientist or man, that smoked weed and was very successful in mathematics at the same time. Correct me if I am wrong. [/QUOTE] How about Richard Feynman? He talked about his drug use in his autobiography.

[QUOTE=HeatPipe;44731996]Basically yes. Sorry, forgot to write 'if'. Fixed it now. Reason: I believe that eidetic memory is very tuned and fragile thing and anything psychoactive can break it. Also I don't know any successful scientist or man, that smoked weed and was very successful in mathematics at the same time. Correct me if I am wrong. But I don't think it has really big effect on average memory of us average mortals. Don't get me wrong, I smoke occasionally and I believe it should be legal and man, it does relax me and boosts creativity. But smoking too much (binging or just raping your lungs with it) is bad for my body and mind, because I don't really give shit about anything when I am high, and I do have sort of hangover next day. It should be legal for re-creative and medical use, but at your own risk. Fair? I think so.[/QUOTE] Could it be that you're just not a motivated person in general so when you smoke you become lazy? My dad use to be a huge pothead back in his day and he runs a hedgefund dealing with numbers all day. Still smokes when he goes out too.

[QUOTE=HeatPipe;44731996]Basically yes. Sorry, forgot to write 'if'. Fixed it now. Reason: I believe that eidetic memory is very tuned and fragile thing and anything psychoactive can break it. Also I don't know any successful scientist or man, that smoked weed and was very successful in mathematics at the same time. Correct me if I am wrong. [/QUOTE] May I ask why you believe this? I can't see someone coming up with an idea like this out of the blue, so you must have something to back it up. I've never read anything on cannabis having a negative effect on eidetic memory. It certainly affects short term memory temporarily, but I've never noticed an effect on my ability to recall detailed images, which I've always been pretty good at.

It's no different than any other leisurely actively, it should be legal, but it's not better than anything else and can be just as destructive to the lives of people who abuse it. Plenty of writers find and have found alcohol to be a great way to get the juices flowing, it's just a matter of what works for you and not going overboard. Too many stoners I know tell me they need weed for their depression, yet what they're really doing is smoking an assload of weed, sitting around doing nothing and feeling terrible about never getting up and doing anything.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44730119]Here's hoping this research isn't partisan behind the scenes, and we don't end up with another "pot causes brain damage in monkeys" study.[/QUOTE]And what if, even without any bias, that result still arises?

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44732854]And what if, even without any bias, that result still arises?[/QUOTE] Read my later post in this same thread to see what that study entailed, and how useless and fraudulent it was. I welcome [I]productive[/I] research, and I'm not singling out any [I]valid[/I] outcome.

[QUOTE=outlawpickle;44732448]It's no different than any other leisurely actively, it should be legal, but it's not better than anything else and can be just as destructive to the lives of people who abuse it. Plenty of writers find and have found alcohol to be a great way to get the juices flowing, it's just a matter of what works for you and not going overboard. Too many stoners I know tell me they need weed for their depression, yet what they're really doing is smoking an assload of weed, sitting around doing nothing and feeling terrible about never getting up and doing anything.[/QUOTE] I smoke so I don't act out on my urges to twist my boss's head off.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44732875]Read my later post in this same thread to see what that study entailed, and how useless and fraudulent it was. I welcome [I]productive[/I] research, and I'm not singling out any [I]valid[/I] outcome.[/QUOTE]I am aware of that study. That was not my question.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44732881]I am aware of that study. That was not my question.[/QUOTE] Considering the result hasn't been replicated since, I'll want to hear a full explanation of the methodology and see if it can be reproduced, because that would be practically unprecedented -- excluding the original discredited study. So, I'm not really sure what you expected out of this. You're asking me what I'll do if NIDA manages to replicate the Heath monkey experiment's results in brain cell death in 2014 without foul play. What is the likelihood of legitimately replicating the results of a deliberately-broken study without following the same pathological mistreatment of the subjects that the original used to achieve its results? What is the likelihood that an unbiased, humane, ethical, properly-conducted study on marijuana consumption will suddenly come across results that are known to be the product of chronic short-term suffocation?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44732952]Considering the result hasn't been replicated since, I'll want to hear a full explanation of the methodology and see if it can be reproduced, because that would be practically unprecedented -- excluding the original discredited study. So, I'm not really sure what you expected out of this. You're asking me what I'll do if NIDA manages to replicate the Heath monkey experiment brain cell death experiment results in 2014 without foul play. What is the likelihood of legitimately replicating the results of a deliberately-broken study without following the same pathological mistreatment of the subjects that the original used to achieve its results? What is the likelihood that an unbiased, humane, ethical, properly-conducted study on marijuana consumption will suddenly come across results that are known to be the product of chronic short-term suffocation?[/QUOTE]I'm not asking about that study or in relation to that study, quit bringing it up. I'm asking in general. If their work shows in an unbiased, methodologically sound way that it causes brain damage, will you accept it?

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44732972]I'm not asking about that study or in relation to that study, quit bringing it up. I'm asking in general. If their work shows in an unbiased, methodologically sound way that it causes brain damage, will you accept it?[/QUOTE] About as much as I'd accept any other study showing an extraordinary result until the results have been independently replicated. What is your point here?

-snip-

[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;44733024]-snip-[/QUOTE] What?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44732994]About as much as I'd accept any other study showing an extraordinary result until the results have been independently replicated. What is your point here?[/QUOTE]That you have a confirmation bias and will refuse to acknowledge any result that fail to adhere to it.

[video=youtube;VFwYGFt5q90]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFwYGFt5q90[/video]

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44733162]That you have a confirmation bias and will refuse to acknowledge any result that fail to adhere to it.[/QUOTE] What I posted: [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44730119]Here's hoping this research isn't partisan behind the scenes, and we don't end up with another "pot causes brain damage in monkeys" study.[/QUOTE] I would like you to explain how "I hope the research is productive and isn't deliberately-sporked jerkoff 'research' that was rotten from the start" is confirmation bias. I'd also like you to explain what you gain in challenging me to demonstrate that I'm somehow unbiased while being highly pessimistic that the outcome will be that they managed to ethically cause brain damage consistent with chronic five-minute suffocation episodes. Would I be holding unacknowledged biases about physics if I said I hope that the research requiring a ton of water won't result in rehash of an imaginary "pool of pure H2O at rest spontaneously combusting" fraudulent study from the 50s?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44733521]I would like you to explain how "I hope the research is productive and isn't deliberately-sporked jerkoff 'research' that was rotten from the start" is confirmation bias. I'd also like you to explain what you gain in challenging me to demonstrate that I'm somehow unbiased while being highly pessimistic that the outcome will be that they managed to ethically cause brain damage consistent with chronic five-minute suffocation episodes.[/QUOTE]You spent every post painting it as some wildly impossible proposition that it could be harmful, but will gladly accept that it is perfectly safe, when on both sides of the issue the research is shoddy at best and studies saying it is risk free are regularly debunked as well. What do I hope to gain from challenging you? Nothing specifically. I'm fond of calling people out. And I'm also not a fan of the "It's perfectly fine, nothing can ever show it is harmful." attitude many adopt.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44733642]You spent every post painting it as some wildly impossible proposition that it could [B]cause massive brain damage[/B][/QUOTE] Are you fucking illiterate, or just too busy concocting the perfect call-out post? [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44733642]but will gladly accept that it is perfectly safe[/QUOTE] Find me [B]one sentence[/B] in this thread where I said that or fuck off.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44733674]Find me [B]one sentence[/B] in this thread where I said that or fuck off.[/QUOTE]Its not about one sentence explicitly stating that but your entire attitude. It's the sarcastical "Ohh, well [I]IF[/I] they could do that (but they can't)." remarks and general refusal to actually acknowledge the possibility.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44733714]Its not about one sentence explicitly stating that but your entire attitude. It's the sarcastical "Ohh, well [I]IF[/I] they could do that (but they can't)." remarks and general refusal to actually acknowledge the possibility.[/QUOTE] I think you're reading far too much into my remarks, and then calling out the straw man you think I'm representing. I [B]explicitly[/B] said I hope that the study is conducted properly. [B]NOWHERE[/B] did I say "if the results show marijuana is harmful, I'll reject it." Any such insinuations in my post are in your mind. You don't know what kind of attitude I have towards cannabis. You clearly don't, because you're acting like I'm some teenage simpleton who's pro-pot because I like to get high and nothing that gets in the way of that is acceptable. Examine your own biases before you try and identify them in others. And are you really questioning me about my low confidence that a properly-conducted (which is to say, they're being honest and not forcing the subjects to suffocate on pot smoke for 5 minutes) study is going to replicate the same brain damage as a study that deliberately induced severe oxygen deprivation repeatedly? Do you really think that cannabinoids are that dangerous? Are you high?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44733741]I think you're reading far too much into my remarks, and then calling out the straw man you think I'm representing. I [B]explicitly[/B] said I hope that the study is conducted properly. [B]NOWHERE[/B] did I say "if the results show marijuana is harmful, I'll reject it." Any such insinuations in my post are in your mind.[/QUOTE]They're very obvious in your posts, you just refuse to admit it, and then when called out you resort to going "Are you illiterate." and "Are you high?" [QUOTE]You don't know what kind of attitude I have towards cannabis. You clearly don't, because you're acting like I'm some teenage simpleton who's pro-pot because I like to get high and nothing that gets in the way of that is acceptable.[/QUOTE]I don't care about your attitude towards it itself, I care about this thread right now. [QUOTE]And are you really questioning me about my low confidence that a properly-conducted (which is to say, they're being honest and not forcing the subjects to suffocate on pot smoke for 5 minutes) study is going to replicate the same brain damage as a study that deliberately induced severe oxygen deprivation repeatedly?[/QUOTE]When you keep falling back to that one study and trying to use it as a blanket for comparison to all about potential harmfulness, yes. [QUOTE]]Do you really think that cannabinoids are that dangerous?[/QUOTE]I never said they are or are not, but I'm more open to the notions either way than you have shown thus far.

AWWWWWWWWWWWWWW YEEEEEEE you kno wats comin' [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu0vWMaJMdQ[/media]

I got high on a road trip once and when we stopped for gas the driver had to wait 15 minutes for me to come back. I had bought 20 bucks worth of gas station snacks, much to my own surprise which I then proceeded to devour. That's what the ol' mary j does to you. Never even once.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;44732183]Since when did Facepunch not let you edit posts?[/QUOTE] Garry needs to either update vBulletin again or update the database he's using with it, because one of those has a huge problem with certain characters. It used to only be a problem on fancy Unicode characters like þ and smart quotes, but I've been having it occasionally with posts that don't contain those characters.

I feel like it's a good step toward legalization. They're clearly showing interest in it if they are ordering more than expected. I'd really hope it becomes legal though.

Cannabis doesn't give its users brain damage, it gives it to everyone else, who have to put up with the shite stoners make.

[QUOTE=HeatPipe;44731347]I am not agains pot but again, if Nikola Tesla would light up a joint only once, we wouldn't have electricity like we know it today.[/QUOTE] If Isaac Newton had discovered the gravity bong instead of gravity, we'd have had Fig Newtons about 200 years sooner.

you guys know you don't have to [I]smoke[/I] weed right. It's (thc and other cannabinoids in weed) alcohol soluble, so you can make tinctures, it's soluble in oils and fats, so you can eat it. The worst thing about weed is the effects it has on the motivation and emotion centers in the brain, if that one article posted not too long ago on here was true, which it probably is. EITHER WAY, laws shouldn't be protecting people from themselves, and people should be able to do whatever drug they want provided they don't hurt anyone else. edit: also keep in mind that the enlargement of certain areas in your brain due to pot use isn't necessarily brain damage. It's [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_plasticity"]synaptic plasticity[/URL]. The more you use certain synapses, the more efficient they become. If smoking weed makes you emotional, lazy, and introspective; and you smoke weed every day; is it really a surprise that you'll be emotional, lazy, and introspective when you're not high? THC isn't magic, it's utilizing parts of your brain that are already there.

[QUOTE=lazyguy;44749887]Cannabis doesn't give its users brain damage, it gives it to everyone else, who have to put up with the shite stoners make.[/QUOTE] I think it does cause brain damage. The amount of people peddling it like some sort of cure-all elixir astounds me, and only someone with severe brain trauma would make such stupid claims about something. (This is a joke, but really people, pot isn't a cure-all elixir any more than the tricresyl phosphate and other toxic substances sold to people in the early 1900's with the promises of curing all their problems.)

[QUOTE=draugur;44750673]I think it does cause brain damage. The amount of people peddling it like some sort of cure-all elixir astounds me, and only someone with severe brain trauma would make such stupid claims about something. (This is a joke, but really people, pot isn't a cure-all elixir any more than the tricresyl phosphate and other toxic substances sold to people in the early 1900's with the promises of curing all their problems.)[/QUOTE] True. It's not a cure-all. But it does make it WAY easier to get into Doctor Who, so there's that.