Nobody says that cannabis is not harmful, but it remains far less harmful than alcohol, especially during a pandemic. And cannabis is a *very* efficacious medication for a large spectrum if disease, which does not mean that it has not some secondary indesirable effects. Then the worst is prohibition, as it multiply a lot the danger of any medication having a potential danger. I am not convinced by the Lancet papers, as it contradicts all the examples I have seen as a teacher of mathematics, where I have thought myself that student smoking cannabis get bad results in mathematics until I change my own attitude toward them. The problem is that cannabis is used by some as a way to explain away their difficulties at school, but when we stop playing that game with them, I arrive at the opposite conclusion: it helps the student. I wrote a paper on this for a newspaper, a long time ago (1980s) which, of course, refuses to publish it as it could be seen as apology for drugs, which is illegal in my country. The very illegality of a substance damages all the information we can have on that substance.
On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 8:42:54 PM UTC+2 [email protected] wrote: > Cannabis impares all cognitive functions. (And have a painkiller effect > comparable to paracetamol. ) > https://www.newser.com/story/205310/studying-math-dont-smoke-marijuana.html > You can download the article as pdf from the newser article. > There is no problems finding more examples. Interestingly, or maybe not, > experienced users are less affected from an acute dose (spliff) than > untrained users. > So if you are using, you don't get stupider than you are already. > https://www.nature.com/articles/1395716 > Appart from getting rather slow you also have a serious chance of > triggering a psychosis, especially if you get the good strong stuff. > > https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30048-3/fulltext > > If you doubt academic evidence, try writing an exam after a spliff and see > for your self. Don't do it for any important exam though. A demanding > cognitive computer game can serve the same function. > > Alcohol impares cognitive functions. > Methylxantines, theobromine (chocolate) teofylline (tea) coffeine (coffee) > all improve cognitive functions. > Adrenaline improve, sugar improve. > Low dose amfetamines are probably good but high dose not so much and low > to high is razorthin when you need math. If you only have to run around > with a machine gun, you have a much better dose interval. So amfetamines > are popular in the army, not so much in the university world. Can have a > place if you have ADHD tendency. > /Henrik > > > > Den ons 28 juli 2021 15:13Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> skrev: > >> It is the first time I hear that cannabis impairs the mathematical >> abilities. You might give reference, and I hope it contains a comparison >> with chocolate, alcohol, etc. Without such comparison, anyone can find that >> anything impair mathematical (or whatever) studies, but usually such >> studies are not quite serious, or just pretext to not study. If you like >> mathematics, there is some chance that cannabis will help, and if you don't >> like mathematics, there is a lot of chance cannabis will *not* help. >> The question if consciousness requires material substrate is not a >> question of liking this or not. If Indexical Digital Mechanism is assumed, >> there is simply no choice: the material appearances must be explained >> without invoking any ontological commitment. >> We need to separate truth from what we want. It usually does not match >> easily. It is the separation of theology from science which makes people >> believe that the religious truth is a matter of choice. This is eventually >> used by people who want to freeze the field for their special interest. The >> god/non-god debate is a trick by materialist (believer in some fundamental >> substance) to make us forget that the original questions in theology was >> about the existence of a primary physical universe. To simplify, the >> question was should we invest in mathematics or in physics when we search >> the simplest ontology capable of explains all facts, or as much as possible >> facts? >> >> Bruno >> >> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 10:21:41 PM UTC+2 [email protected] wrote: >> >>> My only concern about cannabis is the study that it did impair >>> mathematical abilities. That is about it for me. In a few areas of the US, >>> legal cannabis has been permitted. Which doesn't stop the thugsters from >>> selling it illegally, under price. That is a social issue and not a medical >>> one. On whether consciousness requires a material substrate, I have no >>> preference, because honestly it is not up to me. It's the universe, I just >>> work here. On the other hand I do hold with the idea of taking whatever >>> advantage, even neuro-chemical, of the knowledge of anything the facts >>> provides? The Beyond 1492 project likely needs funding, and I suspect that >>> computer science, eventually, will provide for such a adaptation. My >>> feeling is we don't need more religions to benefit us, but instead mental >>> apps based on whatever facts we can uncover, be it flesh or spirit? >>> >>> >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b9560e03-ece2-4448-829f-c4d632523baan%40googlegroups.com.
