subject:"Re\: Final Evidence\: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline"

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal




On 31 Aug 2012, at 17:52, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

Yes, but bashing nicotine is also easy. Everybody that surfs  
internet, especially posting too much is nicotine freak ;)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=internet%20addiction%20chrna4


Interesting. If we don't fight prohibition, one day internet will be  
illegal, or strongly controlled, as many government try already.


Video games can also be very addictive, and Korea seems to have more  
game addiction medical help center than for drug consumption.


Note that salvia and iboga seem to be the only known "drug" not  
messing with the serotonergic and dopaminergic neurotransmissions,  
unlike alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, TV, magic mushrooms, sex,  
MDMA, ..., and now the net. This is confirmed by the fact that salvia  
is not addictive at all, and actually, like iboga, seems to cure  
addiction, habituation and compulsive behavior. They are really drug  
antidotes.



Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-31 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

Yes, but bashing nicotine is also easy. Everybody that surfs internet,
especially posting too much is nicotine freak ;)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=internet%20addiction%20chrna4

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 31 Aug 2012, at 12:02, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




2012/8/31 Bruno Marchal 

On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




2012/8/31 Bruno Marchal 

On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:01, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/29/2012 11:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


I might write a longer comment, but I will be a bit busy those  
days.


Here are some references on the fact that cannabis can cure cancer:

Cannabis selectively target cancerous cell, and makes them auto- 
phage (eating themselves):


http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948(original spain paper)

And we know that since 1974. When I read that in Jack Herer book,  
I did'nt belive it, until the spanish rediscovered this:


http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html

http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm

http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/



I see I was too quick in my skepticism about cannabis affecting  
cancer.




Quentin, did you mix cannabis with tobacco? With alcohol. Those  
combination are known to be addictive, but there is no  
statistical evidences for cannabis alone. I agree with you  
Quentin, it uses can be dangerous, but the use of windows too.


Brent, there are no evidences that cannabis is a problem for  
lungs. The one found have been debunked:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html


I never supposed it did.  I just supposed that drawing smoke in  
your lungs probably isn't good for them.


Actually we have good reason to suspect the presence of strong  
oncogen (inducing cancer) molecules in the cannabis tar. The  
cannabis tar is indeed quite dangerous in that respect when  
studied ... in vitro. But then when statistics are done on large  
human pot smokers population, not only cancers don't show up, but a  
reduction of cancer is observed. The probable explanation is that  
some cannabinoids are more effective against cancer than the  
oncogen molecules.


Well I still remain perplex, because the most common usage is joint  
with mixing tobacco, what sort of cannabis smocker are taken in  
those studies ? How does they choose/find them ? Are those studies  
representative of the cannabis smockers ?


Those studies have compared also the difference between pure  
cannabis smoker and those who mix it with pot. In the US there are a  
lot of people who does not mix cannabis and tobacco. In Belgium  
also, and more and more as people get aware that tobacco is a hard  
drug (toxic and addictive). I have almost never mix them, and when I  
did, I have develop a strong addiction to such a mix, and quickly  
come back to separate them. The illegality of cannabis makes hard to  
explain to young people, who see their parent smoking tobacco and  
terrorised  by cannabis, that the real "drug" in a joint is tobacco.  
I have try to prevent my nephews, but they laughed at me. Now they  
are grown up, and understand.






Lot of people who smockes cannabis, smockes also cigarettes, does  
it affect the result ?


Yes, but it is already quite different. They don't get addicted to  
MJ. Only to tobacco.





Prohibition is bad, not because "cannabis" could cure cancer, it's  
bad because it destroy live for stupid reasons.


It is bad for many reasons. Jefferson said:

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines  
they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are  
the souls of those who live under tyranny."   Thomas Jefferson


And the founders of US were strongly opposed to prohibition, which  
they made anticonstitutional:


"Prohibition... goes beyond the bound of reason in that it attempts  
to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of  
things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the  
very principles upon which our government was founded" -Abraham  
Lincoln


Prohibition might have been one of the reason why JFK has been  
murdered, and it is a tool for getting power, makes huge benefices  
and control the society by non democratic means. It is a criminal  
Trojan horse to control the government.


Anslinger, Nixon and Reagan, and then Bush, have all ordered studies  
on cannabis and alcohol, and their own studies have revealed that  
cannabis was nothing as dangerous compared to alcohol, but they have  
throw the studies in the trash, and then ordered new pseudo-studies  
to more obedient (pseudo) scientists.



I agree with all of that... but as you cite tobacco as a hard drug,  
same thing, I'm against prohibition for alcohol and tobacco... the  
bad thing about prohibition is that it criminalize that behavior, it  
doesn't become good because it is a hard drug.


I agree completely. It is just another problem with prohibition that  
we are misinformed on the relative danger of different substances.
I guess you have seen that comic sketch by Coluche showing a  
completely drunk father giving a lesson in moral to his smoking pot son.
As cannabis is not "really" dangerous,

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-31 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2012/8/31 Bruno Marchal 

>
> On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> 2012/8/31 Bruno Marchal 
>
>>
>> On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:01, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 8/29/2012 11:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> I might write a longer comment, but I will be a bit busy those days.
>>
>>  Here are some references on the fact that cannabis can cure cancer:
>>
>>  Cannabis selectively target cancerous cell, and makes them auto-phage
>> (eating themselves):
>>
>>  http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948(original spain paper)
>>
>>  And we know that since 1974. When I read that in Jack Herer book, I
>> did'nt belive it, until the spanish rediscovered this:
>>
>>   http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html
>>
>>  http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm
>>
>>   http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/
>>
>>
>>
>> I see I was too quick in my skepticism about cannabis affecting cancer.
>>
>>
>>  Quentin, did you mix cannabis with tobacco? With alcohol. Those
>> combination are known to be addictive, but there is no statistical
>> evidences for cannabis alone. I agree with you Quentin, it uses can be
>> dangerous, but the use of windows too.
>>
>>  Brent, there are no evidences that cannabis is a problem for lungs. The
>> one found have been debunked:
>>
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
>>
>>
>> I never supposed it did.  I just supposed that drawing smoke in your
>> lungs probably isn't good for them.
>>
>>
>> Actually we have good reason to suspect the presence of strong oncogen
>> (inducing cancer) molecules in the cannabis tar. The cannabis tar is indeed
>> quite dangerous in that respect when studied ... in vitro. But then when
>> statistics are done on large human pot smokers population, not only cancers
>> don't show up, but a reduction of cancer is observed. The probable
>> explanation is that some cannabinoids are more effective against cancer
>> than the oncogen molecules.
>>
>
> Well I still remain perplex, because the most common usage is joint with
> mixing tobacco, what sort of cannabis smocker are taken in those studies ?
> How does they choose/find them ? Are those studies representative of the
> cannabis smockers ?
>
>
> Those studies have compared also the difference between pure cannabis
> smoker and those who mix it with pot. In the US there are a lot of people
> who does not mix cannabis and tobacco. In Belgium also, and more and more
> as people get aware that tobacco is a hard drug (toxic and addictive). I
> have almost never mix them, and when I did, I have develop a strong
> addiction to such a mix, and quickly come back to separate them. The
> illegality of cannabis makes hard to explain to young people, who see their
> parent smoking tobacco and terrorised  by cannabis, that the real "drug" in
> a joint is tobacco. I have try to prevent my nephews, but they laughed at
> me. Now they are grown up, and understand.
>
>
>
>
> Lot of people who smockes cannabis, smockes also cigarettes, does it
> affect the result ?
>
>
> Yes, but it is already quite different. They don't get addicted to MJ.
> Only to tobacco.
>
>
>
> Prohibition is bad, not because "cannabis" could cure cancer, it's bad
> because it destroy live for stupid reasons.
>
>
> It is bad for many reasons. Jefferson said:
>
> "If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they
> take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of
> those who live under tyranny."   Thomas Jefferson
>
> And the founders of US were strongly opposed to prohibition, which they
> made anticonstitutional:
>
> "Prohibition... goes beyond the bound of reason in that it attempts to
> control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things
> that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very
> principles upon which our government was founded" -Abraham Lincoln
>
> Prohibition might have been one of the reason why JFK has been murdered,
> and it is a tool for getting power, makes huge benefices and control the
> society by non democratic means. It is a criminal Trojan horse to control
> the government.
>
> Anslinger, Nixon and Reagan, and then Bush, have all ordered studies on
> cannabis and alcohol, and their own studies have revealed that cannabis was
> nothing as dangerous compared to alcohol, but they have throw the studies
> in the trash, and then ordered new pseudo-studies to more obedient (pseudo)
> scientists.
>
>
I agree with all of that... but as you cite tobacco as a hard drug, same
thing, I'm against prohibition for alcohol and tobacco... the bad thing
about prohibition is that it criminalize that behavior, it doesn't become
good because it is a hard drug.

Regards,
Quentin


> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Quentin
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  By googling on cannabis cancer, you will more information. I count up
>> to 173 cancers where cannabinoids can help to cure. Many youtbe video
>> provides i

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




2012/8/31 Bruno Marchal 

On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:01, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/29/2012 11:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


I might write a longer comment, but I will be a bit busy those days.

Here are some references on the fact that cannabis can cure cancer:

Cannabis selectively target cancerous cell, and makes them auto- 
phage (eating themselves):


http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948(original spain paper)

And we know that since 1974. When I read that in Jack Herer book,  
I did'nt belive it, until the spanish rediscovered this:


http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html

http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm

http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/



I see I was too quick in my skepticism about cannabis affecting  
cancer.




Quentin, did you mix cannabis with tobacco? With alcohol. Those  
combination are known to be addictive, but there is no statistical  
evidences for cannabis alone. I agree with you Quentin, it uses  
can be dangerous, but the use of windows too.


Brent, there are no evidences that cannabis is a problem for  
lungs. The one found have been debunked:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html


I never supposed it did.  I just supposed that drawing smoke in  
your lungs probably isn't good for them.


Actually we have good reason to suspect the presence of strong  
oncogen (inducing cancer) molecules in the cannabis tar. The  
cannabis tar is indeed quite dangerous in that respect when  
studied ... in vitro. But then when statistics are done on large  
human pot smokers population, not only cancers don't show up, but a  
reduction of cancer is observed. The probable explanation is that  
some cannabinoids are more effective against cancer than the oncogen  
molecules.


Well I still remain perplex, because the most common usage is joint  
with mixing tobacco, what sort of cannabis smocker are taken in  
those studies ? How does they choose/find them ? Are those studies  
representative of the cannabis smockers ?


Those studies have compared also the difference between pure cannabis  
smoker and those who mix it with pot. In the US there are a lot of  
people who does not mix cannabis and tobacco. In Belgium also, and  
more and more as people get aware that tobacco is a hard drug (toxic  
and addictive). I have almost never mix them, and when I did, I have  
develop a strong addiction to such a mix, and quickly come back to  
separate them. The illegality of cannabis makes hard to explain to  
young people, who see their parent smoking tobacco and terrorised  by  
cannabis, that the real "drug" in a joint is tobacco. I have try to  
prevent my nephews, but they laughed at me. Now they are grown up, and  
understand.






Lot of people who smockes cannabis, smockes also cigarettes, does it  
affect the result ?


Yes, but it is already quite different. They don't get addicted to MJ.  
Only to tobacco.





Prohibition is bad, not because "cannabis" could cure cancer, it's  
bad because it destroy live for stupid reasons.


It is bad for many reasons. Jefferson said:

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines  
they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the  
souls of those who live under tyranny."   Thomas Jefferson


And the founders of US were strongly opposed to prohibition, which  
they made anticonstitutional:


"Prohibition... goes beyond the bound of reason in that it attempts to  
control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of  
things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the  
very principles upon which our government was founded" -Abraham Lincoln


Prohibition might have been one of the reason why JFK has been  
murdered, and it is a tool for getting power, makes huge benefices and  
control the society by non democratic means. It is a criminal Trojan  
horse to control the government.


Anslinger, Nixon and Reagan, and then Bush, have all ordered studies  
on cannabis and alcohol, and their own studies have revealed that  
cannabis was nothing as dangerous compared to alcohol, but they have  
throw the studies in the trash, and then ordered new pseudo-studies to  
more obedient (pseudo) scientists.


Bruno





Quentin










By googling on cannabis cancer, you will more information. I count  
up to 173 cancers where cannabinoids can help to cure. Many youtbe  
video provides indivvidual witnessing also, notably on babies like  
this one:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcI5tWYr6do


In this case it appears that the main effect of the cannabis was as  
anti-nausea, which of course helps to cure the cancer, while there  
were a half-dozen other drugs that might have killed the cancer  
cells.


It is hard to derive a general proposition from one case. You might  
be right, but it seems that THC injection might just be more  
efficacious again

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-31 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2012/8/31 Bruno Marchal 

>
> On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:01, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 8/29/2012 11:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I might write a longer comment, but I will be a bit busy those days.
>
>  Here are some references on the fact that cannabis can cure cancer:
>
>  Cannabis selectively target cancerous cell, and makes them auto-phage
> (eating themselves):
>
>  http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948(original spain paper)
>
>  And we know that since 1974. When I read that in Jack Herer book, I
> did'nt belive it, until the spanish rediscovered this:
>
>   http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html
>
>  http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm
>
>   http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/
>
>
>
> I see I was too quick in my skepticism about cannabis affecting cancer.
>
>
>  Quentin, did you mix cannabis with tobacco? With alcohol. Those
> combination are known to be addictive, but there is no statistical
> evidences for cannabis alone. I agree with you Quentin, it uses can be
> dangerous, but the use of windows too.
>
>  Brent, there are no evidences that cannabis is a problem for lungs. The
> one found have been debunked:
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
>
>
> I never supposed it did.  I just supposed that drawing smoke in your lungs
> probably isn't good for them.
>
>
> Actually we have good reason to suspect the presence of strong oncogen
> (inducing cancer) molecules in the cannabis tar. The cannabis tar is indeed
> quite dangerous in that respect when studied ... in vitro. But then when
> statistics are done on large human pot smokers population, not only cancers
> don't show up, but a reduction of cancer is observed. The probable
> explanation is that some cannabinoids are more effective against cancer
> than the oncogen molecules.
>

Well I still remain perplex, because the most common usage is joint with
mixing tobacco, what sort of cannabis smocker are taken in those studies ?
How does they choose/find them ? Are those studies representative of the
cannabis smockers ?

Lot of people who smockes cannabis, smockes also cigarettes, does it affect
the result ?

Prohibition is bad, not because "cannabis" could cure cancer, it's bad
because it destroy live for stupid reasons.

Quentin


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  By googling on cannabis cancer, you will more information. I count up to
> 173 cancers where cannabinoids can help to cure. Many youtbe video provides
> indivvidual witnessing also, notably on babies like this one:
>
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcI5tWYr6do
>
>
> In this case it appears that the main effect of the cannabis was as
> anti-nausea, which of course helps to cure the cancer, while there were a
> half-dozen other drugs that might have killed the cancer cells.
>
>
> It is hard to derive a general proposition from one case. You might be
> right, but it seems that THC injection might just be more efficacious
> against cancer than chemo and radio therapies.
>
> Some plant like cannabis and salvia seems to have strong beneficial
> influence of the immune system, but of course we have still a lot to learn.
> From 1800 to 1900, it seems that most medication was based on hemp, and
> that might be true since a much longer time.
>
> The illegality of cannabis is a recent phenomenon, entirely based on lies.
> It is not more dangerous than beer, and actually much less dangerous.
> People habituated to cannabis does not get problem with liver, blood,
> brain, etc. It is, as an inebriant, *much safer than alcohol.
>
> Anyway, drugs problem is a problem of health, not of criminality.
> Addiction is easy to cure, when you don't make the cure illegal, like in
> the US and Belgium, where Tabernanthe iboga is illegal, despite one session
> with it cures addiction. Prohibition leads to corruption and black money
> addiction. It is a killer of democracy.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>  On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:26, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 8/29/2012 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>  We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden
> by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain,
> that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline.
> How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references
> and links on this, but the same lies continue.
>
>
> The media talk about anything.  You're going off the rails there, Bruno.
> There's no way cannabis cures cancer.  If anything, smoking marijuana will
> cause lung cancer - though maybe not so much as tobacco.
>
> Brent
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>  http://irid

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:01, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/29/2012 11:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I might write a longer comment, but I will be a bit busy those days.

Here are some references on the fact that cannabis can cure cancer:

Cannabis selectively target cancerous cell, and makes them auto-
phage (eating themselves):

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948(original spain paper)

And we know that since 1974. When I read that in Jack Herer book, I
did'nt belive it, until the spanish rediscovered this:

http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html

http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm

http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/

I see I was too quick in my skepticism about cannabis affecting
cancer.

Quentin, did you mix cannabis with tobacco? With alcohol. Those
combination are known to be addictive, but there is no statistical
evidences for cannabis alone. I agree with you Quentin, it uses can
be dangerous, but the use of windows too.

Brent, there are no evidences that cannabis is a problem for lungs.
The one found have been debunked:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

I never supposed it did. I just supposed that drawing smoke in your
lungs probably isn't good for them.

Actually we have good reason to suspect the presence of strong oncogen
(inducing cancer) molecules in the cannabis tar. The cannabis tar is
indeed quite dangerous in that respect when studied ... in vitro. But
then when statistics are done on large human pot smokers population,
not only cancers don't show up, but a reduction of cancer is observed.
The probable explanation is that some cannabinoids are more effective
against cancer than the oncogen molecules.

By googling on cannabis cancer, you will more information. I count
up to 173 cancers where cannabinoids can help to cure. Many youtbe
video provides indivvidual witnessing also, notably on babies like
this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcI5tWYr6do

In this case it appears that the main effect of the cannabis was as
anti-nausea, which of course helps to cure the cancer, while there
were a half-dozen other drugs that might have killed the cancer cells.

It is hard to derive a general proposition from one case. You might be
right, but it seems that THC injection might just be more efficacious
against cancer than chemo and radio therapies.

Some plant like cannabis and salvia seems to have strong beneficial
influence of the immune system, but of course we have still a lot to
learn. From 1800 to 1900, it seems that most medication was based on
hemp, and that might be true since a much longer time.

The illegality of cannabis is a recent phenomenon, entirely based on
lies. It is not more dangerous than beer, and actually much less
dangerous. People habituated to cannabis does not get problem with
liver, blood, brain, etc. It is, as an inebriant, *much safer than
alcohol.

Anyway, drugs problem is a problem of health, not of criminality.
Addiction is easy to cure, when you don't make the cure illegal, like
in the US and Belgium, where Tabernanthe iboga is illegal, despite one
session with it cures addiction. Prohibition leads to corruption and
black money addiction. It is a killer of democracy.

Bruno

On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:26, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/29/2012 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american
discovery hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has
been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it
does not yet make the headline.
How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of
references and links on this, but the same lies continue.

The media talk about anything. You're going off the rails there,
Bruno. There's no way cannabis cures cancer. If anything,
smoking marijuana will cause lung cancer - though maybe not so
much as tobacco.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-30 Thread meekerdb

On 8/29/2012 11:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I might write a longer comment, but I will be a bit busy those days.

Here are some references on the fact that cannabis can cure cancer:

Cannabis selectively target cancerous cell, and makes them auto-phage (eating
themselves):

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948(original spain paper)

And we know that since 1974. When I read that in Jack Herer book, I did'nt belive it,
until the spanish rediscovered this:

http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html

http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm

http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/

I see I was too quick in my skepticism about cannabis affecting cancer.

Quentin, did you mix cannabis with tobacco? With alcohol. Those combination are known to
be addictive, but there is no statistical evidences for cannabis alone. I agree with you
Quentin, it uses can be dangerous, but the use of windows too.

Brent, there are no evidences that cannabis is a problem for lungs. The one found have
been debunked:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

I never supposed it did. I just supposed that drawing smoke in your lungs probably isn't
good for them.

By googling on cannabis cancer, you will more information. I count up to 173 cancers
where cannabinoids can help to cure. Many youtbe video provides indivvidual witnessing
also, notably on babies like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcI5tWYr6do

In this case it appears that the main effect of the cannabis was as anti-nausea, which of
course helps to cure the cancer, while there were a half-dozen other drugs that might have
killed the cancer cells.

Brent

Bruno

On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:26, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/29/2012 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden by Bush
senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk
about it, but it does not yet make the headline.
How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references and links on
this, but the same lies continue.

The media talk about anything. You're going off the rails there, Bruno. There's no
way cannabis cures cancer. If anything, smoking marijuana will cause lung cancer -
though maybe not so much as tobacco.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread Bruno Marchal

I might write a longer comment, but I will be a bit busy those days.

Here are some references on the fact that cannabis can cure cancer:

Cannabis selectively target cancerous cell, and makes them auto-phage
(eating themselves):

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948(original spain paper)

And we know that since 1974. When I read that in Jack Herer book, I
did'nt belive it, until the spanish rediscovered this:

http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html

http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm

http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/

Brent, there are no evidences that cannabis is a problem for lungs.
The one found have been debunked:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

By googling on cannabis cancer, you will more information. I count up
to 173 cancers where cannabinoids can help to cure. Many youtbe video
provides indivvidual witnessing also, notably on babies like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcI5tWYr6do

Bruno

On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:26, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/29/2012 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery
hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been
rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does
not yet make the headline.
How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of
references and links on this, but the same lies continue.

The media talk about anything. You're going off the rails there,
Bruno. There's no way cannabis cures cancer. If anything, smoking
marijuana will cause lung cancer - though maybe not so much as
tobacco.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread Jason Resch


Try a google search for: thc anti cancer

There are numerous articles done by different groups that support this  
theory.


Jason

On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:03 PM, meekerdb  wrote:


On 8/29/2012 2:15 PM, John Mikes wrote:


Brent wrote:

I can think of no plausible mechanism whereby cannabis could  
selectively affect cancer cells.


Sorry, this is no argument. You (or any later chap) may learn later- 
on knowledge beyond our present inventory.


And that would be a good reason to think differently later-on.  But  
not now.


Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread meekerdb


On 8/29/2012 2:15 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Brent wrote:
/I can think of no plausible mechanism whereby cannabis could selectively affect cancer 
cells./

/
/Sorry, this is no argument. You (or any later chap) may learn later-on knowledge beyond 
our present inventory.


And that would be a good reason to think differently later-on.  But not now.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread John Mikes

Brent wrote:

*I can think of no plausible mechanism whereby cannabis could selectively
affect cancer cells.*
*
*Sorry, this is no argument. You (or any later chap) may learn later-on
knowledge beyond our present inventory.
Besides: e.g. *Iodo Uracyl* attacks (cancer-) tumor cells selectively, used
mostly in dermatology. Is it unique???

Your second par is perfect. Thank you

JohnM


On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:37 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 8/29/2012 9:02 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>> Research on this is ambiguous and ideologically freighted, but you put
>> your finger on the right spot with: "though maybe not as much". Because
>> given all the toxic compounds from burning carbon based plant matter, the
>> question is why the "smoking cannabis leads to lung cancer" evidence is
>> much more of a mixed bag and less clear, than it ought to be, compared with
>> tobacco smoking.
>>
>> This gap in the figures between regular tobacco users and pure cannabis
>> smokers, allows for the plausible conjecture that there is an
>> anti-cancerous effect (of Cannabis in your bloodstream, irrespective of
>> method of admin; of course smoking augments risk)..
>>
>
> I can think of no plausible mechanism whereby cannabis could selectively
> affect cancer cells.
>
> Survey the studies, these harms are minute compared to risky legal
>> behavior, such as tobacco, alcohol etc.
>>
>
> The great harm of marijuana and cocaine comes from enforcing laws against
> them - ruining people's lives by trials and prison, funding gangs and
> smuggling.  I expect they are harmful to some people as is alcohol, but
> that's small relative to the social cost of law enforcement.
>
> Brent
>
>
>> Prof. David Nutt's work on harm assessment is particularly interesting
>> for anyone wanting a large scale and broad assessment of harms of different
>> drugs in comparison.
>>
>> I think even NIDA found an anti-cancerous effect in their 2006 report,
>> while other studies note the opposite. This is less clear than people think.
>>
>> m
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.**com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread meekerdb


On 8/29/2012 9:02 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Research on this is ambiguous and ideologically freighted, but you put your finger on 
the right spot with: "though maybe not as much". Because given all the toxic compounds 
from burning carbon based plant matter, the question is why the "smoking cannabis leads 
to lung cancer" evidence is much more of a mixed bag and less clear, than it ought to 
be, compared with tobacco smoking.


This gap in the figures between regular tobacco users and pure cannabis smokers, allows 
for the plausible conjecture that there is an anti-cancerous effect (of Cannabis in your 
bloodstream, irrespective of method of admin; of course smoking augments risk).. 


I can think of no plausible mechanism whereby cannabis could selectively affect 
cancer cells.

Survey the studies, these harms are minute compared to risky legal behavior, such as 
tobacco, alcohol etc.


The great harm of marijuana and cocaine comes from enforcing laws against them - ruining 
people's lives by trials and prison, funding gangs and smuggling.  I expect they are 
harmful to some people as is alcohol, but that's small relative to the social cost of law 
enforcement.


Brent



Prof. David Nutt's work on harm assessment is particularly interesting for anyone 
wanting a large scale and broad assessment of harms of different drugs in comparison.


I think even NIDA found an anti-cancerous effect in their 2006 report, while other 
studies note the opposite. This is less clear than people think.


m


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

If you can solve the problem of "what degree of involvement/dependence
towards an idea/substance/drug" is problematic and which is not, then go
ahead. I will certainly read that book.

Personal anecdotes and hyperbolic stuff is everywhere: e.g. the study that
opened this thread.

Even if I take your opinions seriously: nobody here is claiming drugs are
harmless, nobody has precise data on what "common usage" constitutes (if
you have a link to worldwide study on this, with precise accounts of plant
types, their chemical makeup, routes of administration, dosage, daily
quantity consumed etc. please share), what constitutes recreational vs.
"respectable" etc.

If Jimmy Hendrix writes a song alone, having gotten stoned, and his
royalties bring in millions to the family that inherits them afterwards...
is this "respectable" or not? Branson having a great business idea?

Sorry, drugs are harmless compared to (*) historically naturalized
authoritarian governance intertwining with manipulated supply and demand of
goods, weapons, and services through market forces => creates the need for
false heroes, mediocre science, straw men, scapegoats => war on blacks,
gays, drugs, sexuality, terror. This accounts only for tiny part of context
touching the problematic drug use that you cite.

Without them, common sense would dictate that people seek out, and research
be dispatched to finding, drugs that are more euphoric, less toxic, and can
thus be used more sustainably.

Another non-anecdotal example, Prof. David Nutt has found a benzodiazepine
that has dis-inhibition and euphoric qualities of alcohol, with only
minimum of motor-skill loss. It is less toxic, more fun, impossible to
overdose on because concentrations beyond certain limits in bloodstream do
not further augment effect and LD-50 is huge. Not only this, he has found
an antidote to it that will make you ready to drive in 30 minutes.

I'm not claiming this as "cure for alcohol problem". Just stating that we
are technologically ready to do these things and think we could engineer
much better if we were a bit less addicted to money, power, + our own set
of ideologies (the hardest most persistent drug of all, responsible for
every intentional killing in history). Mind altering substances have always
had a minority that abused them to self-destruction, and this will stay
like this. What is left unsaid is that most people find their limits and
survive. This gives a plausible reason for cautious optimism about
human/machine condition.

I don't see Cannabis users, "drugs" or any of the other scapegoats as real
threats/problems. The context I sketch with many unfair reductions here
(see*), that we have naturalized in our day-to-day affairs, in terms of
law, justice, politics, economics creates the foundation for "problematic
cannabis user smoking alone". I don't think she/he really exists, even
though people I know could be described that way. I see them as victims of
the kind of circumstances I point towards in this post. And yes, that is
unnecessary and sad. But it is neither their fault, nor the fault of
Cannabis. They are victims of parasites, bullies, and thieves that have
informational advantage for historical reasons.

m

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
> 2012/8/29 Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
>
>> Agreed. But abuse of anything... is simply abuse.
>>
>
> Wel yes... but abuse is easy with cannabis, if you smoke *everyday* it is
> abuse.
>
> And when you smoke everyday, you often smoke more than one... and that
> condition *is not* rare among cannabis users.
>
> I think it's no more recreational when you start using it alone.
>
> You still can use it that way, but you have to stop pretending it is not
> problematic (the well known, I can stop when I want... I'm not an addict).
> And of all the cannabis users I know, well "recreational" only are the rare
> types, not the common ones...
>
> I'm really not against a non abusive type of usage, but to say it's the
> common usage is to have a beam in the eye...
>
> Quentin
>
>
>> Talking about consciousness altering alternatives on a plant or chemical
>> basis, I maintain that evidence, such as the harm assessment reports of
>> Prof. David Nutt, NIDA studies, papers/sources cited in "The Emperor wears
>> no clothes", suggest that Cannabis dangers and harms are, keeping
>> perspective on the whole set of mind altering substances, minuscule and
>> that the overall BENEFITS of the plant towards society are much greater
>> than we realize.
>>
>> Clicking on the link for "emperor wears no clothes" PDF, can win you a
>> 100 thousand dollars, if you can prove them wrong:
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fbd%2FJack_Herer_-_The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes.pdf&ei=ukY-UOSbBMyT0QXpzIGAAQ&usg=AFQjCNFAY1qMBV1jD6LDWyeA5QM_ERjcyg&sig2=saSV5VJJCh2MgiRD6bUm1Q
>>
>> (If you don't trust the link or it do

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2012/8/29 Platonist Guitar Cowboy 

> Agreed. But abuse of anything... is simply abuse.
>

Wel yes... but abuse is easy with cannabis, if you smoke *everyday* it is
abuse.

And when you smoke everyday, you often smoke more than one... and that
condition *is not* rare among cannabis users.

I think it's no more recreational when you start using it alone.

You still can use it that way, but you have to stop pretending it is not
problematic (the well known, I can stop when I want... I'm not an addict).
And of all the cannabis users I know, well "recreational" only are the rare
types, not the common ones...

I'm really not against a non abusive type of usage, but to say it's the
common usage is to have a beam in the eye...

Quentin


> Talking about consciousness altering alternatives on a plant or chemical
> basis, I maintain that evidence, such as the harm assessment reports of
> Prof. David Nutt, NIDA studies, papers/sources cited in "The Emperor wears
> no clothes", suggest that Cannabis dangers and harms are, keeping
> perspective on the whole set of mind altering substances, minuscule and
> that the overall BENEFITS of the plant towards society are much greater
> than we realize.
>
> Clicking on the link for "emperor wears no clothes" PDF, can win you a 100
> thousand dollars, if you can prove them wrong:
>
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fbd%2FJack_Herer_-_The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes.pdf&ei=ukY-UOSbBMyT0QXpzIGAAQ&usg=AFQjCNFAY1qMBV1jD6LDWyeA5QM_ERjcyg&sig2=saSV5VJJCh2MgiRD6bUm1Q
>
> (If you don't trust the link or it doesn't work, just google "emperor
> wears no clothes jack herrer PDF")
>
> Aside from the usual pothead cliché stuff, I find this book to be good
> honest work and that these questions/conclusions should be further queried.
>
> m
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>> As I said *it can* lead to that, when abusing, what cause the abuse is
>> outside the problem, but occulting the abuse is not good (as all abuse of
>> any drug legal or not).
>>
>> And surely it is easier to not abuse when you are rich and have less
>> living problem than if you're not.
>>
>> And anyway, abuse of cannabis leads to apathy. What cause the abuse is
>> certainly preexisting of the cannabis usage, but if you're subject to easy
>> addiction, you'll fall into it.
>>
>> I'm not saying smocking cannabis is wrong, nor I'm saying it's good, I'm
>> saying consommation must be controlled individually. I'm against
>> prohibition, but I'm also against saying you can use it with no danger.
>>
>> Quentin
>>
>>
>> 2012/8/29 Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
>>
>>> People and science do not distinguish enough between smoking pure
>>> cannabis or hemp and smoking both cannabis and tobacco.
>>>
>>> The latter carries many more health concerns than the former.
>>>
>>> Also the causality: does cannabis lead to depression or is a life framed
>>> for depression at some point, and Cannabis is abused to hide, like alcohol
>>> or heroin etc.?
>>>
>>> Lester Grinspoon from Harvard sees smoking pure Cannabis as an "enhancer
>>> or amplifier" of existing circumstances and traits of user. If a life is
>>> lacking direction, where will cannabis lead? And if a life has direction,
>>> why would Cannabis undermine this?
>>>
>>> I don't think you can equate personal experience with effect of
>>> Cannabis. The logic is crap because of causality problem. Richard Branson
>>> recently asked for weed in the White House: "they didn't have any..."
>>>
>>> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74111.html
>>>
>>> This does not look like a depressed man, respecting your 15 years
>>> experience.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>


 2012/8/29 Bruno Marchal 

>
> On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of
> the retired folk.
> In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing
> random testing
> you may as well wait until retirement.
>
>
> I don't believe in drugs.
>
> A "drug" is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100
> times its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly the
> kids, everywhere.
>
> There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem.
>
> Drug addiction is nowadays easy to cure, with plant like salvia, or
> iboga, or even cannabis, which typically are not drugs, even if cannabis
> can lead some people to some habituation (but still not as grave as TV
> habituation).
>

 No, canabis can lead to real problematic addiction, grave depression,
 and *is not* a drug to take lightly. You should not go the other way around
 as the lies you are fighting and thus lie yourself.

 I've smoked canna

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

Agreed. But abuse of anything... is simply abuse.

Talking about consciousness altering alternatives on a plant or chemical
basis, I maintain that evidence, such as the harm assessment reports of
Prof. David Nutt, NIDA studies, papers/sources cited in "The Emperor wears
no clothes", suggest that Cannabis dangers and harms are, keeping
perspective on the whole set of mind altering substances, minuscule and
that the overall BENEFITS of the plant towards society are much greater
than we realize.

Clicking on the link for "emperor wears no clothes" PDF, can win you a 100
thousand dollars, if you can prove them wrong:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fbd%2FJack_Herer_-_The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes.pdf&ei=ukY-UOSbBMyT0QXpzIGAAQ&usg=AFQjCNFAY1qMBV1jD6LDWyeA5QM_ERjcyg&sig2=saSV5VJJCh2MgiRD6bUm1Q

(If you don't trust the link or it doesn't work, just google "emperor wears
no clothes jack herrer PDF")

Aside from the usual pothead cliché stuff, I find this book to be good
honest work and that these questions/conclusions should be further queried.

m

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> As I said *it can* lead to that, when abusing, what cause the abuse is
> outside the problem, but occulting the abuse is not good (as all abuse of
> any drug legal or not).
>
> And surely it is easier to not abuse when you are rich and have less
> living problem than if you're not.
>
> And anyway, abuse of cannabis leads to apathy. What cause the abuse is
> certainly preexisting of the cannabis usage, but if you're subject to easy
> addiction, you'll fall into it.
>
> I'm not saying smocking cannabis is wrong, nor I'm saying it's good, I'm
> saying consommation must be controlled individually. I'm against
> prohibition, but I'm also against saying you can use it with no danger.
>
> Quentin
>
>
> 2012/8/29 Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
>
>> People and science do not distinguish enough between smoking pure
>> cannabis or hemp and smoking both cannabis and tobacco.
>>
>> The latter carries many more health concerns than the former.
>>
>> Also the causality: does cannabis lead to depression or is a life framed
>> for depression at some point, and Cannabis is abused to hide, like alcohol
>> or heroin etc.?
>>
>> Lester Grinspoon from Harvard sees smoking pure Cannabis as an "enhancer
>> or amplifier" of existing circumstances and traits of user. If a life is
>> lacking direction, where will cannabis lead? And if a life has direction,
>> why would Cannabis undermine this?
>>
>> I don't think you can equate personal experience with effect of Cannabis.
>> The logic is crap because of causality problem. Richard Branson recently
>> asked for weed in the White House: "they didn't have any..."
>>
>> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74111.html
>>
>> This does not look like a depressed man, respecting your 15 years
>> experience.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/8/29 Bruno Marchal 
>>>

 On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of
 the retired folk.
 In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing
 random testing
 you may as well wait until retirement.

 I don't believe in drugs.

 A "drug" is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100
 times its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly the
 kids, everywhere.

 There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem.

 Drug addiction is nowadays easy to cure, with plant like salvia, or
 iboga, or even cannabis, which typically are not drugs, even if cannabis
 can lead some people to some habituation (but still not as grave as TV
 habituation).

>>>
>>> No, canabis can lead to real problematic addiction, grave depression,
>>> and *is not* a drug to take lightly. You should not go the other way around
>>> as the lies you are fighting and thus lie yourself.
>>>
>>> I've smoked cannabis for 15 years I know what I'm talking about and what
>>> problem it can cause. I'm not smoking anymore and hope I never will. I'm
>>> against prohibition, I'm for prevention and good usage. But you must know
>>> that "good" usage is not for everyone and a lot of persons will abuse it
>>> and abuse is problematic, occulting that is a lie.
>>>
>>>

 The case of cannabis is different for cannabis is just hemp, the plant
 that we have cultivated the most on this planet, and it has been made
 illegal just because it was a natural competitor to oil and forest. There
 is a big amount of literature on this, and the fact that cannabis is still
 illegal is a frightening witnessing that most governement are hostage of
 criminals.

 We know since 1974 that cannabis cures ca

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread Quentin Anciaux

As I said *it can* lead to that, when abusing, what cause the abuse is
outside the problem, but occulting the abuse is not good (as all abuse of
any drug legal or not).

And surely it is easier to not abuse when you are rich and have less living
problem than if you're not.

And anyway, abuse of cannabis leads to apathy. What cause the abuse is
certainly preexisting of the cannabis usage, but if you're subject to easy
addiction, you'll fall into it.

I'm not saying smocking cannabis is wrong, nor I'm saying it's good, I'm
saying consommation must be controlled individually. I'm against
prohibition, but I'm also against saying you can use it with no danger.

Quentin

2012/8/29 Platonist Guitar Cowboy 

> People and science do not distinguish enough between smoking pure cannabis
> or hemp and smoking both cannabis and tobacco.
>
> The latter carries many more health concerns than the former.
>
> Also the causality: does cannabis lead to depression or is a life framed
> for depression at some point, and Cannabis is abused to hide, like alcohol
> or heroin etc.?
>
> Lester Grinspoon from Harvard sees smoking pure Cannabis as an "enhancer
> or amplifier" of existing circumstances and traits of user. If a life is
> lacking direction, where will cannabis lead? And if a life has direction,
> why would Cannabis undermine this?
>
> I don't think you can equate personal experience with effect of Cannabis.
> The logic is crap because of causality problem. Richard Branson recently
> asked for weed in the White House: "they didn't have any..."
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74111.html
>
> This does not look like a depressed man, respecting your 15 years
> experience.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2012/8/29 Bruno Marchal 
>>
>>>
>>> On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>> I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of
>>> the retired folk.
>>> In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing
>>> random testing
>>> you may as well wait until retirement.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't believe in drugs.
>>>
>>> A "drug" is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100 times
>>> its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly the kids,
>>> everywhere.
>>>
>>> There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem.
>>>
>>> Drug addiction is nowadays easy to cure, with plant like salvia, or
>>> iboga, or even cannabis, which typically are not drugs, even if cannabis
>>> can lead some people to some habituation (but still not as grave as TV
>>> habituation).
>>>
>>
>> No, canabis can lead to real problematic addiction, grave depression, and
>> *is not* a drug to take lightly. You should not go the other way around as
>> the lies you are fighting and thus lie yourself.
>>
>> I've smoked cannabis for 15 years I know what I'm talking about and what
>> problem it can cause. I'm not smoking anymore and hope I never will. I'm
>> against prohibition, I'm for prevention and good usage. But you must know
>> that "good" usage is not for everyone and a lot of persons will abuse it
>> and abuse is problematic, occulting that is a lie.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The case of cannabis is different for cannabis is just hemp, the plant
>>> that we have cultivated the most on this planet, and it has been made
>>> illegal just because it was a natural competitor to oil and forest. There
>>> is a big amount of literature on this, and the fact that cannabis is still
>>> illegal is a frightening witnessing that most governement are hostage of
>>> criminals.
>>>
>>> We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery
>>> hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in
>>> Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline.
>>>
>>
>> Well do you have reference of that ? And since cannabis as I was using it
>> consisted of smocking it, let me have a lot of doubts about that.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Quentin
>>
>>
>>> How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references
>>> and links on this, but the same lies continue.
>>>
>>> The two most dangerous recreative "drug" are alcohol and tobacco. The
>>> bandits have tried to prohibit alcohol, but prohibition multiply a lot the
>>> dangerousness of the product, so they have to stop it. So now they make
>>> illegal innocuous product like cannabis, so this can last. The illegality
>>> of cannabis is a coup de genie. It deserves the Nobel prize in Crime.
>>>
>>> And prohibition leads to new drugs which copy the one forbidden, like
>>> "wood-alcohol, or brew" when alcohol was prohibited. In Russia they have
>>> made a severe campaign against heroin, and the result is the apparition of
>>> krokodil, a very nasty, highly addictive substance, which make you die in
>>> terrible pain.
>>> In my country, to prevent the spreading of AIDS, they have unofficially
>>> legalize heroin: the result has been a dras

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

People and science do not distinguish enough between smoking pure cannabis
or hemp and smoking both cannabis and tobacco.

The latter carries many more health concerns than the former.

Also the causality: does cannabis lead to depression or is a life framed
for depression at some point, and Cannabis is abused to hide, like alcohol
or heroin etc.?

Lester Grinspoon from Harvard sees smoking pure Cannabis as an "enhancer or
amplifier" of existing circumstances and traits of user. If a life is
lacking direction, where will cannabis lead? And if a life has direction,
why would Cannabis undermine this?

I don't think you can equate personal experience with effect of Cannabis.
The logic is crap because of causality problem. Richard Branson recently
asked for weed in the White House: "they didn't have any..."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74111.html

This does not look like a depressed man, respecting your 15 years
experience.

Regards,
Mark

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
> 2012/8/29 Bruno Marchal 
>
>>
>> On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the
>> retired folk.
>> In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing
>> random testing
>> you may as well wait until retirement.
>>
>>
>> I don't believe in drugs.
>>
>> A "drug" is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100 times
>> its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly the kids,
>> everywhere.
>>
>> There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem.
>>
>> Drug addiction is nowadays easy to cure, with plant like salvia, or
>> iboga, or even cannabis, which typically are not drugs, even if cannabis
>> can lead some people to some habituation (but still not as grave as TV
>> habituation).
>>
>
> No, canabis can lead to real problematic addiction, grave depression, and
> *is not* a drug to take lightly. You should not go the other way around as
> the lies you are fighting and thus lie yourself.
>
> I've smoked cannabis for 15 years I know what I'm talking about and what
> problem it can cause. I'm not smoking anymore and hope I never will. I'm
> against prohibition, I'm for prevention and good usage. But you must know
> that "good" usage is not for everyone and a lot of persons will abuse it
> and abuse is problematic, occulting that is a lie.
>
>
>>
>> The case of cannabis is different for cannabis is just hemp, the plant
>> that we have cultivated the most on this planet, and it has been made
>> illegal just because it was a natural competitor to oil and forest. There
>> is a big amount of literature on this, and the fact that cannabis is still
>> illegal is a frightening witnessing that most governement are hostage of
>> criminals.
>>
>> We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden
>> by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain,
>> that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline.
>>
>
> Well do you have reference of that ? And since cannabis as I was using it
> consisted of smocking it, let me have a lot of doubts about that.
>
> Regards,
> Quentin
>
>
>> How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references
>> and links on this, but the same lies continue.
>>
>> The two most dangerous recreative "drug" are alcohol and tobacco. The
>> bandits have tried to prohibit alcohol, but prohibition multiply a lot the
>> dangerousness of the product, so they have to stop it. So now they make
>> illegal innocuous product like cannabis, so this can last. The illegality
>> of cannabis is a coup de genie. It deserves the Nobel prize in Crime.
>>
>> And prohibition leads to new drugs which copy the one forbidden, like
>> "wood-alcohol, or brew" when alcohol was prohibited. In Russia they have
>> made a severe campaign against heroin, and the result is the apparition of
>> krokodil, a very nasty, highly addictive substance, which make you die in
>> terrible pain.
>> In my country, to prevent the spreading of AIDS, they have unofficially
>> legalize heroin: the result has been a drastic diminution of heroin
>> consumption.
>>
>> Prohibition is the problem, not "drugs". Black money is the problem, and
>> worse, grey money, the investment of balck money in mundane finance, which
>> is making the whole middle class, and the banks, into the hostage of the
>> drugs mafia. Prohibition transforms the planet into a big Chicago.
>>
>> And I was used to separate the "war on drugs" from the "war on terror",
>> but since Obama signed the NDAA bill, I am changing my mind on this. I
>> begin to think that the war on terror is as fake as the war on drugs. Pure
>> fear selling business.
>>
>> But thanks for the retired folk, Richard.
>> Now, I can hardly imagine that a bar will ask your identity cart for a
>> beer, and refuses because you are 74 years old: "sorry, but you are to much
>> young, wait for "growing up""

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

Research on this is ambiguous and ideologically freighted, but you put your
finger on the right spot with: "though maybe not as much". Because given
all the toxic compounds from burning carbon based plant matter, the
question is why the "smoking cannabis leads to lung cancer" evidence is
much more of a mixed bag and less clear, than it ought to be, compared with
tobacco smoking.

This gap in the figures between regular tobacco users and pure cannabis
smokers, allows for the plausible conjecture that there is an
anti-cancerous effect (of Cannabis in your bloodstream, irrespective of
method of admin; of course smoking augments risk).. Survey the studies,
these harms are minute compared to risky legal behavior, such as tobacco,
alcohol etc.

Prof. David Nutt's work on harm assessment is particularly interesting for
anyone wanting a large scale and broad assessment of harms of different
drugs in comparison.

I think even NIDA found an anti-cancerous effect in their 2006 report,
while other studies note the opposite. This is less clear than people
think.

m

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 8/29/2012 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden
> by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain,
> that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline.
> How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references
> and links on this, but the same lies continue.
>
>
> The media talk about anything.  You're going off the rails there, Bruno.
> There's no way cannabis cures cancer.  If anything, smoking marijuana will
> cause lung cancer - though maybe not so much as tobacco.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2012/8/29 Bruno Marchal 

>
> On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the
> retired folk.
> In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing
> random testing
> you may as well wait until retirement.
>
>
> I don't believe in drugs.
>
> A "drug" is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100 times
> its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly the kids,
> everywhere.
>
> There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem.
>
> Drug addiction is nowadays easy to cure, with plant like salvia, or iboga,
> or even cannabis, which typically are not drugs, even if cannabis can lead
> some people to some habituation (but still not as grave as TV habituation).
>

No, canabis can lead to real problematic addiction, grave depression, and
*is not* a drug to take lightly. You should not go the other way around as
the lies you are fighting and thus lie yourself.

I've smoked cannabis for 15 years I know what I'm talking about and what
problem it can cause. I'm not smoking anymore and hope I never will. I'm
against prohibition, I'm for prevention and good usage. But you must know
that "good" usage is not for everyone and a lot of persons will abuse it
and abuse is problematic, occulting that is a lie.


>
> The case of cannabis is different for cannabis is just hemp, the plant
> that we have cultivated the most on this planet, and it has been made
> illegal just because it was a natural competitor to oil and forest. There
> is a big amount of literature on this, and the fact that cannabis is still
> illegal is a frightening witnessing that most governement are hostage of
> criminals.
>
> We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden
> by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain,
> that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline.
>

Well do you have reference of that ? And since cannabis as I was using it
consisted of smocking it, let me have a lot of doubts about that.

Regards,
Quentin


> How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references
> and links on this, but the same lies continue.
>
> The two most dangerous recreative "drug" are alcohol and tobacco. The
> bandits have tried to prohibit alcohol, but prohibition multiply a lot the
> dangerousness of the product, so they have to stop it. So now they make
> illegal innocuous product like cannabis, so this can last. The illegality
> of cannabis is a coup de genie. It deserves the Nobel prize in Crime.
>
> And prohibition leads to new drugs which copy the one forbidden, like
> "wood-alcohol, or brew" when alcohol was prohibited. In Russia they have
> made a severe campaign against heroin, and the result is the apparition of
> krokodil, a very nasty, highly addictive substance, which make you die in
> terrible pain.
> In my country, to prevent the spreading of AIDS, they have unofficially
> legalize heroin: the result has been a drastic diminution of heroin
> consumption.
>
> Prohibition is the problem, not "drugs". Black money is the problem, and
> worse, grey money, the investment of balck money in mundane finance, which
> is making the whole middle class, and the banks, into the hostage of the
> drugs mafia. Prohibition transforms the planet into a big Chicago.
>
> And I was used to separate the "war on drugs" from the "war on terror",
> but since Obama signed the NDAA bill, I am changing my mind on this. I
> begin to think that the war on terror is as fake as the war on drugs. Pure
> fear selling business.
>
> But thanks for the retired folk, Richard.
> Now, I can hardly imagine that a bar will ask your identity cart for a
> beer, and refuses because you are 74 years old: "sorry, but you are to much
> young, wait for "growing up"" a little bit :)
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be used only
>> to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small differences. The
>> paper is mute on the most difficult part to assess, like such a difference.
>> I am not sure such comparision must be itself compared with other "drug",
>> like making similar tests, assuminf they makes sense, which I doubt. How
>> evolve the IQ of people looking everyday at TV, and "sober" people, or
>> alcoholic?
>> To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in statistics in
>> that field, so that paper might be less wrong than usual, but still not
>> very convincing, especially in the conclusion. The policy does not make
>> sense, especially that we are systematically dis-informed about the real
>> outcomes of basically all medication/drugs, and this will last as long as
>> people will accept the nonsensical prohibition (of food and drug) laws,
>> something known to be anticonstitutional in the US since the start. So my
>> first feeling on that paper:

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread meekerdb


On 8/29/2012 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden by Bush 
senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk 
about it, but it does not yet make the headline.
How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references and links on 
this, but the same lies continue.


The media talk about anything.  You're going off the rails there, Bruno.  There's no way 
cannabis cures cancer.  If anything, smoking marijuana will cause lung cancer - though 
maybe not so much as tobacco.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread Stephen P. King

Hear Hear!

On 8/29/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:

I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of
the retired folk.
In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing
random testing

you may as well wait until retirement.

I don't believe in drugs.

A "drug" is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100
times its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly
the kids, everywhere.

There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem.

Drug addiction is nowadays easy to cure, with plant like salvia, or
iboga, or even cannabis, which typically are not drugs, even if
cannabis can lead some people to some habituation (but still not as
grave as TV habituation).

The case of cannabis is different for cannabis is just hemp, the plant
that we have cultivated the most on this planet, and it has been made
illegal just because it was a natural competitor to oil and forest.
There is a big amount of literature on this, and the fact that
cannabis is still illegal is a frightening witnessing that most
governement are hostage of criminals.

We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery
hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered
in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the
headline.
How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of
references and links on this, but the same lies continue.

The two most dangerous recreative "drug" are alcohol and tobacco. The
bandits have tried to prohibit alcohol, but prohibition multiply a lot
the dangerousness of the product, so they have to stop it. So now they
make illegal innocuous product like cannabis, so this can last. The
illegality of cannabis is a coup de genie. It deserves the Nobel prize
in Crime.

And prohibition leads to new drugs which copy the one forbidden, like
"wood-alcohol, or brew" when alcohol was prohibited. In Russia they
have made a severe campaign against heroin, and the result is the
apparition of krokodil, a very nasty, highly addictive substance,
which make you die in terrible pain.
In my country, to prevent the spreading of AIDS, they have
unofficially legalize heroin: the result has been a drastic diminution
of heroin consumption.

Prohibition is the problem, not "drugs". Black money is the problem,
and worse, grey money, the investment of balck money in mundane
finance, which is making the whole middle class, and the banks, into
the hostage of the drugs mafia. Prohibition transforms the planet into
a big Chicago.

And I was used to separate the "war on drugs" from the "war on
terror", but since Obama signed the NDAA bill, I am changing my mind
on this. I begin to think that the war on terror is as fake as the war
on drugs. Pure fear selling business.

But thanks for the retired folk, Richard.
Now, I can hardly imagine that a bar will ask your identity cart for a
beer, and refuses because you are 74 years old: "sorry, but you are to
much young, wait for "growing up"" a little bit :)

Bruno

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote:

Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be
used only to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small
differences. The paper is mute on the most difficult part to
assess, like such a difference. I am not sure such comparision
must be itself compared with other "drug", like making similar
tests, assuminf they makes sense, which I doubt. How evolve the
IQ of people looking everyday at TV, and "sober" people, or
alcoholic?
To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in
statistics in that field, so that paper might be less wrong than
usual, but still not very convincing, especially in the
conclusion. The policy does not make sense, especially that we
are systematically dis-informed about the real outcomes of
basically all medication/drugs, and this will last as long as
people will accept the nonsensical prohibition (of food and drug)
laws, something known to be anticonstitutional in the US since
the start. So my first feeling on that paper: crap.

Bruno

On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

Finally we have the whole story and truth:

Direct link to PDF in question:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffiles%2Fpnas%2F&ei=A7o8UNPENsil0AWCh4CAAg&usg=AFQjCNEnTJj8p7H1m6w40c3PXKIOgjQgQA

Link to abstract:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread Richard Ruquist

I really agree with Bruno. In fact my string cosmology is a product of
smoking,
making "me a crackpot" have a double meaning. But minus the crack
which I have never been interested in. Pot is sufficient but unavailable.
Richard

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmm like the old geezer with a Porsche, who can't sit in it, because of a
> bad back, to compensate for the lifelong frustration of withholding that
> pleasure? Enjoy stuff while we can, minimizing harm potential, no matter
> how old imho.
>
> I find the study designed to create news hysteria. The authors stay
> careful not to make their claims overly seem "reefer madness"; but they
> know the media will do that amplification for them, even given only the
> small differences in results.
>
> I felt throughout, that this is science in "lawyer mode". There's a sense
> that they know where they want to go. Any statistician or lawyer will not
> ask : "What do you honestly think is true?" but instead "Ok, so what do we
> have, and where/how do we want to take this data and present?"
>
> I'm still old fashioned, in that I find questionnaires and cognitive tests
> on long term effects of drugs to be a bit ridiculous. Not one bit of
> empirical evidence other than belief in people's statements and statistical
> error correction (which you can lawyer-bend anyway). Evidence = what some
> people said, no blood measurements to see if statements align with reality,
> no external observation of frequency, dosages involved, kinds of cannabis
> consumed, in what way, just what people say... Like if I walked into a
> physics lab and said that I had evidence, because a friend, who I can't
> disclose, told me that the standard model doesn't hold up. And I can't
> explain why either, I have no basis or set of data for comparison, but my
> result is scientific and valid.
>
> With such low standards, one should get into drug research. Friends tell
> me things too, and they are more reliable than strangers in a study.
>
> And the media amplifies this as discovery with its adhd for advertising.
>
> But its more nuanced than most attempts to bullshit people about such
> complex things. So, it makes a good read for BS detector.
>
> m
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the
>> retired folk.
>> In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing
>> random testing
>> you may as well wait until retirement.
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>> Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be used only
>>> to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small differences. The
>>> paper is mute on the most difficult part to assess, like such a difference.
>>> I am not sure such comparision must be itself compared with other "drug",
>>> like making similar tests, assuminf they makes sense, which I doubt. How
>>> evolve the IQ of people looking everyday at TV, and "sober" people, or
>>> alcoholic?
>>> To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in statistics in
>>> that field, so that paper might be less wrong than usual, but still not
>>> very convincing, especially in the conclusion. The policy does not make
>>> sense, especially that we are systematically dis-informed about the real
>>> outcomes of basically all medication/drugs, and this will last as long as
>>> people will accept the nonsensical prohibition (of food and drug) laws,
>>> something known to be anticonstitutional in the US since the start. So my
>>> first feeling on that paper: crap.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>> On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>>
>>> Finally we have the whole story and truth:
>>>
>>> Direct link to PDF in question:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffiles%2Fpnas%2F&ei=A7o8UNPENsil0AWCh4CAAg&usg=AFQjCNEnTJj8p7H1m6w40c3PXKIOgjQgQA
>>>
>>> Link to abstract:
>>>
>>> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract
>>>
>>> Thank God Lewis Carroll, Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas; such jazz
>>> greats as Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and Gene Krupa; and
>>> the pattern continues right up to modern-day artists and musicians such as
>>> the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Eagles, the Doobie Brothers, Bob
>>> Marley, Jefferson Airplane, Willie Nelson, Buddy RIch, Country Joe & the
>>> Fish, Joe Walsh, David Carradine, David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Lola Falana,
>>> Hunter S. Thompson, Peter Tosh, the Grateful Dead, Cypress Hill, Sinead
>>> O'Connor, Black Crowes, etc.
>>>
>>> Of course, smoking marijuana only enhances creativity for some and not
>>> for others. But so glad to have proof, that they all had to pay for their
>>> sins in terms of neuropsychological decline.
>>>
>>> It makes you dumb. Science has spoken. Dumb, lazy pot

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:

I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve
of the retired folk.
In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military
doing random testing

you may as well wait until retirement.

I don't believe in drugs.

A "drug" is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100
times its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly
the kids, everywhere.

There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem.

We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery
hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered
in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the
headline.
How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of
references and links on this, but the same lies continue.

Bruno

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be used
only to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small
differences. The paper is mute on the most difficult part to assess,
like such a difference. I am not sure such comparision must be
itself compared with other "drug", like making similar tests,
assuminf they makes sense, which I doubt. How evolve the IQ of
people looking everyday at TV, and "sober" people, or alcoholic?
To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in statistics
in that field, so that paper might be less wrong than usual, but
still not very convincing, especially in the conclusion. The policy
does not make sense, especially that we are systematically dis-
informed about the real outcomes of basically all medication/drugs,
and this will last as long as people will accept the nonsensical
prohibition (of food and drug) laws, something known to be
anticonstitutional in the US since the start. So my first feeling on
that paper: crap.

Bruno

On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

Finally we have the whole story and truth:

Direct link to PDF in question:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffiles%2Fpnas%2F&ei=A7o8UNPENsil0AWCh4CAAg&usg=AFQjCNEnTJj8p7H1m6w40c3PXKIOgjQgQA

Link to abstract:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

Hmm like the old geezer with a Porsche, who can't sit in it, because of a
bad back, to compensate for the lifelong frustration of withholding that
pleasure? Enjoy stuff while we can, minimizing harm potential, no matter
how old imho.

I find the study designed to create news hysteria. The authors stay careful
not to make their claims overly seem "reefer madness"; but they know the
media will do that amplification for them, even given only the small
differences in results.

I felt throughout, that this is science in "lawyer mode". There's a sense
that they know where they want to go. Any statistician or lawyer will not
ask : "What do you honestly think is true?" but instead "Ok, so what do we
have, and where/how do we want to take this data and present?"

I'm still old fashioned, in that I find questionnaires and cognitive tests
on long term effects of drugs to be a bit ridiculous. Not one bit of
empirical evidence other than belief in people's statements and statistical
error correction (which you can lawyer-bend anyway). Evidence = what some
people said, no blood measurements to see if statements align with reality,
no external observation of frequency, dosages involved, kinds of cannabis
consumed, in what way, just what people say... Like if I walked into a
physics lab and said that I had evidence, because a friend, who I can't
disclose, told me that the standard model doesn't hold up. And I can't
explain why either, I have no basis or set of data for comparison, but my
result is scientific and valid.

With such low standards, one should get into drug research. Friends tell me
things too, and they are more reliable than strangers in a study.

And the media amplifies this as discovery with its adhd for advertising.

But its more nuanced than most attempts to bullshit people about such
complex things. So, it makes a good read for BS detector.

m

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the
> retired folk.
> In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing
> random testing
> you may as well wait until retirement.
> Richard
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be used only
>> to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small differences. The
>> paper is mute on the most difficult part to assess, like such a difference.
>> I am not sure such comparision must be itself compared with other "drug",
>> like making similar tests, assuminf they makes sense, which I doubt. How
>> evolve the IQ of people looking everyday at TV, and "sober" people, or
>> alcoholic?
>> To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in statistics in
>> that field, so that paper might be less wrong than usual, but still not
>> very convincing, especially in the conclusion. The policy does not make
>> sense, especially that we are systematically dis-informed about the real
>> outcomes of basically all medication/drugs, and this will last as long as
>> people will accept the nonsensical prohibition (of food and drug) laws,
>> something known to be anticonstitutional in the US since the start. So my
>> first feeling on that paper: crap.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>
>> Finally we have the whole story and truth:
>>
>> Direct link to PDF in question:
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffiles%2Fpnas%2F&ei=A7o8UNPENsil0AWCh4CAAg&usg=AFQjCNEnTJj8p7H1m6w40c3PXKIOgjQgQA
>>
>> Link to abstract:
>>
>> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract
>>
>> Thank God Lewis Carroll, Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas; such jazz
>> greats as Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and Gene Krupa; and
>> the pattern continues right up to modern-day artists and musicians such as
>> the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Eagles, the Doobie Brothers, Bob
>> Marley, Jefferson Airplane, Willie Nelson, Buddy RIch, Country Joe & the
>> Fish, Joe Walsh, David Carradine, David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Lola Falana,
>> Hunter S. Thompson, Peter Tosh, the Grateful Dead, Cypress Hill, Sinead
>> O'Connor, Black Crowes, etc.
>>
>> Of course, smoking marijuana only enhances creativity for some and not
>> for others. But so glad to have proof, that they all had to pay for their
>> sins in terms of neuropsychological decline.
>>
>> It makes you dumb. Science has spoken. Dumb, lazy pot smokers
>> under-performing in IQ-Tests. Nothing beats long-term evidence and a sample
>> size of 1000.
>>
>> :) Good science.
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit t

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-29 Thread Richard Ruquist

I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the
retired folk.
In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing
random testing
you may as well wait until retirement.
Richard

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be used only
> to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small differences. The
> paper is mute on the most difficult part to assess, like such a difference.
> I am not sure such comparision must be itself compared with other "drug",
> like making similar tests, assuminf they makes sense, which I doubt. How
> evolve the IQ of people looking everyday at TV, and "sober" people, or
> alcoholic?
> To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in statistics in
> that field, so that paper might be less wrong than usual, but still not
> very convincing, especially in the conclusion. The policy does not make
> sense, especially that we are systematically dis-informed about the real
> outcomes of basically all medication/drugs, and this will last as long as
> people will accept the nonsensical prohibition (of food and drug) laws,
> something known to be anticonstitutional in the US since the start. So my
> first feeling on that paper: crap.
>
> Bruno
>
> On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
> Finally we have the whole story and truth:
>
> Direct link to PDF in question:
>
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffiles%2Fpnas%2F&ei=A7o8UNPENsil0AWCh4CAAg&usg=AFQjCNEnTJj8p7H1m6w40c3PXKIOgjQgQA
>
> Link to abstract:
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract
>
> Thank God Lewis Carroll, Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas; such jazz greats
> as Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and Gene Krupa; and the
> pattern continues right up to modern-day artists and musicians such as the
> Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Eagles, the Doobie Brothers, Bob Marley,
> Jefferson Airplane, Willie Nelson, Buddy RIch, Country Joe & the Fish, Joe
> Walsh, David Carradine, David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Lola Falana, Hunter S.
> Thompson, Peter Tosh, the Grateful Dead, Cypress Hill, Sinead O'Connor,
> Black Crowes, etc.
>
> Of course, smoking marijuana only enhances creativity for some and not for
> others. But so glad to have proof, that they all had to pay for their sins
> in terms of neuropsychological decline.
>
> It makes you dumb. Science has spoken. Dumb, lazy pot smokers
> under-performing in IQ-Tests. Nothing beats long-term evidence and a sample
> size of 1000.
>
> :) Good science.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-28 Thread Bruno Marchal

Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be used
only to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small
differences. The paper is mute on the most difficult part to assess,
like such a difference. I am not sure such comparision must be itself
compared with other "drug", like making similar tests, assuminf they
makes sense, which I doubt. How evolve the IQ of people looking
everyday at TV, and "sober" people, or alcoholic?
To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in statistics
in that field, so that paper might be less wrong than usual, but still
not very convincing, especially in the conclusion. The policy does not
make sense, especially that we are systematically dis-informed about
the real outcomes of basically all medication/drugs, and this will
last as long as people will accept the nonsensical prohibition (of
food and drug) laws, something known to be anticonstitutional in the
US since the start. So my first feeling on that paper: crap.

Bruno

On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

Finally we have the whole story and truth:

Direct link to PDF in question:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffiles%2Fpnas%2F&ei=A7o8UNPENsil0AWCh4CAAg&usg=AFQjCNEnTJj8p7H1m6w40c3PXKIOgjQgQA

Link to abstract:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract

Thank God Lewis Carroll, Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas; such jazz
greats as Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and Gene
Krupa; and the pattern continues right up to modern-day artists and
musicians such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Eagles, the
Doobie Brothers, Bob Marley, Jefferson Airplane, Willie Nelson,
Buddy RIch, Country Joe & the Fish, Joe Walsh, David Carradine,
David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Lola Falana, Hunter S. Thompson, Peter Tosh,
the Grateful Dead, Cypress Hill, Sinead O'Connor, Black Crowes, etc.

Of course, smoking marijuana only enhances creativity for some and
not for others. But so glad to have proof, that they all had to pay
for their sins in terms of neuropsychological decline.

It makes you dumb. Science has spoken. Dumb, lazy pot smokers under-
performing in IQ-Tests. Nothing beats long-term evidence and a
sample size of 1000.

:) Good science.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

2012-08-28 Thread Jason Resch

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Finally we have the whole story and truth:
>
> Direct link to PDF in question:
>
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffiles%2Fpnas%2F&ei=A7o8UNPENsil0AWCh4CAAg&usg=AFQjCNEnTJj8p7H1m6w40c3PXKIOgjQgQA
>
> Link to abstract:
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract
>
> Thank God Lewis Carroll, Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas; such jazz greats
> as Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and Gene Krupa; and the
> pattern continues right up to modern-day artists and musicians such as the
> Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Eagles, the Doobie Brothers, Bob Marley,
> Jefferson Airplane, Willie Nelson, Buddy RIch, Country Joe & the Fish, Joe
> Walsh, David Carradine, David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Lola Falana, Hunter S.
> Thompson, Peter Tosh, the Grateful Dead, Cypress Hill, Sinead O'Connor,
> Black Crowes, etc.
>
> Of course, smoking marijuana only enhances creativity for some and not for
> others. But so glad to have proof, that they all had to pay for their sins
> in terms of neuropsychological decline.
>
> It makes you dumb. Science has spoken. Dumb, lazy pot smokers
> under-performing in IQ-Tests. Nothing beats long-term evidence and a sample
> size of 1000.
>
> :) Good science.
>

Interesting paper.  One thing thing that stood out was that while most
sub-test scores showed declines, there was a general increase in picture
completion tests.  I wonder if other brain regions/functions might
similarly be enhanced, such as musical talent, creative writing, etc. Which
some of the people above are noted for and which IQ tests do not measure.
Also, I am not sure we can take this result as proof of causation.  It does
convincingly show a correlation, but the authors of the paper might not
have accounted for all confounding factors.  Perhaps abstainers care more
about their health and maintaining it, for example, and not only smoke less
or not at all but exercise more and/or eat better.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

28 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information