Was this stuff that had no effect in the back of your sock drawer for the last 20 years?
Rick Stevens Psychology Department University of Louisiana at Monroe [email protected] OSGrid - Evert Snicks On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Wuensch, Karl L <[email protected]> wrote: > It stopped having any noticeable effect on me, many years ago. Is > this unusual? How does this happen? > > Cheers, > > Karl L. Wuensch > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Palij [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:48 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Cc: Michael Palij > Subject: re: [tips] Sanjay Gupta on "Why I changed my mind on weed" > > On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 07:54:14 -0700, Carol DeVolder wrote: > >I wonder what impact this more or less open letter will have: > > http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/ > > I've read Gupta's article and the follow-up posts on Tips and I'd like to > make a couple of points: > > (1) Here is the text of what constitutes a Schedule I narcotic according > to the DEA: > > |Schedule I > | > |Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no > |currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule > |I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with > |potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples > |of Schedule I drugs are: > | > |heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), > |3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote > > Anyone who has any experience with marijuana will appreciate the absurdity > of having it identified as a Schedule I drug. Why alcohol is not listed > here is the real question. Oh, and cocaine, methamphetamine (for "Breaking > Bad" fans), oxycodone/OxyContin, adderall, and fentanyl are all Schedule > II, that is, are considered less dangerous drugs than marijuana. Here is > the DEA page: > http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml > > (2) Back when I was in graduate school at Stony Brook, the famed > psychiatrist Max Fink (at SB's Med School's Psychiatry Dept) gave a > colloquium in the psychology department on the effect of marijuana on > cognitive processes (I forget what specifically he had done but a Google > Scholar search for "Max Fink" and marijuana gets a lot of hits from the > 1960s and 1970s. I spoke to Fink after his presentation and asked him if > he had considered studying the effects of marijuana use on priming effects > on the lexical decision task (Roger Schvaneveldt who was one of the > original researchers on this topic was still at Stony Brook at this time). > Fink said it would be an interesting thing to do but it was a great big > pain in the butt getting funding for any research involving marijuana and > if you did get funding, there were all sorts of regulations that one had to > follow that really discouraged people from using it in research. He said > the really foolish and scary thing was that there was research using new > drugs that was far easier to get permission to do and with far less > oversight and regulations but the drugs could be far more dangerous than > marijuana (how dangerous was unknown but if one checks the side > effects/adverse effects of drugs in PDR or one's favorite drug reference, > one should not be surprised to see how often death, stroke, cardiac arrest, > etc., are listed as side effects). > > Others have pointed out that U.S. legal policies concerning drugs were not > rational, did not really rely upon scientific data, and which drugs were > considered "safe" and which were considered "dangerous" often involved > sociocultural and racial considerations. Draw your own conclusion about > the race-drug connection. > > There is an entry on Fink on Wikipedia and it is mostly concerned with his > work with ECT/Electroshock which, as we all know, is far safer than using > marijuana. ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Fink > > For people considering a classroom exercise on the Pro's and Cons of > marijuana for medicinal purposes, see the following handout: > Http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/files/marijuana_notes.pdf > > The U.S. can benefit from a more rational drug policy and legislation. > That it took this long for Sanjay Gupta to realize this about marijuana is > disappointing because that means that there are probably many more > physicians who have some unsubstantiated beliefs about pot but what else is > new? > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13060.c78b93d4d09ef6235e9d494b3534420e&n=T&l=tips&o=27000 > or send a blank email to > leave-27000-13060.c78b93d4d09ef6235e9d494b35344...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f38d&n=T&l=tips&o=27006 > or send a blank email to > leave-27006-13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=27031 or send a blank email to leave-27031-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
