| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
Or as an old friend used to say... "Let's get stupid". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/94262 05/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
because you know that was a very well controlled study based on the honor system. what other factors were/are in play that the study couldn't didn't account for? 5.2% is hardly a finding of statistical significance. not by any means advocating mind altering substance use by minors or youth. the way the articles are framing this kinda reminds me of a movie from 1936. not quite that far over the top but still in yet. personally i think a more important point is that with weed being illegal there is no quality control on the end product you get from your local supplier.... i am more concerned with it being spiked than losing an IQ point or 8. | ||
| Britchri10 |
Reefer madness!!!! | ||
| Sifo |
5.2% is hardly a finding of statistical significance. What was 5.2%? i am more concerned with it being spiked than losing an IQ point or 8. Did you see that for a person of average intelligence to lose 8 points takes them from the 50th percentile down to the 29 percentile? This is bad enough as an individual. It's really scary to think of doing this to a population. Reefer madness!!!! Stupid movie that had little to do with reality. | ||
| Britchri10 |
Nothing to do w/reality IMHO. I don't indulge, never have really & can't for the life of me understand why people do. Still, it's a free country & I don't object to marijuana usage per se. (I wouldn't encourage my child to use it though) Chris C | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
the study of 1000 people there were 52 found to have lost as IQ over the 25yr span. 52/1000=5.2% avg is considered to 100-8=92 still within 'normal' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient and yes that's the point the movie wasn't based on reality and neither is this 'study' nor the way that the media outlets are flapping their gums about it. again i know it's mind altering and i do not think that youth should have access i think of weed the same as i think of alcohol. | ||
| Fast1075 |
 | ||
| Hootowl |
I'm not seeing that 52/1000 number anywhere in the study either. What is does say, is that of the 1 in 20 who started when they were teenagers, 100% of them (the teenage starters) lost IQ points between the test at 13 and the test at 38. If they did not smoke as teenagers, and did as adults, they showed no drop in test scores. Their point is that pot appears to harm non adult brains, but not adult brains. So I'm good to go  | ||
| Hootowl |
<--- does not smoke pot by the way. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Where are the studies showing smoking pot INCREASES intelligence? | ||
| Hootowl |
Give me an hour or two, and I can come up with one. You may have to get really stoned in order to 'get' the results though. There will be lots of really colorful and meaningless pie charts. Oooh! Pie! I'm hungry. | ||
| Britchri10 |
I know many people who think they are smarter 'cause the smoke pot. (Well, they certainly think they are smarter than me) The report on the study quoted above is from the Daily telegraph: A newspaper regarded as having a certain pro-establishment bias. I might trust the results of the study after careful analysis & consideration but I would not trust too much of what the Telegraph tells me. Chris C | ||
| Britchri10 |
Also: if you are not getting quality control from your supplier it may be time to resource your fix from someone else! (Rolls on floor etc' & so forth) Chris C | ||
| Paint_shaker |
Nothing really new in this study... It's pretty much an accepted fact that heavy MJ use over time will dull the brain cells. Also, be it MJ smoke or tobacco smoke neither is good for you. | ||
| Sifo |
the study of 1000 people there were 52 found to have lost as IQ over the 25yr span. 52/1000=5.2% Is this your brain on drugs? You completely misunderstood what they did. You make plenty of claims about this study that wasn't covered in the article. Care to share where this info comes from? I think it's very possible that they considered other possibilities such as alcohol use and did there best to account for this. You may be perfectly happy having your IQ down at the 29th percentile. While that may still be in the range of "normal", it's way on the low end. Congratulations on that! Their point is that pot appears to harm non adult brains, but not adult brains. Actually both were degraded. The degradation on the adult brain was more recoverable though. It is interesting seeing some number put to what is pretty much considered to be common knowledge. It's funny seeing someone trying to deny the obvious. One thing to consider. The potency of pot, through years of selective breeding, has gotten much more potent over the years. That means that teens smoking pot today have a much more potent drug than the teens who smoked pot as part of this study. Intuition tells me that this won't work in their favor. | ||
| Kenm123t |
My ex brother in law is walking proof pot reduces I.Q | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The upside is that studies have shown marijuana to significantly reduce sperm count and motility. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I have a cousin that has been smoking regularly since 10; not a mental giant - but he is the core demographic for reality TV... and the popularity of that genre ought to give you an indication of how pervasive drug use is. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
No Sifo that's not my brain on drugs. I could come up with plenty of personal attacks but won't stoop to your level. When you're ready to not fling personal insults let's chat. | ||
| Sifo |
Sorry Boogiman, but it was just so cliche having the one defending drug us completely misstating what a study has to say. I though it deserved the brain on drugs cliche. So are you saying you don't smoke pot then? On a slightly different note... | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
personal attacks are never warranted here. no i didn't misstate the findings. so take your blind cliches elsewhere. as for your assumption about my personal life again take it somewhere else. thanks for playing from the linked article: Roughly 5 percent of the participants started using marijuana as teenagers. Those who smoked marijuana at least four times a week and used marijuana throughout their life saw their IQ drop an average of 8 points, the equivalent of going from an A to a B student. The drop was not explained by other drug use, years of education, schizophrenia or using marijuana in the day before the test. http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/27/1350950 8-teen-pot-use-linked-to-decline-in-iq my point is that the mainstream media is taking this to an extreme when there are far more important things to be dealt with today. no of course they didnt choose when the study was published. not so much in the article i linked here but in a few other media outlets there were far more damning interpretations of the data presented. once again let me be extremely clear here, children should not have access to or consume mind altering substances. | ||
| Aesquire |
The study shows that intoxication, frequent, habitual intoxication, from late childhood, messes you up. Duh. Now let's repeat that study with... oh, how about Ritalin, and another one with beer. Just curious how stupid we can make ourselves. Any Simpsons fan knows, Focusyn is the answer! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother's_Little_Helper I know of NO study that shows Mary-jew-wanna as an IQ enhancer. Perception enhancement, yes, in small doses, including one from the SUNY NYC med center that did a driving/intox study. taking volunteer students, and getting them high on, separately, booze and reefer, then driving a car ( off road, controlled course ) IIRC they rated each test at 4 different levels of intoxication from mild buzz to hammered. At level 1, booze reduced performance, getting worse at each stage. At level 4, hammered, driving was difficult, dangerous, and stupid, just as you'd think. With maryjane, level 1 improved concentration and scores, by level 2 the stoners were worse than normal, but better than the boozers, Level 3, ditto, level 4... hard to tell the boozers from the stoners, (except for the lack of puking, and the deep desire to stop for snacks) neither should be allowed behind the wheel. So, IMHO the paranoia effects improve safety with cannabis, but only at small doses. Since dosage control is very difficult, and very slightly better than stock cascades to worse quickly and uncontrollably, using #13 to improve driving skills is stupid, risky, and probably futile. One positive thing, out of Israeli research, is that the funny plant has, as one of it's active ingredients, an analogue of a hormone produced in women during labor. Understand, for a chemical to have an effect, other than poison... there is probably a natural product produced in the body, that has similar properties, and chemically key/locks into the metabolism in the same way...more or less. So the body produces all those effects, more or less, on it's own. Usually, recreational drugs push the buttons harder than the natural substance, but not always. In the case of this Hormone Analogue, it is probably the hormone responsible for the continued existence of the Human Race. It makes a women forget how bad labor was. If that hormone is suppressed, they remember. It's not good. "Never a Fracking again. get away from me you idiot!" No one would have more than one baby. Period. In Pot, it's the chemical responsible for potheads forgetting to vote for legalization.  ( I had to go through a long series of seminars on performance enhancing drugs many years ago, ( before EPO came out, if you can believe that! ) as part of a panel determining drug rules for Professional hang gliding...... In the end, since everything either made you gain weight, or get stupid, there was no real performance advantage with anything..... and it was way cheaper to treat people like adults. Think about that. ) | ||
| Sifo |
no i didn't misstate the findings. You most certainly did. You're 5.2% assertion was way off base. First, it was over 1000 people, so your math is incorrect. Secondly, of those people, there was a variety of usage habits. I have no idea where you got the figure of 52 people being negatively affected. I can't find it in the linked article. Care to share? Here's what was said about pot use...
Sounds to me like smoking pot causes an IQ decline. Period! Not in a mere 5.2% of cases. Here it is from the link you just provided...
Sure glad you didn't misstate anything about 5.2% or anything.  | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
5% of the people studied. I think you've misunderstood what I said. Nice how you henpecked the article to suit yourself. Sounds to me like you think I said 5% of weed users experienced issues, that's not what I said. Nor is it what I meant. Take the anger issues elsewhere. | ||
| Sifo |
How was I supposed to take "5.2% is hardly a finding of statistical significance"? That totally misrepresents anything factual. No anger here, but I think it's time for you to stop digging the hole you're standing in. It's only going to get deeper. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
5.2% is factual and as a result is insignificant esp when taking into account the group was only 1000. I'm not even taking into account the unlimited number of variables not covered by this study. There is no hole here. Moving on. | ||
| Sifo |
The group of 1000 had a wide variety of usage patterns varied by both age during use as well as quantity. Bottom line is that consistent usage degrades your IQ an average of 8 points. There is NOTHING insignificant about that. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
Except that study does not and cannot prove that in a scientific manor. Yes it does indicate a link between regular usage during teen years and lower IQ scores it's not a smoking gun though. Which is my issue with the study and the way that the media is treating it. For crying out loud IQ testing itself while generally accepted is not actual proof of anything. The testing methods and questions are something of an inexact science, to paraphrase another article regarding this study. I'm not for minors imbibing in anything other than food, water, education and work. However to take this study and waive it around as if to say 'see I told you so' is bad science which results in bad policy/law. Sadly there are people out there that seem to think a study like this is concrete proof of what honestly is a generally accepted idea. The idea that minors consuming mind altering substances of any kind including those prescribed could have bad effects. | ||
| Reindog |
 | ||
| Sifo |
You are reading a lot into things that just haven't been said. Huge amounts. You also refuse to answer simple direct questions. Why is that? Except that study does not and cannot prove that in a scientific manor. This is how things are sometimes done in science. You can't take a group of human beings and lock them into a lab where you feed them prescribed amounts of drugs. Instead you do studies like this and eliminate the variables the best you can. Science has a long history of doing these sorts of studies and they have methods to eliminate other variables. Yes it does indicate a link between regular usage during teen years and lower IQ scores it's not a smoking gun though. Actually it indicates a link between regular use and lower IQ REGARDLESS of age. It's just worse for teens because the damage seems to be permanent. Why are you misrepresenting these findings? Which is my issue with the study and the way that the media is treating it. How is the media treating this? Seems like fairly straightforward reporting from what I've seen. The study was published and some short articles are written explaining the facts in a readers digest version. For crying out loud IQ testing itself while generally accepted is not actual proof of anything. The testing methods and questions are something of an inexact science, to paraphrase another article regarding this study. No doubt. Most of the issues revolve around cultural issues where certain segments of the population just don't relate as expected by the designers of the tests. This is not an issue in what's being done in this study at all though. It compares the same person at various ages. It matters not how that person relates to the rest of the population. However to take this study and waive it around as if to say 'see I told you so' is bad science which results in bad policy/law. Has policy and law been mentioned at all? Not that I've seen in this thread. Not that I've seen in posted articles either. Sadly there are people out there that seem to think a study like this is concrete proof of what honestly is a generally accepted idea. There was a very positive correlation in this study (not the 5.2% you mentioned). In fact the 8 point drop is the average of the entire group of regular users. Do you really not see this as significant? |
