Do girls that smoke pot make bad wife/LTR material?

[Bible_Belt]

The Caribbean is full of long-term chronic users. They're not crazy. They don't have lung cancer or man-t!ts. They seem to still make babies just fine, too. In my experiences there, the massive amounts of pot they smoke do make them somewhat lazy and also apparently inclined to wear funny hats.

 

[st_99]

There seems to be a little bit of an issue with me when you compare drinking and smoking.

Why? Not so much about the effects on physical or mental health, drinking is probably worse pound for pound but, drinking is simply not as easy to do.

You are not going to get drunk before work, you could easily smoke a joint. You can't carry a 12 pack of beer on your sunday errands to the grocery store and laundrey mat. You could though, easily get high in your car or even on your walk to do your sunday errands. You can't sneak off to quickly go get drunk when your kids are annoying you or you need a break from helping them with their homework. You could easily sneak out back and take a couple quick hits of the bowl.

See where I'm going with this? Pot use I think for this reason has to be treated with a little more caution. I think it
becomes more of a dirty little secret more so than alchohol. And for that reason, it may cause nagging LTR issues.

 

[Lexington]

Thank goodness we have google these days and we aren't easily fooled by so-called experts. Being a resident doesn't automatically make you an authority on the subject, and you are clearly, factually wrong:

Actually, I'm not wrong about a single thing that I said. Apparently you lack basic reading comprehension. Even the links you provided were wrong.

http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/li...uana-overdose/

Really? Allaboutcounselling? That's a veritable New England Journal of Medicine right there!

But even so, your own source states:

Marijuana overdose is not thought to cause serious symptoms that can result in the death of the user, and in fatal cases, death is usually due to other drugs or a medical condition of the patient. In fact, the few cases in which marijuana overdose was named as the primary cause of death are highly contested and controversial. This is mostly due to the nature and potency of marijuana. At levels where death due to an overdose of THC (the primary active chemical in marijuana) is thought to be possible, a user would have to take enormous amounts of the drug, far past what is taken for recreational purposes.

In other words, what this article defines as an "overdose" is not a life threatening condition. It will not cause cardiac arrest, it will not suppress respiratory drive, it will not cause loss of consciousness.

Hallucinations, paranoia, vomiting and nausea can be bad things...but that's not what one classically calls an overdose a la alcohol or cocaine OD, which can cause death. Perhaps, I should have said "lethal overdose" but still, if that's the best you can come up with, that's pretty weak sauce.

Red Bull, coffee and even Coca Cola can cause those same symptoms!

The Merck Index lists the LD50 for cannabis in rats at 42 mg/kg. And the only way they could get the rat to inhale that much was by forcing it to inhale long after it had passed out. In other words you have to be really trying hard to kill yourself with pot.

Some random hits on google scholar:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...s_sdt=0% 2C15

Did you bother to read any of those articles? None of those articles contradicted any of my claims. They said marijuana can have some negative health effects...especially if smoked. That's not news to anybody. I never claimed that marijuana does absolutely no harm. In fact there are very few things in that don't.

That still doesn't change the fact that marijuana can be used in moderation just like alcohol and cheeseburgers can.

Results: As joints smoked per week increased, performance decreased on tests measuring memory, executive functioning, psychomotor speed, and manual dexterity. When dividing the group into light, middle, and heavy user groups, the heavy group performed significantly below the light group on 5 of 35 measures and the size of the effect ranged from 3.00 to 4.20 SD units. Duration of use had little effect on neurocognitive performance.

Conclusions: Very heavy use of marijuana is associated with persistent decrements in neurocognitive performance even after 28 days of abstinence. It is unclear if these decrements will resolve with continued abstinence or become progressively worse with continued heavy marijuana use.

A couple of problems with this article right off the bat:
1) Selection bias- this was not a randomized controlled study. They selected people who had similar 4th grade test scores and then divided them into users and non-users. There could be a great many confounding variables which the study cannot control for.
2) Correlation does not prove causation- even a high school statistics student knows this. It shouldn't be a surprise at all that a person who has the time to smoke a lot of pot (as opposed to working, going to school, hitting the gym etc.) is going to do worse than someone who doesn't!

Even the article states that there is only an association. Being black is associated with higher rates of incarceration, poverty and lower levels of education. There aren't too many people who would argue that "blackness" caused these things!

Current users experienced significant increases in anxiety, irritability, physical tension, and physical symptoms and decreases in mood and appetite during marijuana withdrawal. These symptoms were most pronounced during the initial 10 days of abstinence, but some were present for the entire 28-day withdrawal period. These findings support the notion of a marijuana withdrawal syndrome in humans.

It's rather ironic: you start out by saying one shouldn't blindly follow authority (which is correct) and then you go on to cite a bunch of flawed studies. Did you read the details of this study? It was based on questionnaires. In other words it produced ZERO physiological evidence. Essentially what it says is that people who used to smoke a lot of pot but have now withdrawn from it feel crappy. The same could be said for people who stopped gambling or went on a healthy diet after eating tons of junk food.

Even if these are truly "withdrawal symptoms" they are rather mild, don't you think? Alcohol withdrawal causes seizures and hallucinations and can very often lead to death. Even caffeine withdrawal produces significant headaches.

So what we've established here is that pot withdrawal is even less severe than when people stop drinking coffee. Great point there bud.

The “amotivational syndrome” which has been associated with marijuana use has not been examined systematically in relation to marijuana use and mental health [...]
These data suggest that amotivational symptoms observed in heavy marijuana users in treatment are due to depression.

Sciencedirect? This is your idea of a good source? I'll give you a better source on the matter....how about the World Health Organization?

"The evidence for an "amotivational syndrome" among adults consists largely of case histories and observational reports (e.g. Kolansky and Moore, 1971; Millman and Sbriglio, 1986). The small number of controlled field and laboratory studies have not found compelling evidence for such a syndrome (Dornbush, 1974; Negrete, 1983; Hollister, 1986)... (I)t is doubtful that cannabis use produces a well defined amotivational syndrome. It may be more parsimonious to regard the symptoms of impaired motivation as symptoms of chronic cannabis intoxication rather than inventing a new psychiatric syndrome."

Hall et al. conclude that around one in ten people who ever try cannabis will become dependent at some point.[49] For those who use cannabis several times the chance is increased from one in five to one in three and daily users are considered at the greatest risk of dependence with about a one in two chance

Well if Hall et. al. say it, then it must be true!!

Also, I never said that it's not possible to become dependent on pot. One can become psychosomatically dependent on sex, on their relationship partner, on junk food etc. and any number of other things. What I said is that it's impossible to get CHEMICALLY addicted to pot. You've produced no evidence to the contrary.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In conclusion, I'm not claiming that pot has absolutely no negative effects. Obviously inhaling smoke is bad for you (although pot can be vaporized or eaten). And I'm sure it has negative health effects if consumed in massive quantities.

Anything taken in excess can cause problems....even water. The bottom line is that pot is a far less harmful than a lot of other widely used substances.

 

[Boilermaker]

So you singlehandedly refuted every single one of those papers, without citing a single article yourself ... Your reference must be .... um ... your own half-assed comprehension of addiction physiology? So scienceDirect is not a good source? I couldn't see anything YOU showed from WHO yourself, maybe it's because they don't sing from your junkie tune?


ScienceDirect.com | Search through over 10 million science, health ...
www.sciencedirect.com/The world's leading source for scientific, technical, and medical full text research.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier

By the way, the article you so cavalierly refuted has 57 citations, do you know what that means? Why don't you go tell all those authors how you disproved the original claim? That's why I don't even bother reading what you are detailing here. As long as your source is your "gut", you won't make sense.

Unfortunately, I do not have the interest or the time to clean your valiant refutations of peer-reviewed journal articles. Try publishing "something" in ScienceDirect before you trash the entire journal, you'll actually find it harder than bull-sh!tting on SoSuave. Why don't you try this against one of your attendings and see what happens? It's easier to be the top dog here, just because you are a "resident", eh? Whoooo. Re-si-dent! You must be some important nobody at a hospital! What is your resource? Did you have ANY research training? Just because you had some clinical training doesn't make you any more reliable than our brilliant backbreaker here, you realize that right? Are you this brave about "pot" in your psych rotations, resident? Where is this confidence coming from? And most importantly, ARE you or ARE YOU not smoking pot yourself?

What do you experts, call it? Fooling oneself bias?

 

[Lexington]

So you singlehandedly refuted every single one of those papers, without citing a single article yourself ... Your reference must be .... um ... your own half-assed comprehension of addiction physiology?

I didn't necessarily refute the papers. Again, you seem to lack reading comprehension. In most of the cases, I pointed out what the articles said. In most cases you neglected to read them yourself. None of those articles have disproven a single claim of mine.

At best all of those articles could provide was correlations not causation. If you do not understand the difference between those two things, then you have no business discussing this matter at all and you need to retake high school statistics.

So scienceDirect is not a good source?

No it is not a good source. Neither is Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure even most high school teachers won't accept either of these sources in a paper. The fact that you would even ask this question has revealed how utterly clueless you are.

I couldn't see anything YOU showed from WHO yourself, maybe it's because they don't sing from your junkie tune?

http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/who_lexicon/en/

Yup, I'm going to go with the WHO on this one. I think their word carries a little bit more weight than sciencedirect.com

By the way, the article you so cavalierly refuted has 57 citations, do you know what that means?

Yeah, it means jack sh*t.

(1) I claim that there is no evidence of chemical dependence of marijuana
(2) You claim that marijuana can cause chemical dependence
(3) The article is from psychology publication, which used questionnaires to evaluate withdrawal symptoms
(4) The article does not even claim that there is chemical dependence of marijuana

57 publications may have cited it, but they certainly weren't claiming what you were.

Why don't you go tell all those authors how you disproved the original claim?

Do you even read? I didn't even "disprove" the article's claims. I pointed out that it doesn't prove your claim.

What the article claims is that (based on self-reported questionnaires) those who withdrew from marijuana experienced certain symptoms. It did not detail a physiological mechanism of these symptoms and didn't even claim that these symptoms constitute chemical dependence.

Let's look at the symptoms of "cannabis withdrawal" (from the paper that you cited):
-Decreased appetite (marijuana increases appetite, so no big surprise there)
-Increased irritability and anxiety (a 10 year old will show increased irritability and anxiety if you take away his Xbox)
-Decreases in mood

Now let's look at the symptoms of caffeine withdrawal:
-Headache
-Irritability
-Inability to concentrate
-Drowsiness
-Insomnia
-Pain in the stomach, upper body, and joints

(source: http://neuroscience.jhu.edu/griffiths papers/CaffwdReview.2004.pdf, it's an article from Johns Hopkins)

Looks like your cup of coffee is a worse drug than pot in this regard!

Now let's compare that to some of the worst symptoms of alcohol withdrawal:
-seizures
-hallucinations
-agitation
-fever
-dellerium tremens
-catatonia
-death

Pot seems rather mild, doesn't it?

That's why I don't even bother reading what you are detailing here. As long as your source is your "gut", you won't make sense.

You apparently didn't even read the articles that you cited. None of those articles established a chemical dependence on marijuana (and if they did, it's milder than caffeine). None of them demonstrated that it is possible to undergo a lethal overdose of pot without trying very hard.

Very poor work. Try again.







ScienceDirect.com | Search through over 10 million science, health ...
www.sciencedirect.com/The world's leading source for scientific, technical, and medical full text research.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier

By the way, the article you so cavalierly refuted has 57 citations, do you know what that means? Why don't you go tell all those authors how you disproved the original claim? That's why I don't even bother reading what you are detailing here. As long as your source is your "gut", you won't make sense.

Unfortunately, I do not have the interest or the time to clean your valiant refutations of peer-reviewed journal articles. Try publishing "something" in ScienceDirect before you trash the entire journal, you'll actually find it harder than bull-sh!tting on SoSuave. Why don't you try this against one of your attendings and see what happens? It's easier to be the top dog here, just because you are a "resident", eh? Whoooo. Re-si-dent! You must be some important nobody at a hospital! What is your resource? Did you have ANY research training? Just because you had some clinical training doesn't make you any more reliable than our brilliant backbreaker here, you realize that right? Are you this brave about "pot" in your psych rotations, resident? Where is this confidence coming from? And most importantly, ARE you or ARE YOU not smoking pot yourself?

What do you experts, call it? Fooling oneself bias?[/QUOTE]

 

[Boilermaker]

No it is not a good source. Neither is Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure even most high school teachers won't accept either of these sources in a paper. The fact that you would even ask this question has revealed how utterly clueless you are.

Sigh.... Kentucky resident Lexington claims Wikipedia is not a good source, when it comes to scientific articles.

Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.

Here, genius:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Nature is not a good source either right?

You have proven your ignorance beyond the shred of a doubt. FYI, I didn't make any "claims" per se, apart from posting peer-reviewed articles. All you did was to regurgitate "popular" claims even my little brother has once heard in his life from some ignorant fvck on TV. (Like Wikipedia is not a good source and Marijuana is better than coffee!)


And this is what your own source has to say, (WHO)

Cannabis intoxication produces a feeling of euphoria, lightness of the limbs, and often social withdrawal. It impairs driving and the performance of other complex, skilled activities; it impairs immediate recall, attention span, reaction time, learning ability, motor co-ordination, depth perception, peripheral vision, time sense (the individual typically has a sensation of slowed time), and signal detection. Other signs of intoxication may include excessive anxiety , suspiciousness or paranoid ideas in some and euphoria or apathy in others, impaired judgement, conjunctival injection, increased appetite, dry mouth, and tachycardia. Cannabis is sometimes consumed with alcohol, a combination that is additive in its psychomotor effects.

There are reports of cannabis use precipitating a relapse in schizophrenia. Acute anxiety and panic states and acute delusional states have been reported with cannabis intoxication; they usually remit within several days. Cannabinoids are sometimes used therapeutically for glaucoma and to counteract nausea in cancer chemotherapy.

Cannabinoid use disorders are included in the psychoactive substance use disorders in ICD-I0 (classified in Fl2).
See also: amotivational syndrome

 

[Lexington]

Sigh.... Kentucky resident Lexington claims Wikipedia is not a good source, when it comes to scientific articles.

Ah, so you have assumed that just because my screen name is Lexington, I must be from Kentucky? This is yet more evidence of your lack of logical thinking and your flawed methodologies in reaching conclusions.

Nature is not a good source either right?

You have proven your ignorance beyond the shred of a doubt.

You have just proven that you've never even written so much as a high school science paper. Everyone who has ever written a serious scientific paper (even for a high school science class) knows that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source.

But then, it's obvious that you lack even a rudimentary background in science.

FYI, I didn't make any "claims" per se, apart from posting peer-reviewed articles.

And none of those articles even contradicted any of my claims:
-None of those articles established a causal link between cananbis and mental illness
-None of them produced evidence of life threatening withdrawal symptoms from cannabis
-None of them produced evidence of chemical dependency on cannabis
-None of them produced evidence of life threatening physiological effects (i.e. cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, alterations in level of consciousness) from cannabis intoxication

Marijuana is better than coffee!

I cited your own article to show that the withdrawal effects of caffeine are more severe than those of cannabis. So are you now invalidating the claims of the article that you submitted as evidence?

Cannabis intoxication produces a feeling of euphoria, lightness of the limbs, and often social withdrawal. It impairs driving and the performance of other complex, skilled activities; it impairs immediate recall, attention span, reaction time, learning ability, motor co-ordination, depth perception, peripheral vision, time sense (the individual typically has a sensation of slowed time), and signal detection. Other signs of intoxication may include excessive anxiety , suspiciousness or paranoid ideas in some and euphoria or apathy in others, impaired judgement, conjunctival injection, increased appetite, dry mouth, and tachycardia. Cannabis is sometimes consumed with alcohol, a combination that is additive in its psychomotor effects.

This is talking about cannabis intoxication, not long-term effects resulting from cannabis use. Right here you are committing a logical fallacy known as a red herring; no one denied that these symptoms can occur when one is high. In fact many of these symptoms are exactly why people smoke weed in the first place!

There are reports of cannabis use precipitating a relapse in schizophrenia.

You notice that it says "there are reports", therefore this means at best what we have are case reports. This is rated as the lowest level of evidence in medicine with the strongest being randomized controlled trials.

All you have produced are associations between pot use and mental illness. Again, this does not prove causation.

Like I said earlier, there is a pretty strong correlation between being African American and higher rates of incarceration, poverty and lower rates of education. By your logic, being black must be the cause of these things, right?

Acute anxiety and panic states and acute delusional states have been reported with cannabis intoxication;

More statements of facts that no one has denied. I'm sure you will acknowledge that similar or worse symptoms can occur with acute intoxication of alcohol as well.

Cannabinoids are sometimes used therapeutically for glaucoma and to counteract nausea in cancer chemotherapy.

Since we're in the business of citing case reports, there are papers cited in the British Journal of Cancer and the National Review of Cancer reporting anti-tumor effects of cancer in glioblastoma multiforme.

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16804518&dopt=Abstract
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17136871&dopt=Abstract

Cannabinoid use disorders are included in the psychoactive substance use disorders in ICD-I0 (classified in Fl2).

This is either another red herring or an illustration of your poor reading comprehension. Notice I said that the ICD-10 does not have a cannabis withdrawal syndrome. There's a major difference.

See also: amotivational syndrome

If you follow the link to amotivational syndrome, you will find where WHO says that it is a controversial diagnosis and its existence is even questioned (see earlier link).

So in summation, every single one of my original points still stands:

-Cannabis has an extremely low potential for fatal overdose. The only way to achieve the Merck Index LD50 of 42mg/kg in rats is through forced inhalation, even after a person has already passed out. In fact, it is easier to suffer a fatal overdose from drinking too much water (a quick Google search will confirm this)

-Cannabis does not have any known serious withdrawal symptoms. Withdrawal does not cause hallucinations, seizures or cardiac arrest (all of which are possible with alcohol). It doesn't even produce headaches (which are a common symptom of caffeine withdrawal).

-No causal relationship between cannabis use and mental illness has been established.

-Cannabis intoxication has not been shown to cause life threatening effects on the heart, lungs, liver, pancreas or kidney. All of these things have been demonstrated in acute alcohol intoxication.

-There is no evidence of chemical dependency on cannabis.

 

[Boilermaker]

...

Look, I understand your sensitivity about having to defend marijuana but the basic point is it is far more harmful than coffee; and this is scientifically established. This is part of the reasons why it is illegal.

I also didn't even bother mentioning that it has serious secondary effects like binge eating, being a gateway drug, and leading to social functioning problems as it's associated with "amotivational syndrome" and so on.

I don't even need to bring them up. But since you are vehemently defending a "drug", and refuse to comment on whether you are a user or not, I will continue to be "illogical and irrational" and conclude that you have a stake in this ...

that's why your arguments are very shaky and cannot be trusted.

Have a good whiff!

 

[Findog]

leaving the medical issues out of it, the bottom line question is, how do you enjoy a so called serious relationship when your girl is stoned out of her mind? Is she even really there? Or off in la la land, in which case, whats the point?

Speaking from personal experience, I spent a good portion of my twenties self-medicating with pot. I smoked right before I left for work, I smoked as soon as I got home from work, when I came down a couple hours later I smoked again, and then I smoked again right before bed. When I ran out, or when I was close to running out, I would meet up with my connections to re-up.

Those are years I don't get back. What started out as me getting together with my buddies in college getting high together and watching comedies/acting silly together turned into a very solitary activity. I can look back now and see I was numbing my pain with it. It's not the pot that was the problem, it's that I felt the need to abuse something to that degree...to escape or hide from something.

I think it's fine if somebody every now and then tokes up at a party, or on a Saturday night unwinding while watching a movie or whatever. For me, I can't moderate my usage like that. Put a bag in front of me and I will smoke it incessantly until it's gone.

You cannot get physically addicted to pot, but you can use in a way that is self-destructive.

 

[Naughty Ninja]

Don't do drugs kids. Drugs are bad and they make your mom sad. /Thread.

 

[Colossus]

Why don't we all just smoke a joint and chill out.

 

[backbreaker]

I've put some thought into this and after thinking about this long and hard, I think the exact line that I would draw with a girl is that if she kept weed in the house, i.e she uses so much that she has extra weed or has to always have it on hand, than that's not gonna work.

probalby if she had her own pipe as well that's a little bit too much. a joint, a few joints not going to hurt anyone but I mean if she is so serious about the **** where she has her own gear lol i would have to pass

 

[Lexington]

Look, I understand your sensitivity about having to defend marijuana but the basic point is it is far more harmful than coffee; and this is scientifically established. This is part of the reasons why it is illegal.

It is also far less harmful than alcohol and tobacco in terms of health effects. So the fact that it is "harmful" (anything can be harmful to some extent) is not the only reason it is illegal.

And I never said it was less harmful than coffee per se, the only thing that I said is that its withdrawal effects are milder....something supported by your own evidence.

I also didn't even bother mentioning that it has serious secondary effects like binge eating, being a gateway drug

Another poorly-evidenced hypothesis. The gateway drug propaganda (used by the DEA, which has a financial and existential motive to keep pot illegal) is based solely on correlation...no evidence of causation.

and leading to social functioning problems

Another assertion based on weak evidence (at best correlation)

as it's associated with "amotivational syndrome" and so on.

A syndrome whose very existence is questioned.

I don't even need to bring them up. But since you are vehemently defending a "drug", and refuse to comment on whether you are a user or not

Um, when was there ever a refusal to comment? There you go again attributing things to me that I never said or did.....

For what it's worth, I'm 27 years old and I've been partaking of the ganja (roughly once every month) since I was 17. I graduate college summa *** laude, was an above average medical student and I'm a resident at a pretty good university (that's all I'll say about that....don't want to divulge too much).

I don't have so much as a speeding ticket on my record, I'm financially solvent and I have a BMI of 23.2

Seeing as I'm going to be an anesthesiologist, I think it's safe to say that I understand drug physiology and pharmacokinetics better than most

I will continue to be "illogical and irrational"

Yes you will

that's why your arguments are very shaky and cannot be trusted.

Ah, resorting to the old ad hominem logical fallacy I see.

And you are obviously someone who never smoked pot. Perhaps because you were not socially well-adjusted enough to ever be offered pot. This seems to be why your ideas of it seem to be based entirely on U.S. government propaganda.

See what I did there?

 

[Colossus]

I think thats' a decent strategy(not hard line enough for me personally) that recognizes the reality of the situation that so many people including women smoke pot. Its a great strategy in general towards any person that "invests" in such empty hedonism. It tells you a lot about their values and priorities.

"Empty hedonism", lol. Coming from the guy who made a thread a couple months ago about using women for sex. Get off your pious high horse.

 

[st_99]

I think thats' a decent strategy(not hard line enough for me personally) that recognizes the reality of the situation that so many people including women smoke pot.

I agree its a strategy that seems to make sense on a practical level. Like yeah, we're at a friends party, you took a couple hits, congrats for you. But a stash in your nightstand drawer?

 

[Boilermaker]

For what it's worth, I'm 27 years old and I've been partaking of the ganja (roughly once every month) since I was 17 ...

That's all I needed to know. Chronic user , who belittles his own addiction , and has to resort to his inadequate clinical knowledge to explain away the harms of Marijuana. You have very little research training and it shows. Believe me. Congratulations, I can't think of anything more amusing than a cannabis addict wannabe anesthesiologist.

Hope you won't graduate to something with a stronger "kick" from the OR as the years pass by.

:crackup:

 

[Lexington]

That's all I needed to know. Chronic user , who belittles his own addiction , and has to resort to his inadequate clinical knowledge

Inadequate? Says the guy who has never so much as written a science paper. And hey, I'll take my limited knowledge over your zero knowledge.

to explain away the harms of Marijuana. You have very little research training and it shows.

And you have none. You've made that quite obvious with many of your responses.

Believe me. Congratulations, I can't think of anything more amusing than a cannabis addict wannabe anesthesiologist.

And given the way you talk about weed, it's obvious that you know very little about it and it's highly unlikely that you've even tried it. That's okay, you can continue to believe government propaganda and what your mom told you.

By your logic, anyone who drinks a beer more than once a month is also an "addict" seeing as alcohol is more addictive than cannabis and has worse health effects.

And I see you've stopped arguing against my original points, which still stand.

 

[Boilermaker]

Inadequate? Says the guy who has never so much as written a science paper. And hey, I'll take my limited knowledge over your zero knowledge.

I am not going to brag like a teenager like you did, a few posts ago, but, yes, I have written more some "science papers", in fact it just so happens that
my primary job is to "write" papers, unlike attending to diarrhea patients like you do in your ER rotations.

And you have none. You've made that quite obvious with many of your responses.

Hehe, funny you say that. I have been in training for PhD for more than 5 years. I should suck as a research professional by your arguments

And given the way you talk about weed, it's obvious that you know very little about it and it's highly unlikely that you've even tried it. That's okay, you can continue to believe government propaganda and what your mom told you.

I am not engaging your high-schoolish jabs like "oh you must be socially inept if you talk bad about weed cause you never had the chance to try it" ... Because you are trying so hard to get at me, it amuses me to see you try more.

And I see you've stopped arguing against my original points, which still stand.

Your original points include:

1) wikipedia is not a good source: Butchered
2) Elsevier is not a good source because I say so : Butchered.
3) Marijuana does not cause chemical dependency : Butchered.
4) Marijuana isn't the gateway drug because it's correlation and not causation : Irrelevant and completely off topic/ Butchered.
5) I say all this NOT because I have been a chronic user for 10-years: Too ironic to be responded.

I have fulfilled my mission in this post. I don't have the time to point by point address your mediocre fallacies; like how being a lazy resident doesn't make you a research authority on a scientific topic, so on....

That's why I have stopped arguing with you. But go ahead, waste your time.

 

[PrettyBoyAJ]

I have never and would never date a girl seriously if she smoked weed!

Why?

1. Where do you think she gets the weed from. (Probably a dude that is going to try to sell it to her for the cheap and try to exploit her.)

2. I don't smoke, don't like the smell of smoke on peoples breathe.

Just a personal preference for me. If you like to smoke go ahead and do what you got to do. But I just won't take you serious.

 

[Lexington]

I am not going to brag like a teenager like you did, a few posts ago, but, yes, I have written more some "science papers", in fact it just so happens that
my primary job is to "write" papers, unlike attending to diarrhea patients like you do in your ER rotations.

They are certainly not scientific in nature. A person who has ever submitted any serious research knows that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. This is such an elementary fact that it quite clearly illustrates that you are full of sh*t (maybe you need to be seen in the ER?)

Hehe, funny you say that. I have been in training for PhD for more than 5 years. I should suck as a research professional by your arguments

You probably do suck as a research professional seeing as it's taken you more than 5 years and you still haven't earned your PhD!

Whatever you are training in, it's certainly not a scientific field of study. I hate to break it to you pal, but most people don't consider the social "sciences" to be very scientific.

And I'm pretty sure even sociology types know that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for any scientific publication.

I am not engaging your high-schoolish jabs like "oh you must be socially inept if you talk bad about weed cause you never had the chance to try it" ... Because you are trying so hard to get at me, it amuses me to see you try more.

And yet you are not above do-do jokes, it seems.....

Your original points include:

1) wikipedia is not a good source: Butchered

Once again you've demonstrated for us all your lack of research experience.

This one comes straight from the horse's mouth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia):

A caution before citing Wikipedia
As with any source, especially one of unknown authorship, you should be wary and independently verify the accuracy of Wikipedia information if possible. For many purposes, but particularly in academia, Wikipedia may not be an acceptable source;[1] indeed, some professors and teachers may reject Wikipedia-sourced material completely. This is especially true when it is used without corroboration. However, much of the content on Wikipedia is itself referenced, so an alternative is to cite the reliable source rather than the article itself.

We advise special caution when using Wikipedia as a source for research projects. Normal academic usage of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. Remember that Wikipedia is a wiki, which means that anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or adding false information, which the reader may not recognize.

2) Elsevier is not a good source because I say so : Butchered.

Another straw man argument. You are just a textbook example of logical fallacies, aren't you?

3) Marijuana does not cause chemical dependency : Butchered.

Not even a single one of your own sources claimed that marijuana can cause chemical dependency. In fact, your own sources (which I even used), prove my point.

Your best source was a psych paper which was based on surveys. It doesn't even detail a physiologic mechanism by which this so-called "withdrawal syndrome" occurs. And a "withdrawal syndrome" doesn't even imply that there is a chemical dependence.

Even if it does cause "chemical dependence" we have established that the symptoms of withdrawal from cannabis are even milder than those of caffeine.

So, we're still waiting on you to "butcher" the above point because right now, you've got nothing.

4) Marijuana isn't the gateway drug because it's correlation and not causation : Irrelevant and completely off topic/ Butchered.

Not off topic and irrelevant because you were the one who brought it up! But since you decided to take it there, you point was addressed.

If we're going to talk about a gateway drug, then make sure to include alcohol as well. Because most people who have ever snorted coke or done meth have also drank a beer too.

5) I say all this NOT because I have been a chronic user for 10-years: Too ironic to be responded.

Yet another logical fallacy: this time it looks like you're going with a red herring/ad hominem attack combo.

But answer me this, Boilermaker: do you ever consume alcohol? I'm just curious. Given the way that you talk about weed (it's quite obvious you've never tried it), then you must feel even more strongly about booze, right?

I have fulfilled my mission in this post. I don't have the time to point by point address your mediocre fallacies;

So dramatic, aren't we? You've fulfilled your mission? Mediocre fallacies? As opposed to above-average fallacies?

All of your posts have been an exercise in logical fallacies.

like how being a lazy resident doesn't make you a research authority on a scientific topic, so on....

Ah, so I'm a a "lazy resident" according to you. It's a good thing the faculty members I work with don't share your same judgement!

That's why I have stopped arguing with you.

Is that so?

But go ahead, waste your time.

“Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted.” - John Lennon (singer, musician, song-writer, ganja user)

If nothing else, this has been thoroughly amusing.