The Hell?

[Trik'Stari]

I was reading (randomly) the wikipedia article on THC and I found something odd,

 

 

"Other potential long-term effects

A 2008 National Institutes of Health study of 19 chronic heavy marijuana users with cardiac and cerebral abnormalities (averaging 28 g to 272 g (1 to 9+ oz) weekly) and 24 controls found elevated levels of apolipoprotein C-III (apoC-III) in the chronic smokers.^[55] An increase in apoC-III levels induces the development of hypertriglyceridemia."-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol

 

Notice the dosage's. 1 to 9+ OZ weekly.

 

Has no one bothered to tell scientists that even most daily users don't smoke an ounce of pot a week?

[Liam-McShane]

[NInety]

Does this information.... help anyone? Scientists need to quit researching pot and get us living in outer space.

I call dibs on the X-Wing.

[KamiKatze]

1 OZ.... yes, maybe if you really try hard. But 9+?????

 

btw. i expected something about the apolopoprotein.

 

Edit: so if i am not mistaken, the elevated levels of apolipoprotein-C3 leads to hypertriglyceridemia, which in return increases the risk of arteriosclerosis.

 

In short: heavy THC consumption over time increases the risk of heart attacks and stroke? 

[Volbet]

It doesn't really matter how much a normal person can consume in a week. What matters is the amount that is needed to cause an effect. 

They do this with almost every consumable substance out there. This is the reason why we know that eating around 20KG of toothpaste a month will kill you. 

No one is eating that amount of toothpaste, but it's always nice to know.

 

Edit: Research like this might help determining quantities of Tetrahydrocannabinol that can be used in medicin in the future.

[Trik'Stari]

Funny, that you're using a character that at one point tries to steal a joint from Wilson, and is in fact a drug user (the character) but yes.

 

And I was just making the point that they claim things are harmful, after testing ridiculous and unrealistic scenario's. That isn't science, it's Pseudo-science.

 

And yes to space travel.

[Syntaxvgm]

Now meth on the other hand. 

[Trik'Stari]

 

you asked lol

[Vitalius]

And I was just making the point that they claim things are harmful, after testing ridiculous and unrealistic scenario's. That isn't science, it's Pseudo-science.

I wouldn't call it pseudo-science. I'd call it dishonest science. 

Anything is harmful if you take too much of it. You can overdose on water (seriously). 

[Trik'Stari]

I wouldn't call it pseudo-science. I'd call it dishonest science. 

Anything is harmful if you take too much of it. You can overdose on water (seriously). 

 

Well, it is pseudo-science. That's the technical term for inaccurate or dishonest "science", at last according to my last psychology class

[Trik'Stari]

 

just found that, lol

[Syntaxvgm]

If I drink 9x the water I normally drink I might srew something up as well. 

[Enderman]

Funny, that you're using a character that at one point tries to steal a joint from Wilson, and is in fact a drug user (the character) but yes.

 

And I was just making the point that they claim things are harmful, after testing ridiculous and unrealistic scenario's. That isn't science, it's Pseudo-science.

 

And yes to space travel.

I'm pretty sure you don't need any scientific studies to deduce that marijuana use affects your brain in a negative manner. Aka don't do it.

[Volbet]

Well, it is pseudo-science. That's the technical term for inaccurate or dishonest "science", at last according to my last psychology class

Pseudoscience is defined as science that doesn't follow the scientific methode. For what little I know about the study, it probably did follow the scientific methode. 

While the study might be useless for ordinary people, since they can't possibly consume the set amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol, it can give the medical industry very important knowledge.

The science isn't inaccurate nor dishonest, since it states what amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol that is dangerous. It would have been something else, if they had said that smoking marijuana was dangerous no matter what, and hadn't stated the amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol that had been tested. 

[Vendetta]

I'm pretty sure you don't need any scientific studies to deduce that marijuana use affects your brain in a negative manner. Aka don't do it.

In some ways yes, in other ways it enhances it. A lot of the most famous and brilliant astronomers and physicists are known to smoke a lot of pot and other hallucinogenic drugs.

[Trik'Stari]

@Enderman I'm pretty sure the science is inconclusive on that. Long term daily use of any substance is likely bad for you, however the point I am making is that the general held "conventional widsom"  surrounding pot, is mostly myth, or disputed facts.

 

A perfect example of this is the statement, most often made on the news, the pot has 4 times the amount of tar as a single cigarette. This was first advertised in one of those "above the influence" (but not above the influence of others right) commercials, however those commercials no longer appear on TV, why you might ask? Because the original study that proclaimed a single joint to contain 4 times the amount of tar as a single cigarette, was found to have been carried out incorrectly, specifically, the marijuana was not dried at all before it was burned (which is necessary and any stoner will tell you, you can't smoke fresh green pot) and that this was the cause of their results.

 

If you don't want to smoke pot that's fine, great, enjoy boring sobriety and more power to you for it.

 

Not sure what point I was trying to make here, just that science is misused a lot I guess.

[Enderman]

In some ways yes, in other ways it enhances it. A lot of the most famous and brilliant astronomers and physicists are known to smoke a lot of pot and other hallucinogenic drugs.

It is not the weed making them so brilliant...

It is that they are brilliant in the first place, yet still smoke the pot.

 

If what you said was true everyone would be extremely smart because everyone would smoke weed.

[Trik'Stari]

Pseudoscience is defined as science that doesn't follow the scientific methode. For what little I know about the study, it probably did follow the scientific methode. 

What the study might have been is useless for ordinary people, since they can't possibly consume the set amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol. But for the medical industry, this can be important knowledge.

The science isn't inaccurate nor dishonest, since it states what amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol that is dangerous. It would have been something else, if they had said that smoking marijuana was dangerous no matter what, and hadn't stated the amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol that had been tested. 

 

My issue with it is that it's listed under long term effects, they say 1-9+ ounces weekly (which I would say is impossible, even with low grade, high grade would be impossible, you'd pass out) but not of what, (although that may be the person who wrote the wiki article) 1-9+ ounces of THC or pot?

 

I dunno, saw it, thought it was fucked up, decided to say something lol.

[Vendetta]

It is not the weed making them so brilliant...

It is that they are brilliant in the first place, yet still smoke the pot.

 

If what you said was true everyone would be extremely smart because everyone would smoke weed.

It changes your perception on things which is why a lot of them do it. I never said it "makes them brilliant".

[Trik'Stari]

It is not the weed making them so brilliant...

It is that they are brilliant in the first place, yet still smoke the pot.

 

If what you said was true everyone would be extremely smart because everyone would smoke weed.

If you think that, go ahead and throw away all of your favorite music ever made. Drugs are a muse that can provide ample inspiration for a great many things.

 

Also it would be impossible to determine if they would have made said music or not, if they hadn't done drugs.

 

I am not advocating anything just to be clear. Just pointing out what I believe to be incorrect information regarding a drug lol

[Volbet]

My issue with it is that it's listed under long term effects, they say 1-9+ ounces weekly (which I would say is impossible, even with low grade, high grade would be impossible, you'd pass out) but not of what, (although that may be the person who wrote the wiki article) 1-9+ ounces of THC or pot?

 

I dunno, saw it, thought it was fucked up, decided to say something lol.

That is one of the major problems with Wikipedia. While articles might link to the right sources, sometimes they are worded by drunk gorillas.

My best guess is that they mean 1-9+ ounces of THC, since they probably used THC infused oil for the testing. Having people just chimney down joints is not a good way to test this. There would be a lot of factores that could give a wrong reading with that methode. 

And it's good that you remaind sceptical of it. More people should be sceptical. 

[LukaP]

If you think that, go ahead and throw away all of your favorite music ever made. Drugs are a muse that can provide ample inspiration for a great many things.

 

Also it would be impossible to determine if they would have made said music or not, if they hadn't done drugs.

 

I am not advocating anything just to be clear. Just pointing out what I believe to be incorrect information regarding a drug lol

well he does have a point. its not the weed that made them smart.  they were geniuses and used weed to gain a different perspective on the problem which helped them solve it.