"Alcohol consumption would fall 25% if cannabis cafes were allowed" says Professor Nutt

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Mr Hyena**

Alcohol, by contrast, is harmless once it's worn off.

Not really. While the liver can regenerate, heavy use is very damaging.

The weed part is right though. Generally, as a rule of thumb, smoking anything is bad for the lungs.

**Testify**

Mr Hyena wrote:
Alcohol, by contrast, is harmless once it's worn off.

Not really. While the liver can regenerate, heavy use is very damaging.

Physically yes.
But I can get drunk and be fine at work tomorrow. Hell to use a very personal example, I've had a few jars tonight watching the match (1-0, wooo). But tomorrow by the time I get to work, I'll be fine.
Compared to weed, if I was high right now, tomorrow I'd be tired all day...I'd be sluggish, slower, making more mistakes, loathe to commit to anything.

**dæl**

Testify wrote:lowers your intelligence.

I'm going to need to see some proof on that one.

Alcohol, by contrast, is harmless once it's worn off.

And that is complete BS, ever heard of cirrhosis?

**Kovnik Obama**

[/b]

And would everyone who smokes weed take it after they are twenty? Are all the academics in agreement with regards to the side effects?

Nah, but they already do smoke it. And it's possible that it would drive kids away. Legal weed would probably see a drop in the price after a while, so illegal dealers would be unable to keep their market at their price. So most pot would be dealt through legal sales point which would be regulated by minimum age sales law. At least in theory...

If one is legal, they should all be, simply because any arguments against allowing the others falls flat.

EXACTLY

Goddamn I love Lincoln's speech at the end of WKUK's War of Independance on Drugs

**Mr Hyena**

At least in theory...

And that is where it falls flat. Like with pretty much everything.

**Testify**

dæl wrote:
Testify wrote:lowers your intelligence.

I'm going to need to see some proof on that one.

Well when I gave up after a few days I could do simultaneous equations again, I also learned (smatterings of) Ancient Greek. When I was stoned logical processes were obscured and difficult. Being sober removes the fog.

dæl wrote:

Alcohol, by contrast, is harmless once it's worn off.

And that is complete BS, ever heard of cirrhosis?

Over a period of decades, sure. Doesn't stop you showing up to work.

**Kovnik Obama**

Testify wrote:
Well no.
It gives you cancer and respiratory diseases.
It also saps your motiviation and lowers your intelligence.
Alcohol, by contrast, is harmless once it's worn off.

I'm a heavy user (everyday for the last 7 years) and my IQ actually jumped 7 points since I started smoking... so...

**Mr Hyena**

Anecdotal evidence. It needs to be confirmed in a Journal.

**Testify**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Testify wrote:
Well no.
It gives you cancer and respiratory diseases.
It also saps your motiviation and lowers your intelligence.
Alcohol, by contrast, is harmless once it's worn off.

I'm a heavy user (everyday for the last 7 years) and my IQ actually jumped 7 points since I started smoking... so...

So give up for a while and marvel at your ability to do complicated sums again.
Seriously, dope makes you stupid and you don't realise until you've given up and a moment comes when you make a logical leap that you realise you wouldn't have made a few days ago.
You also remember things much, much easier, and don't get bored as easily.

**Kovnik Obama**

Mr Hyena wrote:Anecdotal evidence. It needs to be confirmed in a Journal.

well... it'll take at least another 7 years of heavy smoking to arrive at a similar result.

I was planning on stopping soon...

@testify : lool why would I want to do complicated sums when I'm at home, watching a movie or playing a game? Yes, all drugs affect your consciousness... Coffee makes you faster, weed makes you slower... a time and a place...

And no, dope doesn't make me stupid. I've aced Law school exams on weed. I've written a few essays on weed, and always made the grades. It makes ME slower, not dumber. Not the same thing... Other people might have varying side effects...

**Testify**

Mr Hyena wrote:Anecdotal evidence. It needs to be confirmed in a Journal.

There are more things in heaven and earth...
But seriously. Dope makes you stupid. You don't need a journal to tell you that.

**Mr Hyena**

Testify wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:Anecdotal evidence. It needs to be confirmed in a Journal.

There are more things in heaven and earth...
But seriously. Dope makes you stupid. You don't need a journal to tell you that.

I meant the IQ jumping thing.

**MrDwhitey**

No, but you do need more proof than "someone on a forum said so".

That goes for both sides on this.

**Testify**

Mr Hyena wrote:
Testify wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:Anecdotal evidence. It needs to be confirmed in a Journal.

There are more things in heaven and earth...
But seriously. Dope makes you stupid. You don't need a journal to tell you that.

I meant the IQ jumping thing.

IQ is a terrible measure of intelligence. It's essentially meaningless. The only people who disagree are the people who, marvelously, have high IQs.

**dæl**

Testify wrote:
dæl wrote:
Testify wrote:lowers your intelligence.

I'm going to need to see some proof on that one.

Well when I gave up after a few days I could do simultaneous equations again, I also learned (smatterings of) Ancient Greek. When I was stoned logical processes were obscured and difficult. Being sober removes the fog.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, or an example of proof.

I could function perfectly fine when I smoked daily, didn't make me any less intelligent.

**LordofHats**

Kovnik Obama wrote:I'm a heavy user (everyday for the last 7 years) and my IQ actually jumped 7 points since I started smoking... so...

Well you are a philosopher

**Testify**

dæl wrote:
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, or an example of proof.

I could function perfectly fine when I smoked daily, didn't make me any less intelligent.

Yeah I could function too. I held down several jobs and a social life.
If you're going to base this discussion on empirical evidence of cannabis consumption and use, don't have it. There is virtually none, and what there is is so fuzzy so as to be useless.
It's all very well being high minded over the empirical method but there's plenty of things, like this, where there is simply not enough evidence to make a judgement on.

**Kovnik Obama**

LordofHats wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:I'm a heavy user (everyday for the last 7 years) and my IQ actually jumped 7 points since I started smoking... so...

Well you are a philosopher

I don't mean that I gained points of IQ because of the weed. And maybe I would've gained more, just meant that it really 'doesn't make you dumb'. All effects of drugs depend on the set and setting.

**dæl**

Testify wrote:
dæl wrote:
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, or an example of proof.

I could function perfectly fine when I smoked daily, didn't make me any less intelligent.

Yeah I could function too. I held down several jobs and a social life.
If you're going to base this discussion on empirical evidence of cannabis consumption and use, don't have it. There is virtually none, and what there is is so fuzzy so as to be useless.
It's all very well being high minded over the empirical method but there's plenty of things, like this, where there is simply not enough evidence to make a judgement on.

Again, total BS. There have been loads of studies into cannabis.

**Testify**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:I'm a heavy user (everyday for the last 7 years) and my IQ actually jumped 7 points since I started smoking... so...

Well you are a philosopher

I don't mean that I gained points of IQ because of the weed. And maybe I would've gained more, just meant that it really 'doesn't make you dumb'. All effects of drugs depend on the set and setting.

You regard IQ as a mark of intelligence. Based on that, I find it very hard to believe you have any intelligence at all...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:
Testify wrote:
dæl wrote:
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, or an example of proof.

I could function perfectly fine when I smoked daily, didn't make me any less intelligent.

Yeah I could function too. I held down several jobs and a social life.
If you're going to base this discussion on empirical evidence of cannabis consumption and use, don't have it. There is virtually none, and what there is is so fuzzy so as to be useless.
It's all very well being high minded over the empirical method but there's plenty of things, like this, where there is simply not enough evidence to make a judgement on.

Again, total BS. There have been loads of studies into cannabis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis#Memory_and_intelligence

A 2001 study published in Neurology concluded that "very heavy use of marijuana is associated with persistent decrements in neurocognitive performance even after 28 days of abstinence."
The strongest evidence regarding cannabis and memory focuses on its non-acute negative effects on short-term and working memory.

Oh hey, I'm right. I shouldn't have to google something to prove that the monged out stoners laughing at bright colours are less intelligent than they otherwise would be...

**LordofHats**

It is called Intelligence Quotient for a reason. I doubt anyone will claim its an end all be all, but how many geniuses have low IQ's?

And there have been a lot of studies into weed. A lot of them. The debate is usually over their accuracy, not their existence...

**Testify**

LordofHats wrote:It is called Intelligence Quotient for a reason. I doubt anyone will claim its an end all be all, but how many geniuses have low IQ's?

Richard Feynman's was only 125. This is about half the average internet philosopher, and considerably lower than every BA idiot I've ever met.

**dæl**

If we are going down the "very heavy" use route then alcohol is far worse.

Excessive alcohol intake is associated with impaired prospective memory. This impaired cognitive ability leads to increased failure to carry out an intended task at a later date, for example, forgetting to lock the door or to post a letter on time. The higher the volume of alcohol consumed and the longer consumed, the more severe the impairments.[93] One of the organs most sensitive to the toxic effects of chronic alcohol consumption is the brain. In France approximately 20% of admissions to mental health facilities are related to alcohol related cognitive impairment, most notably alcohol related dementia. Chronic excessive alcohol intake is also associated with serious cognitive decline and a range of neuropsychiatric complications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol#Cognition_and_dementia

**Kovnik Obama**

Testify wrote:If you're going to base this discussion on empirical evidence of cannabis consumption and use, don't have it. There is virtually none, and what there is is so fuzzy so as to be useless. It's all very well being high minded over the empirical method but there's plenty of things, like this, where there is simply not enough evidence to make a judgement on.

Wait what, were supposed to use a priori knowledge when discussing marijuana? looool...

**Testify**

dæl wrote:If we are going down the "very heavy" use route then alcohol is far worse.

Excessive alcohol intake is associated with impaired prospective memory. This impaired cognitive ability leads to increased failure to carry out an intended task at a later date, for example, forgetting to lock the door or to post a letter on time. The higher the volume of alcohol consumed and the longer consumed, the more severe the impairments.[93] One of the organs most sensitive to the toxic effects of chronic alcohol consumption is the brain. In France approximately 20% of admissions to mental health facilities are related to alcohol related cognitive impairment, most notably alcohol related dementia. Chronic excessive alcohol intake is also associated with serious cognitive decline and a range of neuropsychiatric complications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol#Cognition_and_dementia

I never said alcohol wasn't worse.
Smoking dope makes you stupid. I've never heard of anyone denying this before...

**LordofHats**

Testify wrote:Richard Feynman's was only 125. This is about half the average internet philosopher, and considerably lower than every BA idiot I've ever met.

Average IQ is 100, and since its a comparative test that scores people by percentages compared to others. Due to score inflation, Feynman would probably actually score higher than 125 were he to take the test today.

**MrDwhitey**

Bah, filthy post changer!

**dæl**

Testify wrote:
I never said alcohol wasn't worse.

Yes, you did

Alcohol, by contrast, is harmless once it's worn off.

LordofHats wrote:
Testify wrote:Richard Feynman's was only 125. This is about half the average internet philosopher, and considerably lower than every BA idiot I've ever met.

Average IQ is 100.

Depends on which test is taken

**LordofHats**

Maybe I misunderstand, but I thought IQ tests were scored so that the median (EDIT: Mean, not median, silly me) score is always 100?

**Testify**

LordofHats wrote:
Testify wrote:Richard Feynman's was only 125. This is about half the average internet philosopher, and considerably lower than every BA idiot I've ever met.

Average IQ is 100, and since its a comparative test that scores people by percentages compared to others. Due to score inflation, Feynman would probably actually score higher than 125 were he to take the test today.

So? He was barely in the top 10% when he took it, hardly a "genius". And I know plenty of people in the top 1% who're bright but hardly "amazing" in the way that people with lower IQs are.
You can't quantify human intelligence beyond very vague notions. It's a gross misunderstanding of what intelligence actually is.