Alcohol

[Winston Churchill]

its disingenuous to quote peer reviewed scientific research?

Its disingenuous to post a cheery picked article that does not compare with the point one was expressing in the original post.

 

[upthetigers]

Maybe because it was more pure back then? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Not a question of purity, but THC content (what makes you high). Weed in the 60s and 70s had around 3-4% THC content and now it's like 15% on average. If you're smoking high THC strains on a regular basis then you're asking for trouble. Even more reason to legalize the industry so you know what you're getting.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Its disingenuous to post a cheery picked article that does not compare with the point one was expressing in the original post.

The original post was stating that weed is safer than alcohol. it is not safer for people under 25yo. The "article" wasnt an article, it is a peer reviewed meta analysis which is the furthest thing from a "cherry picked article" you can get.

What is disingenous is to argue against scientifically proven research when it contradicts your world view.

 

[The Fresh Oil]

The original post was stating that weed is safer than alcohol. it is not safer for people under 25yo. The "article" wasnt an article, it is a peer reviewed meta analysis which is the furthest thing from a "cherry picked article" you can get.

What is disingenous is to argue against scientifically proven research when it contradicts your world view.

The original post was stating that weed is safer than alcohol. it is not safer for people under 25yo. The "article" wasnt an article, it is a peer reviewed meta analysis which is the furthest thing from a "cherry picked article" you can get.

What is disingenous is to argue against scientifically proven research when it contradicts your world view.

I’ll make it simple for ya.

You said:

On this planet, right here right now, pot is more dangerous to people under 25 than alcohol by a long way. Responsible for majority of youth schizophrenia and bpd. More than doubles the chances of schizophrenia or psychosis.

You then link some tedious references to some limited trials based on a very specific level of THC.

My only issue is your statement that pot is more dangerous than alcohol to a particular age group. It’s just untrue and disingenuous. Australia has a strong drinking culture that starts young and revolves around binge drinking. Alcohol is available almost everywhere. Alcohol can be purchased legally from a young age and no restrictions on potency or amount of the drink.

High level THC cannabis would be no where near as common as a JD a Coke. To compare the impact of a specific type of cannabis to alcohol is really silly, it’s like saying fentanyl laced heroin is worse for you than unlaced heroin. Well duh.

If / when pot Is legalized and then it’s is socially acceptable like booze AND the high level THC is consumed at levels you see people drink then, at that point your statement could be taken seriously.

 

[Pom Tiger]

Seems about right, well, depends how old you are. In my younger days it would be nothing to drink 2 slabs over a BBQ in 6-8hrs. In my 20s I'd down 6-8 pints a night after work at the pub in a few hours, go home and do it again the next day. In the 80s I got arrested in Spain for being publicly intoxicated after drinking 2 bottles of rum and 15 beers at a bar. Never paid the fine and skipped the country, not sure if I'm still wanted in Spain for an unpaid 10,000 peseta fine from 40 years ago

Last time I drank (big one) was about a year ago and that was 5 beers and a few nips of rum and I was done for the night and felt it for a month afterwards. Drinking isn't an old mans game. I reckon once you hit 40 its over, the body cant process it like it used to.

Always up for a Spain war story.

 

[Buttface]

Maybe because it was more pure back then? 🤷🏻‍♂️

More pure? 🤷‍♂️

 

[Mistymuzzle]

I’ll make it simple for ya.

you would struggle to make it anything else.

You said:

On this planet, right here right now, pot is more dangerous to people under 25 than alcohol by a long way. Responsible for majority of youth schizophrenia and bpd. More than doubles the chances of schizophrenia or psychosis.

Because its true. Not because I say its true but because a large number of peer reviewed studies, a meta analysis published by the Lancet, and the associate professor of neurobiology at Stanford University says its true. Your sources?

You then link some tedious references to some limited trials based on a very specific level of THC.

Bullshit. What was the "specific level" of THC in all of those studies? "Tedious references"? The Lancet? Associate professor of Neurology at Stanford? Canadian Association of Neurology? Tedious references? What are your sources?

My only issue is your statement that pot is more dangerous than alcohol to a particular age group. It’s just untrue and disingenuous.

I have posted peer reviewed scientific research saying it is true. What is your source that it is untrue? Because you dont like the message or the messenger?

Australia has a strong drinking culture that starts young and revolves around binge drinking. Alcohol is available almost everywhere. Alcohol can be purchased legally from a young age and no restrictions on potency or amount of the drink.

High level THC cannabis would be no where near as common as a JD a Coke. To compare the impact of a specific type of cannabis to alcohol is really silly, it’s like saying fentanyl laced heroin is worse for you than unlaced heroin. Well duh.

You are making the mistake of looking at the problem at a community level, not an individual level. Alcohol is a much bigger problem in Australian society that weed, but thats not what I said. Weed is more dangerous, for an INDIVIDUAL that is under the age of 25 than alcohol is. Its a simple, scientifically proven fact. Yes more 24 year olds are harmed by alcohol than weed but that is at a society scale and taking into account car accidents etc but on an individual basis, weed is more dangerous than alcohol.

If an 18yo binge drinks every night, but doesnt jump in a car etc (which is just as dangerous on weed), he WILL sober up and recover and if he stops this behaviour when he is 26, he will totally recover with no life altering damages. No matter how much that 18yo drinks, at that age, he will not develop psychosis or schizophrenia.

An 18yo consuming THC at normal current concentrations regularly has more than double the chance of a non THC smoker of developing psychosis and/or schizophrenia.....lifelong. You are not sobering up out of that.

If / when pot Is legalized and then it’s is socially acceptable like booze AND the high level THC is consumed at levels you see people drink then, at that point your statement could be taken seriously.

Why would it only be taken seriously then? Why would it be more dangerous for an individual when its legal than when its not?

Again, this is not my opinion, its the opinion of the Associate Professor of Neurobiology at Stanford, its peer reviewed meta analysis in Lancet, numerous source peer reviewed publications......but Im sure they dont know as much as some loon on a football forum.

 

[Tucker]

you would struggle to make it anything else.



Because its true. Not because I say its true but because a large number of peer reviewed studies, a meta analysis published by the Lancet, and the associate professor of neurobiology at Stanford University says its true. Your sources?

Bullshit. What was the "specific level" of THC in all of those studies? "Tedious references"? The Lancet? Associate professor of Neurology at Stanford? Canadian Association of Neurology? Tedious references? What are your sources?

I have posted peer reviewed scientific research saying it is true. What is your source that it is untrue? Because you dont like the message or the messenger?


You are making the mistake of looking at the problem at a community level, not an individual level. Alcohol is a much bigger problem in Australian society that weed, but thats not what I said. Weed is more dangerous, for an INDIVIDUAL that is under the age of 25 than alcohol is. Its a simple, scientifically proven fact. Yes more 24 year olds are harmed by alcohol than weed but that is at a society scale and taking into account car accidents etc but on an individual basis, weed is more dangerous than alcohol.

If an 18yo binge drinks every night, but doesnt jump in a car etc (which is just as dangerous on weed), he WILL sober up and recover and if he stops this behaviour when he is 26, he will totally recover with no life altering damages. No matter how much that 18yo drinks, at that age, he will not develop psychosis or schizophrenia.

An 18yo consuming THC at normal current concentrations regularly has more than double the chance of a non THC smoker of developing psychosis and/or schizophrenia.....lifelong. You are not sobering up out of that.



Why would it only be taken seriously then? Why would it be more dangerous for an individual when its legal than when its not?

Again, this is not my opinion, its the opinion of the Associate Professor of Neurobiology at Stanford, its peer reviewed meta analysis in Lancet, numerous source peer reviewed publications......but Im sure they dont know as much as some loon on a football forum.

That was a complete and utter destruction of his reply.

 

[Buttface]

On this planet, right here right now, pot is more dangerous to people under 25 than alcohol by a long way. Responsible for majority of youth schizophrenia and bpd. More than doubles the chances of schizophrenia or psychosis.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(22)00161-4/abstract

right now, pot is more dangerous to people under 25 than alcohol by a long way.
I was just wondering, hang on I still haven’t finished laughing. Ok I’m back.
I was just wondering how far “a long way” is and what unit of measure you are using?

 

[Buttface]

But anyway, I don't believe it
I think it's a bunch of bullshit, myself
But I tell you this, man, I tell you this
I don't know what's gonna happen, man, but I wanna have
my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames
Alright!
Jim.

 

[crazycat]

Its disingenuous to post a cheery picked article that does not compare with the point one was expressing in the original post.

I love how the word Disingeuous is in reply to:" The Fresh oil:
Hmmm dunno bout that. Plenty of young fellas messing up their life every weekend under the influence of a jimmy and coke.

Both shit but saying pot is more dangerous to a certain age group seems disingenuous."

Winston is pretty much right here.... It's Cherry picking? (cheery' Cherry picking)..

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

There are a bunch of Peer reviewed articles that disagree with the peer reviewed article quoted. There are also some that agree... but by far the view "Both shit..." kinda sums it up. ... That said, Pot can lead people down a personal Centerlink hole... Maybe Schitzrophenia... Alcahol can lead to people Driving like Michael Shoemacker into a group of school kids.

Ill argue Alcahol is a worse habit, due to drunk driving and drunk fighting.

MistyMuzzle what you have stumbled into is actual debate with hard facts and real evidence. Your article is solid, so are a bunch of others as above. Congrats the world is complex.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

right now, pot is more dangerous to people under 25 than alcohol by a long way.
I was just wondering, hang on I still haven’t finished laughing. Ok I’m back.
I was just wondering how far “a long way” is and what unit of measure you are using?

Go back and read my posts. A 220% increased risk of psychosis and schizophrenia is a long way IMO. The unit used in the meta analysis includes impair years of life.

 

[jadtiger]

But anyway, I don't believe it
I think it's a bunch of bullshit, myself
But I tell you this, man, I tell you this
I don't know what's gonna happen, man, but I wanna have
my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames
Alright!
Jim.

Jim Morrisson at his best

 

[The Fresh Oil]

you would struggle to make it anything else.



Because its true. Not because I say its true but because a large number of peer reviewed studies, a meta analysis published by the Lancet, and the associate professor of neurobiology at Stanford University says its true. Your sources?

Bullshit. What was the "specific level" of THC in all of those studies? "Tedious references"? The Lancet? Associate professor of Neurology at Stanford? Canadian Association of Neurology? Tedious references? What are your sources?

I have posted peer reviewed scientific research saying it is true. What is your source that it is untrue? Because you dont like the message or the messenger?


You are making the mistake of looking at the problem at a community level, not an individual level. Alcohol is a much bigger problem in Australian society that weed, but thats not what I said. Weed is more dangerous, for an INDIVIDUAL that is under the age of 25 than alcohol is. Its a simple, scientifically proven fact. Yes more 24 year olds are harmed by alcohol than weed but that is at a society scale and taking into account car accidents etc but on an individual basis, weed is more dangerous than alcohol.

If an 18yo binge drinks every night, but doesnt jump in a car etc (which is just as dangerous on weed), he WILL sober up and recover and if he stops this behaviour when he is 26, he will totally recover with no life altering damages. No matter how much that 18yo drinks, at that age, he will not develop psychosis or schizophrenia.

An 18yo consuming THC at normal current concentrations regularly has more than double the chance of a non THC smoker of developing psychosis and/or schizophrenia.....lifelong. You are not sobering up out of that.



Why would it only be taken seriously then? Why would it be more dangerous for an individual when its legal than when its not?

Again, this is not my opinion, its the opinion of the Associate Professor of Neurobiology at Stanford, its peer reviewed meta analysis in Lancet, numerous source peer reviewed publications......but Im sure they dont know as much as some loon on a football forum.

Ok, I’ll try again.

On this planet, right here right now, pot is more dangerous to people under 25 than alcohol by a long way

is that in reference to the individual or the demographic?

What does dangerous mean in that context?

To me, dangerous means something that will harm / threaten life.

What you’re saying is people under 25 are in more danger / gave harm from pot over alcohol. That’s just not true and pathetic pearl grabbing.

If you said the small % ( compared to alcohol) of the under 25 population that partake in regular high level THC and have a predisposition to mental disorders have a high possibility of developing long term health problems, I’d have disregarded your post like usual an moved on.

 

[Tucker]

Moderation is the key.
I will say though that the most unreliable people in my life drink. Pot smokers are lethargic and unmotivated but don’t have regular days off like pissheads do.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Ok, I’ll try again.

On this planet, right here right now, pot is more dangerous to people under 25 than alcohol by a long way

is that in reference to the individual or the demographic?

What does dangerous mean in that context?

To me, dangerous means something that will harm / threaten life.

What you’re saying is people under 25 are in more danger / gave harm from pot over alcohol. That’s just not true and pathetic pearl grabbing.

If you said the small % ( compared to alcohol) of the under 25 population that partake in regular high level THC and have a predisposition to mental disorders have a high possibility of developing long term health problems, I’d have disregarded your post like usual an moved on.

But not domestic violence. Alcohol is the clear winner.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Ok, I’ll try again.

On this planet, right here right now, pot is more dangerous to people under 25 than alcohol by a long way

is that in reference to the individual or the demographic?

Individual.

What does dangerous mean in that context?

To me, dangerous means something that will harm / threaten life.

Exactly. The act of an individual drinking alcohol, even regularly to excess when you are less than 25 will not harm or threaten life. The act of regularly smoking weed when you are less than 25yo has a proven causational link to the development of psychosis and/or schizophrenia that is lifelong.

What you’re saying is people under 25 are in more danger / gave harm from pot over alcohol. That’s just not true and pathetic pearl grabbing.

ill let Lancet, the Canadian Association or the Associate Professor of Neurology at Stanford University know that they are wrong and can put their pearls away. Im sure they will be relieved they can get on with their day.

If you said the small % ( compared to alcohol) of the under 25 population that partake in regular high level THC and have a predisposition to mental disorders have a high possibility of developing long term health problems, I’d have disregarded your post like usual an moved on.

You seem to have mistaken me for someone who cares about your opinion.

The research didnt show, because it cant, that people suffering cannabis caused psychosis and/or schizophrenia had a predisposition, however it did prove the causal link and the rate was 220% high over the whole age group, even higher in narrower bands.

In your panic and hysteria to prove me, Andrew Huberman, The Lancet and the scientific establishment wrong, you seem to have missed a critical element. Smoking pot when you are older than 25 is safer than drinking alcohol.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Moderation is the key.
I will say though that the most unreliable people in my life drink. Pot smokers are lethargic and unmotivated but don’t have regular days off like pissheads do.

Agreed on all points

 

[Buttface]

Moderation is the key.
I will say though that the most unreliable people in my life drink. Pot smokers are lethargic and unmotivated but don’t have regular days off like pissheads do.

“Moderation is the key.“ I’ve said that a million times to people in my life, but it seems hard for most people to have self control.

Pot smokers are lethargic and unmotivated

That statement is just incorrect. It’s a choice to smoke and veg or smoke and do something. Ive been smoking this morning (day off), and I’m going to mow the lawn. Now I could sit and veg on the lounge watching the cricket (3/60 odd), but I have chosen to walk The Fonz, wash up the breaky stuff and now mow the lawn. It’s a choice to be lazy don’t blame the pot blame the person for choosing to be lazy and I hate it when people use pot as an excuse for being lazy. I don’t smoke at work though and will not put up with my employees doing it either, people don’t pay you to turn up stoned or pissed or high or whatever. You’ve gotta have standards in life. But when I’m on my time then I want the choice to do what I want. As long as it doesn’t adversely affect others.

 

[Tucker]

“Moderation is the key.“ I’ve said that a million times to people in my life, but it seems hard for most people to have self control.

That statement is just incorrect. It’s a choice to smoke and veg or smoke and do something. Ive been smoking this morning (day off), and I’m going to mow the lawn. Now I could sit and veg on the lounge watching the cricket (3/60 odd), but I have chosen to walk The Fonz, wash up the breaky stuff and now mow the lawn. It’s a choice to be lazy don’t blame the pot blame the person for choosing to be lazy and I hate it when people use pot as an excuse for being lazy. I don’t smoke at work though and will not put up with my employees doing it either, people don’t pay you to turn up stoned or pissed or high or whatever. You’ve gotta have standards in life. But when I’m on my time then I want the choice to do what I want. As long as it doesn’t adversely affect others.

Its 11am and you are finally doing something?
Lazy pothead bum!