> The strongest evidence to date concerns links between marijuana use and substance use disorders and between marijuana use and psychiatric disorders in those with a preexisting genetic or other vulnerability.
> After adjusting for various confounding factors, no association between marijuana use and mood and anxiety disorders was found. The only significant associations were increased risk of alcohol use disorders, nicotine dependence, marijuana use disorder, and other drug use disorders.
It's pretty well established even in hardcore drug communities that drugs aren't for everybody and it's rarely ever the drug itself that caused it. Even without scientific evidence.
And then even the devil gets pointed out how they used the scripture wrong. The point being that the data itself is addressed, rather than just ad hom'ing the devil.
It's a division of the NIH and the article cites a peer-reviewed paper in Biological Psychiatry, so yes, I do think that this is a reliable source of unbiased information. The original study carefully describes its methodology (which is as sound as any neuroscience paper I've read), and was done in London, so you can't argue that the researchers are biased by American government attitudes toward drugs:
Every country, city, and government has a bias and an attitude toward drugs, including London. I hope you're not suggesting (perhaps you improperly worded your comment) that the US government is biased toward drugs but English government is not biased at all and is completely neutral scientifically. If that's what you meant, I think it's specious.
Every person has a bias towards or against anything they choose to take a position on.
I'm saying that the biases of the U.S. government, UK NIH, King's College London, and Palermo University, Italy (the other sponsor of the researchers) are likely to be largely uncorrelated when it comes to drugs. The U.K. does not have the U.S's history of criminalizing specific drugs (marijuana, heroin) simply because they are used by marginalized groups while legalizing others (nicotine, alcohol, caffeine) because they have powerful corporate interests backing them. They undoubtedly have other biases, but in a study of the genetic effects of THC on psychosis those are less likely to be relevant.
One way to minimize the effects of bias, despite its ubiquity, is to seek out multiple independent POVs. Each one of them is individually biased, but when you average them together you get something approximating the truth.
> ...was done in London, so you can't argue that the researchers are biased by American government attitudes toward drugs
Ah, my naive little cultural hegemonist. Sounds like you've live all your life in America. Have a Coke, turn on some Hip Hop, and watch your Mickey Mouse.
If you want to nitpick on the source, this is another source with a full publication:
> Variation at the rs2494732 locus of the AKT1 gene predicted acute psychotic response to cannabis along with dependence on the drug and baseline schizotypal symptoms.
Thanks for this specific info! If anyone reading this has done 23andMe, your ATK1 / rs2494732 genotype is available on there (search for those terms, it comes right up).
The way to contest evidence is to show that either: the statistical analysis has an error in the math, or that there is an issue with the scientific process used to obtain those results.
Wow what a paragon of truth and levelheaded reason, posting some propaganda article that any dumbass can poke holes in and which every dumbass has poked holes in. I love society now, and all of its earnest regard for public discourse and truth instead of just commies, who think they know whats best for everyone, marketing their worldview at any cost.
So that's as far as you got? Didn't like the domain, therefore the study results are bunk?
75% of the authors are affiliated with other institutions, only 3 are with the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
NIDA itself is well-grounded. There have been some instances where they take a more conservative stance given uncertainty in results, but this is still a national scientific institute - not DARE or the DoJ.
Would you care to speculate again about how much time I've spent reading their literature before this discussion? I promise you, it's non-zero. Please try not to dismiss people's positions that shallowly; it's a disservice to the conversation we're trying to have, and it's rude.
I am involved in a number of communities that engage intentionally, even sacramentally, with psychedelics. The amount of sheer bullshit they continue to promulgate on that matter, about which I consider myself advanced-lay to burgeoning-expert, is staggering, and is sufficient for me to be default skeptical of anything else they might have to say. When you lie to me about things I know something about, I'm obligated to trust the rest of your oeuvre somewhat less, aren't I?
Finally, I said nothing whatsoever about the conclusion of the paper under general discussion. In point of fact, I generally agree with it.
Not OP, but FWIW your italicizing of drugabuse.gov also gave me the impression that you were dismissing it purely by domain. I did not ready any rudeness in your parent.
Thanks for your perspective, I appreciate it. I can see that being a legitimate read of the comment, if one punts on the guideline to assume good faith, and interpret people's arguments in the strongest light, rather than, e.g., dismiss them on the basis of formatting.
It's just disappointing when that happens, because I try to engage that way, and assume my comments will be treated the same.
EDIT: That said, I didn't exactly offer much in the way of argument there, did I?
oh thank the cosmos there is someone else who notices. im absolutely fascinated with psychedelic inspired communities, but that being said i certainly do notice a lot of people that tend to just devolve into a mostly coherent glossolalia in order to fit into some perceived archetype of a "woke shaman" or some such, and as someone with a vested interest in the pursuit of shamanism as an aspect of spiritual pursuits, it certainly frustrates me. i mean, to each their own, but i think it kinda poisons the well a bit. words and stuff ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to with "glossolalia", offhand. The shamans I work with variously use a mix of Spanish, English, and Quechua, or Shipibo-Conibo, and although all of those (if moreso the indigenous tongues) have what seem to be "filler words" with no specific (known) meaning, the overwhelming majority of the sounds they utter are recognizably from those languages, or whistling, or whatever.
your statement is soundly countered in a similarly unsupported opinion above. You may not like their domain name but the paper and science behind it appear pretty sound.
