Not that I know of offhand. I’m vastly curious as to whether I could beat it, of course—but wouldn’t dare try to find out, even if there were a simulating drug that was supposedly strictly temporary, any more than I dare ride a motorcycle or go skydiving.
We can temporarily disrupt language processing through magnetically-induced electric currents in the brain. As far as anyone can tell, the study subjects suffer no permanent impairment of any kind. Would you be willing to try an anosognosia version of the experiment?
What!? I’m not rational if I rely on my right brain to do it’s job? True rationalists act rational when you take out a big chunk of their circuitry? When you remove a component of your negative feedback loop (I assume: nature uses them often) you should act normal? I’d suspect a person who could would be paranoid that everyone is lying once the right brain is put back online!
From the little I understand, for people both unprepared for the experience (everyone who’s had it) and not thinking of it as a test of rationality (again, everyone), the left brain confabulates elaborate scenarios to justify retaining the beliefs, and the (damaged) right brain fails to adequately consider new hypotheses.
It seems people with stronger left brains, roughly higher IQ, should be more prone to being stupid in this way, and failing the test, than people with less of an ability to justify their beliefs.
My point is that it would give a rationality/intelligence ratio, so its ability to measure rationality depends on our separate ability to measure intelligence which is currently pretty crude. If we can induce measured degrees of artificial anosognosia, and report at what level each subject can no longer save him or herself with rationality, and measure intelligence, then we could nail down rationality more precisely.
My hypothesis is that the smarter someone is, the more impressed we will be with the extent he or she remained rational while being magnetically stultified.
I’ve heard an account of cortisone withdrawal from a generally rational person—she said her hallucinations became more and more bizarre (iirc, a CIA center appeared in her hospital room), and she had no ability to check it for plausibility.
I wonder whether practicing lucid dreaming would give people more ability to remain reflective during non-dream hallucinations.
You should know better. Of course “you” can’t beat it, if the experimenting mad scientist is allowed to delete arbitrary subsystems. You won’t be the same you. What you might have achieved is to force them to shut down more subsystems.
I suspect that by Eliezer’s standards, “beat it” would be defined as “they would be forced to shut down enough subsystems to no longer have any semblance of a functioning intelligence”.
Of course, I doubt that this is possible on the human cognitive architecture, but it would be a nice property of a fault-tolerant AI.
Highly unlikely in a human. I don’t know, but I’d guess that self-checking is one subsystem. Lose that, and the plainest contradictions pass as uninteresting.
On the other hand, the engineering challenge catches my interest. Might there be any way to train other parts of your mind, parts that normally don’t do checking, to sync up if everything is working OK or intervene if the normal part is out of action? Get the right brain in on the act, perhaps. That might give you something like Dune “truth sense” but turned inward. It would certainly feel very different from normal reason.
Conscious-mind rationality is good—might unconscious-mind rationality be better? You could self-monitor even on autopilot.
There are many reasons to expect that the non-conscious part of the mind is largely arational, in the LW senses of rationality. My impression is that it seems to operate mostly on trained responses and associative connections/pattern matching, mediated by emotional responses. In practice this means it can often actually be more rational in certain ways than the conscious mind, because it seems to be better at collecting and correlating information, cf. people who have a non-rational aversion to certain foods for reasons they don’t consciously understand, then years later discover they’re actually allergic to it.
I expect the better approach would be to deliberately train the non-conscious mind to use associations and heuristics derived by the rational conscious mind, and I mean “train” in the sense of “training a dog”.
Any sort of high-level self-monitoring is probably beyond its capabilities, though perhaps recognizing warning signs and alerting the conscious mind would work. Some sort of “panic on unexpected input” type heuristic, I guess.
My own experience with LSD was very pleasant, and didn’t simulate any sort of psychosis or unusual beliefs; it just made everything look big and beautiful and deep, and made me pay closer attention to small details.
Marijuana, on the other hand, has almost always made me temporarily psychotic, or at least paranoid. It’s also very safe physically. I’d be curious to know about any decent rationalists’ attempts to “beat” this or other drugs.
Marijuana, on the other hand, has almost always made me temporarily psychotic, or at least paranoid. It’s also very safe physically. I’d be curious to know about any decent rationalists’ attempts to “beat” this or other drugs.
I’ve used bayesianism to stop myself from being paranoid after smoking marijuana. I don’t get it too badly, but I tend to think random events are related to me, eg that police car driving down the street with it’s sirens on is coming for me, or the runner in the park is here to mug me. Besides being able to understand that I’ll deliberately altered my mental state and can make reference to how I would feel in an unaltered state, I’ve also taken a moment to pause and say something along the lines of “OK, given that it’s highly implausible that the police know I’m high, I have a fairly low prior for ‘random police car is coming for me’. Do I have any evidence that would have caused me to update my beliefs? No. So no reason to believe them”. It works pretty well, but marijuana is a pretty soft drug imho. In my limited experience it’s harder to reason yourself out of adverse mental states that can come from psilocybin a (sufficient quantities of) LSD
Marijuana, on the other hand, has almost always made me temporarily psychotic, or at least paranoid. It’s also very safe physically. I’d be curious to know about any decent rationalists’ attempts to “beat” this or other drugs.
I can easily “beat” alcohol (i.e., think and act the way I would if I were sober—modulo motor impairments) if I want to (unless it is so much as to make me sick). I no longer smoke marijuana that often these days, but the only time I did after finding Less Wrong, I felt like I didn’t want to beat it. I’d have to resolve to try and beat it before smoking it, I think.
Marijuana, on the other hand, has almost always made me temporarily psychotic, or at least paranoid. It’s also very safe physically.
By ‘safe’ it should be clear that Marijuana can be expected to cause a predictable minor about of permanent damage to the brain without, say, killing you.
Psyclobin should be preferred in most cases. It actually gives long term benefits in controlled circumstances.
Decrease in testosterone levels and lower sperm counts for men
Increase in testosterone levels for women and increased risk of infertility
Diminished or extinguished sexual pleasure
Psychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effect
Sleepiness
Difficulty keeping track of time, impaired or reduced short-term memory
Reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination, such as driving a car
Increased heart rate
Potential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart disease
Bloodshot eyes
Dry mouth and throat
Decreased social inhibitions
Paranoia, hallucinations
Impaired or reduced short-term memory
Impaired or reduced comprehension
Altered motivation and cognition, making the acquisition of new information difficult
Paranoia
Psychological dependence
Impairments in learning and memory, perception, and judgment—difficulty speaking, listening effectively, thinking, retaining knowledge, problem solving, and forming concepts
Intense anxiety or panic attacks
Basically, that stuff really messes with your head. The only time I would recommend using it is on the day that you have suffered a severe trauma. It will reduce the amount of impact the trauma will have on the brain (because it totally f*@#s with learning.)
Regarding Psyclobin, look into the John Hopkins Experiment. Basically trippers in a controlled environment reported enhanced life satisfaction even several months after the once-off usage.
Decrease in testosterone levels and lower sperm counts for men
True in a study of very heavy users
Increase in testosterone levels for women and increased risk of infertility
Possibly true in very heavy users, not well studied
Diminished or extinguished sexual pleasure
Possibly true in very heavy users, more typically users feel increased sexual pressure
My main dispute was that your source for evidence was bad because it confused classes of users. I think you are also confused about this.
The study of psylocybin at Johns Hopkins involved giving middle aged, religious people psylocybin under carefully controlled settings. It is indeed interesting research that they had mainly very positive experiences. I suspect that similar results would have been observed if cannabis extract or THC compounds would have been administered as an alternative in the Johns Hopkins psylocybin study. Remember that the study was only for one time use of a drug in non-drug users.
If the research subjects were instead administered psylocybin twice a week for a year, many of them would go crazy. If marijuana causes damage to the brain, psylocybin causes orders of magnitude more brain damage. Just ask a psylocybin user to multiply two digit numbers and see what happens.
If you are seriously concerned that marijuana will cause permanent brain damage after one use, then it is irrational to think that consuming psylocybin is a good idea.
If you are seriously concerned that marijuana will cause permanent brain damage after one use, then it is irrational to think that consuming psylocybin is a good idea.
That sounds like an extremely bizarre belief to have and definitely not one that I have expressed. Why on earth would I think that one use of maijuana would have a significant long term effect? I no more believe such a thing as believe one cigarette will cause lung cancer.
My main dispute was that your source for evidence was bad because it confused classes of users. I think you are also confused about this.
You have made an incorrect assumption about my beliefs. I supplied a basic reference to the well known consequences of heavy marijuana use from a random google from many similar references including wikipedia result because saying ‘just f@#$ google it’ would be rude. It wasn’t an argument and if it was treated as such the flaw would be the ‘appeal to common knowledge’ conversation halter.
The study of psylocybin at Johns Hopkins involved giving middle aged, religious people psylocybin under carefully controlled settings.
My claim was (and is) ‘it actually gives long term benefits in controlled circumstances’.
I suspect that similar results would have been observed if cannabis extract or THC compounds would have been administered as an alternative in the Johns Hopkins psylocybin study.
I don’t think you have updated on the significant part of the findings of the research. A single use of the drug gave significant measurable benefits even months later. That is something that is basically unheard of in any drug, natural or pharmaceutically manufactured. There has never been any such finding for cannabis and expecting one makes a mockery of the prior.
I would confidently bet on the results of an experiment on a single use of marijuana vs a single use of psilocybin vs a control, all under positive and controlled circumstances. After three months had passed I would expect no difference between the marijuana group and the control group. I would expect positive improvement in the reported wellbeing and life satisfaction of the psilocybin group. That is absolutely fascinating and worth more research and possibly consideration by those who a comfortable tweaking their brains.
If the research subjects were instead administered psylocybin twice a week for a year, many of them would go crazy.
Probably. Don’t do that.
If you are seriously concerned that marijuana will cause permanent brain damage after one use, then it is irrational to think that consuming psylocybin is a good idea.
Marijuana is something I would never consider for anything except possibly the traumatic experiences that I mentioned. In that case I would use it for much the same reason I would use radiation to treat cancer. Let it mess with the bad stuff in a controlled way. As a recreational drug it is of no use to me. I have dozens of compounds sitting on my shelves that would give a better experience with less negative side effects in either the short or long term. Marijuana is strictly inferior. Psylocybin on the other hand I may have a use for. It achieves something that no other substance I am aware of can manage.
Sorry if I’ve been overly argumentative, our posts and the karma points do not express the sentiment that our actual beliefs are actually probably really close. Again, I was mostly just annoyed about that list of side effects.
My cavalier use of a random non-authoritative source was certainly asking for trouble. When I have that much contempt for a subject I am almost always better off not commenting.
Thanks for answering my earlier question, especially about the psilocybin study. That is really interesting. Also thanks for the NIH study links, though I hope you realize that claiming there are long-term side effects from a small amount of marijuana use is a very controversial claim.
I would confidently bet on the results of an experiment on a single use of marijuana vs a single use of psilocybin vs a control, all under positive and controlled circumstances. After three months had passed I would expect no difference between the marijuana group and the control group. I would expect positive improvement in the reported wellbeing and life satisfaction of the psilocybin group.
And I would confidently bet that you’d find increased well-being for both the marijuana and psilocybin groups after only one use. I may be biased because I personally experienced increased well-being for months after my first use of marijuana. A pity we can’t actually do the experiment.
When I have that much contempt for a subject I am almost always better off not commenting.
No, I do appreciate your comments, even though that list wasn’t exactly authoritative. I’m curious why you have so much contempt for marijuana: personal experience, or those NIH studies about psychosis?
though I hope you realize that claiming there are long-term side effects from a small amount of marijuana use is a very controversial claim.
I wouldn’t claim that a small amount of marijuana use would have have significant effects. It would have minor effects. I would it in the ballpark of ‘going a week without exercise’ in terms of neurological impact. It would be extremely controversial to claim that frequent marijuana use does no damage, which is something I presume is mere common knowledge.
And I would confidently bet that you’d find increased well-being for both the marijuana and psilocybin groups after only one use.
You’re on. Although I’ve adjusted my prediction slightly based on your anecdotal report. I had never heard someone report such an affect from a one time use of pot.
A pity we can’t actually do the experiment.
Absolutely. This is the sort of thing that warrants far more attention. SSRIs aren’t without side effects, some of which are significant. Given that there is potential for once of treatments of psilocybin and (your hypothesis) cannabis having long term effects they should certainly at least be investigated further.
I’m curious why you have so much contempt for marijuana
Contempt only for the belief that it does not come with a well known potential cost to mental health. As for actual use I don’t have all that much contempt, except in the sense that I have contempt for diets high in processed carbohydrates.
personal experience, or those NIH studies about psychosis?
Most of the people I know who use pot have not done so to the extent that I could reliably say that they have damaged themselves, given that they began use before I met them. I don’t know any outright abusers of the stuff. Alcohol tends to be the preferred drug of abuse in my usual circles. The effects are arguably worse, at least in some areas. Like liver damage, for example. Even more so, on the physical side, if the cannabis is not smoked, with the associated wear on the lungs. It’s all about the brownies. ;)
I have a strong sense that these points of view must assume that complex and otherwise inaccessible trains of thought are not worth very much in and of themselves. I wonder then, what your criteria for worthwhile experiences or ideas is. And then I realize, with some disappointment, that there will always be a chasm between what individuals find privately valuable, and what collectives can respectably find publically valuable.
I am sure that there are studies showing that marijuana increases cancer risk, but here’s a study showing marijuana decreases cancer risk.
My guess: marijuana by itself slightly decreases cancer risk, but it’s usually smoked together with tobacco, which increases cancer risk to a larger extent.
That source for side effects is bad. If you want to post a list of side effects, you should get them from an accurate medical site, not a source that is open about its bias.
You also didn’t give evidence for your strongest claim, that marijuana causes permanent minor brain damage.
I didn’t consider the topic contraversial. See these. studies. Better yet, see this meta review.
The strongest claim was that Psyclobin used correctly is good for psychological wellbeing.
The claim that I made that was actually controversial was the suggestion to use cannabis in the case of trauma to reduce severity of possible future PTSD. Morphine is better studied for that use. Cannabis has some positive reports for PTSD but is obviously a political minefield.
I don’t think I’m disagreeing with your broadest point, but I am disagreeing with some of the sub aspects of your argument. Yes, marijuana’s largest side effect is that it negatively impacts mental health.
Your strongest claim is the word brain damage. Those studies don’t talk about brain damage, they talk about mental health outcomes.
That is your phrase, not mine. I said ‘damage to the brain’.
Going from a base state to ‘anxious, depressed, having less working memory, etc’ is something I would call ‘damage to the brain’. In particular, the reduction in working memory capacity is an unambiguous deleterious change to the makeup of the brain. Any other permanent mental health effects I would also be comfortable referring to as ‘damage to the brain’. Remarkably enough that’s what mental health is all about. For what it is worth I’d also refer to breathing in large amounts of smoke as either ‘damage to the lungs’ or ‘negative impact on physical health’.
I wouldn’t use the term ‘brain damage’ because that seems to have a specialized meaning.
Not that I know of offhand. I’m vastly curious as to whether I could beat it, of course—but wouldn’t dare try to find out, even if there were a simulating drug that was supposedly strictly temporary, any more than I dare ride a motorcycle or go skydiving.
We can temporarily disrupt language processing through magnetically-induced electric currents in the brain. As far as anyone can tell, the study subjects suffer no permanent impairment of any kind. Would you be willing to try an anosognosia version of the experiment?
Perhaps such a test would become part of an objective method to measure rationality.
What!? I’m not rational if I rely on my right brain to do it’s job? True rationalists act rational when you take out a big chunk of their circuitry? When you remove a component of your negative feedback loop (I assume: nature uses them often) you should act normal? I’d suspect a person who could would be paranoid that everyone is lying once the right brain is put back online!
From the little I understand, for people both unprepared for the experience (everyone who’s had it) and not thinking of it as a test of rationality (again, everyone), the left brain confabulates elaborate scenarios to justify retaining the beliefs, and the (damaged) right brain fails to adequately consider new hypotheses.
It seems people with stronger left brains, roughly higher IQ, should be more prone to being stupid in this way, and failing the test, than people with less of an ability to justify their beliefs.
This would still be a way to test rationality. If it makes you stupid, you’re probably rational.
My point is that it would give a rationality/intelligence ratio, so its ability to measure rationality depends on our separate ability to measure intelligence which is currently pretty crude. If we can induce measured degrees of artificial anosognosia, and report at what level each subject can no longer save him or herself with rationality, and measure intelligence, then we could nail down rationality more precisely.
My hypothesis is that the smarter someone is, the more impressed we will be with the extent he or she remained rational while being magnetically stultified.
A better test would be to remove the brain’s left hemisphere and then test their confidence calibration.
I’ve heard an account of cortisone withdrawal from a generally rational person—she said her hallucinations became more and more bizarre (iirc, a CIA center appeared in her hospital room), and she had no ability to check it for plausibility.
I wonder whether practicing lucid dreaming would give people more ability to remain reflective during non-dream hallucinations.
You should know better. Of course “you” can’t beat it, if the experimenting mad scientist is allowed to delete arbitrary subsystems. You won’t be the same you. What you might have achieved is to force them to shut down more subsystems.
I suspect that by Eliezer’s standards, “beat it” would be defined as “they would be forced to shut down enough subsystems to no longer have any semblance of a functioning intelligence”.
Of course, I doubt that this is possible on the human cognitive architecture, but it would be a nice property of a fault-tolerant AI.
Highly unlikely in a human. I don’t know, but I’d guess that self-checking is one subsystem. Lose that, and the plainest contradictions pass as uninteresting.
On the other hand, the engineering challenge catches my interest. Might there be any way to train other parts of your mind, parts that normally don’t do checking, to sync up if everything is working OK or intervene if the normal part is out of action? Get the right brain in on the act, perhaps. That might give you something like Dune “truth sense” but turned inward. It would certainly feel very different from normal reason.
Conscious-mind rationality is good—might unconscious-mind rationality be better? You could self-monitor even on autopilot.
How many subsystems can be made rational?
There are many reasons to expect that the non-conscious part of the mind is largely arational, in the LW senses of rationality. My impression is that it seems to operate mostly on trained responses and associative connections/pattern matching, mediated by emotional responses. In practice this means it can often actually be more rational in certain ways than the conscious mind, because it seems to be better at collecting and correlating information, cf. people who have a non-rational aversion to certain foods for reasons they don’t consciously understand, then years later discover they’re actually allergic to it.
I expect the better approach would be to deliberately train the non-conscious mind to use associations and heuristics derived by the rational conscious mind, and I mean “train” in the sense of “training a dog”.
Any sort of high-level self-monitoring is probably beyond its capabilities, though perhaps recognizing warning signs and alerting the conscious mind would work. Some sort of “panic on unexpected input” type heuristic, I guess.
There are plenty of drugs that stimulate temporary psychosis, and some of them, like LSD, are quite safe, physically. What makes you so wary?
(I haven’t tried LSD myself, due in part to unpleasant experiences with Ritalin as a child.)
My own experience with LSD was very pleasant, and didn’t simulate any sort of psychosis or unusual beliefs; it just made everything look big and beautiful and deep, and made me pay closer attention to small details.
Marijuana, on the other hand, has almost always made me temporarily psychotic, or at least paranoid. It’s also very safe physically. I’d be curious to know about any decent rationalists’ attempts to “beat” this or other drugs.
I’ve used bayesianism to stop myself from being paranoid after smoking marijuana. I don’t get it too badly, but I tend to think random events are related to me, eg that police car driving down the street with it’s sirens on is coming for me, or the runner in the park is here to mug me. Besides being able to understand that I’ll deliberately altered my mental state and can make reference to how I would feel in an unaltered state, I’ve also taken a moment to pause and say something along the lines of “OK, given that it’s highly implausible that the police know I’m high, I have a fairly low prior for ‘random police car is coming for me’. Do I have any evidence that would have caused me to update my beliefs? No. So no reason to believe them”. It works pretty well, but marijuana is a pretty soft drug imho. In my limited experience it’s harder to reason yourself out of adverse mental states that can come from psilocybin a (sufficient quantities of) LSD
I can easily “beat” alcohol (i.e., think and act the way I would if I were sober—modulo motor impairments) if I want to (unless it is so much as to make me sick). I no longer smoke marijuana that often these days, but the only time I did after finding Less Wrong, I felt like I didn’t want to beat it. I’d have to resolve to try and beat it before smoking it, I think.
By ‘safe’ it should be clear that Marijuana can be expected to cause a predictable minor about of permanent damage to the brain without, say, killing you.
Psyclobin should be preferred in most cases. It actually gives long term benefits in controlled circumstances.
More info on both of these statements, please! They both seem unlikely to me.
Marijuana side effects
Typical Marijuana Side Effects:
Enhanced cancer risk
Decrease in testosterone levels and lower sperm counts for men
Increase in testosterone levels for women and increased risk of infertility
Diminished or extinguished sexual pleasure
Psychological dependence requiring more of the drug to get the same effect
Sleepiness
Difficulty keeping track of time, impaired or reduced short-term memory
Reduced ability to perform tasks requiring concentration and coordination, such as driving a car
Increased heart rate
Potential cardiac dangers for those with preexisting heart disease
Bloodshot eyes
Dry mouth and throat
Decreased social inhibitions
Paranoia, hallucinations
Impaired or reduced short-term memory
Impaired or reduced comprehension
Altered motivation and cognition, making the acquisition of new information difficult
Paranoia
Psychological dependence
Impairments in learning and memory, perception, and judgment—difficulty speaking, listening effectively, thinking, retaining knowledge, problem solving, and forming concepts
Intense anxiety or panic attacks
Basically, that stuff really messes with your head. The only time I would recommend using it is on the day that you have suffered a severe trauma. It will reduce the amount of impact the trauma will have on the brain (because it totally f*@#s with learning.)
Regarding Psyclobin, look into the John Hopkins Experiment. Basically trippers in a controlled environment reported enhanced life satisfaction even several months after the once-off usage.
These are not typical side effects but mix up common side effects and effects common only in very heavy users.
I am sure that there are studies showing that marijuana increases cancer risk, but here’s a study showing marijuana decreases cancer risk. http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/2/8/759.abstract
True in a study of very heavy users
Possibly true in very heavy users, not well studied
Possibly true in very heavy users, more typically users feel increased sexual pressure
My main dispute was that your source for evidence was bad because it confused classes of users. I think you are also confused about this.
The study of psylocybin at Johns Hopkins involved giving middle aged, religious people psylocybin under carefully controlled settings. It is indeed interesting research that they had mainly very positive experiences. I suspect that similar results would have been observed if cannabis extract or THC compounds would have been administered as an alternative in the Johns Hopkins psylocybin study. Remember that the study was only for one time use of a drug in non-drug users.
If the research subjects were instead administered psylocybin twice a week for a year, many of them would go crazy. If marijuana causes damage to the brain, psylocybin causes orders of magnitude more brain damage. Just ask a psylocybin user to multiply two digit numbers and see what happens.
If you are seriously concerned that marijuana will cause permanent brain damage after one use, then it is irrational to think that consuming psylocybin is a good idea.
That sounds like an extremely bizarre belief to have and definitely not one that I have expressed. Why on earth would I think that one use of maijuana would have a significant long term effect? I no more believe such a thing as believe one cigarette will cause lung cancer.
You have made an incorrect assumption about my beliefs. I supplied a basic reference to the well known consequences of heavy marijuana use from a random google from many similar references including wikipedia result because saying ‘just f@#$ google it’ would be rude. It wasn’t an argument and if it was treated as such the flaw would be the ‘appeal to common knowledge’ conversation halter.
My claim was (and is) ‘it actually gives long term benefits in controlled circumstances’.
I don’t think you have updated on the significant part of the findings of the research. A single use of the drug gave significant measurable benefits even months later. That is something that is basically unheard of in any drug, natural or pharmaceutically manufactured. There has never been any such finding for cannabis and expecting one makes a mockery of the prior.
I would confidently bet on the results of an experiment on a single use of marijuana vs a single use of psilocybin vs a control, all under positive and controlled circumstances. After three months had passed I would expect no difference between the marijuana group and the control group. I would expect positive improvement in the reported wellbeing and life satisfaction of the psilocybin group. That is absolutely fascinating and worth more research and possibly consideration by those who a comfortable tweaking their brains.
Probably. Don’t do that.
Marijuana is something I would never consider for anything except possibly the traumatic experiences that I mentioned. In that case I would use it for much the same reason I would use radiation to treat cancer. Let it mess with the bad stuff in a controlled way. As a recreational drug it is of no use to me. I have dozens of compounds sitting on my shelves that would give a better experience with less negative side effects in either the short or long term. Marijuana is strictly inferior. Psylocybin on the other hand I may have a use for. It achieves something that no other substance I am aware of can manage.
Sorry if I’ve been overly argumentative, our posts and the karma points do not express the sentiment that our actual beliefs are actually probably really close. Again, I was mostly just annoyed about that list of side effects.
My cavalier use of a random non-authoritative source was certainly asking for trouble. When I have that much contempt for a subject I am almost always better off not commenting.
Thanks for answering my earlier question, especially about the psilocybin study. That is really interesting. Also thanks for the NIH study links, though I hope you realize that claiming there are long-term side effects from a small amount of marijuana use is a very controversial claim.
And I would confidently bet that you’d find increased well-being for both the marijuana and psilocybin groups after only one use. I may be biased because I personally experienced increased well-being for months after my first use of marijuana. A pity we can’t actually do the experiment.
No, I do appreciate your comments, even though that list wasn’t exactly authoritative. I’m curious why you have so much contempt for marijuana: personal experience, or those NIH studies about psychosis?
I wouldn’t claim that a small amount of marijuana use would have have significant effects. It would have minor effects. I would it in the ballpark of ‘going a week without exercise’ in terms of neurological impact. It would be extremely controversial to claim that frequent marijuana use does no damage, which is something I presume is mere common knowledge.
You’re on. Although I’ve adjusted my prediction slightly based on your anecdotal report. I had never heard someone report such an affect from a one time use of pot.
Absolutely. This is the sort of thing that warrants far more attention. SSRIs aren’t without side effects, some of which are significant. Given that there is potential for once of treatments of psilocybin and (your hypothesis) cannabis having long term effects they should certainly at least be investigated further.
Contempt only for the belief that it does not come with a well known potential cost to mental health. As for actual use I don’t have all that much contempt, except in the sense that I have contempt for diets high in processed carbohydrates.
Most of the people I know who use pot have not done so to the extent that I could reliably say that they have damaged themselves, given that they began use before I met them. I don’t know any outright abusers of the stuff. Alcohol tends to be the preferred drug of abuse in my usual circles. The effects are arguably worse, at least in some areas. Like liver damage, for example. Even more so, on the physical side, if the cannabis is not smoked, with the associated wear on the lungs. It’s all about the brownies. ;)
I’m totally stealing this as a reason to disapprove of pot.
I have a strong sense that these points of view must assume that complex and otherwise inaccessible trains of thought are not worth very much in and of themselves. I wonder then, what your criteria for worthwhile experiences or ideas is. And then I realize, with some disappointment, that there will always be a chasm between what individuals find privately valuable, and what collectives can respectably find publically valuable.
Have you been smoking? Or do I need to? I’m confused. :P
My guess: marijuana by itself slightly decreases cancer risk, but it’s usually smoked together with tobacco, which increases cancer risk to a larger extent.
It’s commonly smoked together with tobacco in much of the world, especially Europe, but people in the USA typically smoke cannabis by itself.
That source for side effects is bad. If you want to post a list of side effects, you should get them from an accurate medical site, not a source that is open about its bias.
You also didn’t give evidence for your strongest claim, that marijuana causes permanent minor brain damage.
I didn’t consider the topic contraversial. See these. studies. Better yet, see this meta review.
The strongest claim was that Psyclobin used correctly is good for psychological wellbeing.
The claim that I made that was actually controversial was the suggestion to use cannabis in the case of trauma to reduce severity of possible future PTSD. Morphine is better studied for that use. Cannabis has some positive reports for PTSD but is obviously a political minefield.
I don’t think I’m disagreeing with your broadest point, but I am disagreeing with some of the sub aspects of your argument. Yes, marijuana’s largest side effect is that it negatively impacts mental health.
Your strongest claim is the word brain damage. Those studies don’t talk about brain damage, they talk about mental health outcomes.
That is your phrase, not mine. I said ‘damage to the brain’.
Going from a base state to ‘anxious, depressed, having less working memory, etc’ is something I would call ‘damage to the brain’. In particular, the reduction in working memory capacity is an unambiguous deleterious change to the makeup of the brain. Any other permanent mental health effects I would also be comfortable referring to as ‘damage to the brain’. Remarkably enough that’s what mental health is all about. For what it is worth I’d also refer to breathing in large amounts of smoke as either ‘damage to the lungs’ or ‘negative impact on physical health’.
I wouldn’t use the term ‘brain damage’ because that seems to have a specialized meaning.
The reduction in working memory capacity is not permanent except in heavy users and even heavy users can recover their memories after quitting.
Whatever damage to the brain cannabis does can mostly be repaired by the brain.
Is that an alternative spelling for the substance known as Psilocybin?
I suppose making blatant spelling errors could be considered an ‘alternative’. ;)
But there’s another, safe way to find out: beat one you already have.