Cannabis Users Likely To Be Well Educated, Top Wage Earners, Survey says

**John** · 23rd April 2005, 05:19

Originally Posted by Biff Baff

I've a BSC and an MBA, I earn a fortune and I never smoke - erm, what was it called again? And why are you all staring at me?

I wondered where that smell was comming from!

**flyin** · 23rd April 2005, 08:52

No-ones saying that there's no negative side affectes whatsoever but this is the start of un-compromised tests coming from a country that has abolished prohibition.

As apposed to many of the reports over the last 30 years that have been twisted to scare the people into thinking pot is a bad scary drug that is going to rot our brains or give us "reefer madness". there was several very influential companies (cotton growers, paper maufacturers, pharmecutical companies...) who decided that the public should believe whatever they (the "media") told us! and produdced false info to back up thier outrageous claims of shit like infertilily among users..... bah dudes doing those test could't get it up any way!...

I know plenty of 'stoners' who are much more active, have better work ethic and enjoy many more extramural activities than most drinkers......... in fact better than alot of "straight" people

I just dont think that choosing a joint over a drink makes a persona criminal!!

**MrMelon** · 23rd April 2005, 09:11

Originally Posted by Honda

The first interesting thing I learnt about research when doing my education was that research can be manipulated to reach a satisfactory outcome to help promote a particular way of thinking. Come and work with me people, if you really think that Cannabis (and even worse harder drugs) creates nil problems, then your pretty niaeve.

I'm not trying to say that cannabis use is perfectly fine for 100% of the population without any ill effects. There will always be a small percentage with a genetic disposition to mental illness or serious addiction, but this proportion should probably stay away from any substance as the results are likely to be bad. This study is just providing balance to the "unmotivated, lazy useless stoner" stereotype that so many people seem to have.

I do agree that the conclusions of many studies are manipulated to support a particular outcome, but this study doesn't draw any wildly different conclusions to many of the other studies on cannabis use.

**inlinefour** · 23rd April 2005, 14:06

Originally Posted by MrMelon

I'm not trying to say that cannabis use is perfectly fine for 100% of the population without any ill effects. There will always be a small percentage with a genetic disposition to mental illness or serious addiction, but this proportion should probably stay away from any substance as the results are likely to be bad. This study is just providing balance to the "unmotivated, lazy useless stoner" stereotype that so many people seem to have.

I do agree that the conclusions of many studies are manipulated to support a particular outcome, but this study doesn't draw any wildly different conclusions to many of the other studies on cannabis use.

You keep thinking that way is like having your head in the sand mate! It creates havoc for a larger proportion that you would allow yourself to admit, you like a toke or two?
I've done research papers on the same issue mate, and they outcome would obviously alien to you as its the direct opposite of what your trying to promote. But hey, you go on believing whatever you want. I guess some actually do teach our kids that santa is real...

**Hoon** · 23rd April 2005, 15:47

Originally Posted by MrMelon

I do agree that the conclusions of many studies are manipulated to support a particular outcome, but this study doesn't draw any wildly different conclusions to many of the other studies on cannabis use.

Ehhh?? Every study I've seen concludes cannabis causes memory, motivation or psychosis problems? In fact, this is the first time I've heard of a study that says it doesn't?? A quick google search of "cannabis study memory" shows a definate trend.

This one makes me laugh:

They bred two groups of mice. The first was engineered to produce more cannabinoids while the second was engineered to produce fewer of these chemicals.

They then subjected the mice to a series of tests. These involved a loud tone followed by a light electric shock to the foot.

They found that mice which produced fewer cannabinoids froze when they heard the tone, anticipating an electric shock.

The mice which produced more cannabinoids appeared to forget to associate the tone with the electric shock and didn't freeze.

Hehe...but seriously, even marijuana users would agree that their memory "aint what it use to be". Anyone that doesn't either hasn't been smoking it long enough or isn't smoking enough!!

**flyin** · 24th April 2005, 11:29

Many of the earlier test results were warped to fit the anti-cannabis propaganda pushed by our government.... this one is from a country where it is legal to grow and smoke, and medi-weed can be purchased from phamacies (although its apparantly shitty buds..)

I like that Mice example, maybe they knew the shock was coming but were harder than the other mice and knew that they could not avoid the shock so they relaxed and let it happen ( has less negative affects on the mucsles)

Say your on a corner and you hear the familiar screech of ruber as you loose traction...... the non-cannabinoids mouse would freeze up because a crash is coming while the second would asses the situation and calmly take evasive action.........

**flyin** · 24th April 2005, 11:31

It doesn't talk about the short term memory so much..... It's pointing out that we can retain our long term memory

I've heard we dont even store our long term memory in our brain anyways..... just use our brain to access it..........

**MrMelon** · 24th April 2005, 11:57

Originally Posted by flyin

It doesn't talk about the short term memory so much..... It's pointing out that we can retain our long term memory

I've heard we dont even store our long term memory in our brain anyways..... just use our brain to access it..........

Hahah, shit dude, where do we store long term memories if we don't store them in our brain? memory toenails? :P

**onearmedbandit** · 24th April 2005, 14:30

Hmmm. [Makes notes not to clip toenails any longer.]

[Just discovered that having characters in [] doesn't count as 10 characters]

**idb** · 24th April 2005, 17:15

I can't accept that long term heavy usage doesn't have an effect but I also can't accept that moderate or light usage will automatically fuck you up.
Anything taken excessively is bad for you - even water.
As for the argument that some people are pre-disposed to psychosis & other nasty reactions - some people are allergic to peanuts, or milk and we're all allergic to too much water.

**sedge** · 24th April 2005, 19:28

I've found that people posting studies positively supporting things are usually feeling guilty about doing the things the studies say have no ill effects. If you feel guilty about doing something and keep doing it then you have a problem.

Heh heh...

Sedge.

**sedge** · 24th April 2005, 19:31

Originally Posted by MrMelon

Hahah, shit dude, where do we store long term memories if we don't store them in our brain? memory toenails? :P

New iPod photo plus, now with meat interface... Sigh, if only I could remember where I left it.

sedge.

**idb** · 24th April 2005, 20:25

Originally Posted by sedge

New iPod photo plus, now with meat interface...

Now...I'm not completely ignorant of technological advances but this raised a couple of questions (and images) in my mind....................

**mikey** · 25th April 2005, 13:14

Originally Posted by MrMelon

There will always be a small percentage with a genetic disposition to mental illness or serious addiction, but this proportion should probably stay away from any substance as the results are likely to be bad.

mental illnesssess ropck my boat. you get sickness benefits an fuck loads of ""Support"" from govt enterprises. pot saved me.