Residual Effects of Cannabis Use After Prolonged Abstinence

[PC LOAD LETTER]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22731735


Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22731735#) 2012 Jun 25. [Epub ahead of print]
Residual Effects of Cannabis Use on Neurocognitive Performance After Prolonged Abstinence: A Meta-Analysis.

Schreiner AM (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Schreiner%20AM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22731735), Dunn ME (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Dunn%20ME%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22731735).
Abstract

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in the U.S., and the number of illicit and licit users is rising. Lasting neurocognitive changes or deficits as a result of use are frequently noted despite a lack of clarity in the scientific literature. In an effort to resolve inconsistencies in the evidence of lasting residual effects of cannabis use, we conducted two meta-analyses. First, we updated a previous meta-analysis on broad nonacute cognitive effects of cannabis use through inclusion of newer studies. In a second meta-analysis, we focused on evidence for lasting residual effects by including only studies that tested users after at least 25 days of abstinence. In the first meta-analysis, 33 studies met inclusion criteria. Results indicated a small negative effect for global neurocognitive performance as well for most cognitive domains assessed. Unfortunately, methodological limitations of these studies prevented the exclusion of withdrawal symptoms as an explanation for observed effects. In the second meta-analysis, 13 of the original 33 studies met inclusion criteria. Results indicated no significant effect of cannabis use on global neurocognitive performance or any effect on the eight assessed domains. Overall, these meta-analyses demonstrate that any negative residual effects on neurocognitive performance attributable to either cannabis residue or withdrawal symptoms are limited to the first 25 days of abstinence. Furthermore, there was no evidence for enduring negative effects of cannabis use. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

PMID:22731735 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

[erupt]

A major breakthrough for clinical studies and contemporary psychopharmocology, but it's nothing new to anyone who's been exposed to bud, let alone ingested it.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

A major breakthrough for clinical studies and contemporary psychopharmocology, but it's nothing new to anyone who's been exposed to bud, let alone ingested it.
Well, yeah. But this is great for propaganda purposes.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Anyone who still thinks marijuana is dangerous tend to be old, conservative, ignorant, and arrogant to the subject.

[Book O'Dead]

The only withdrawal symptom I get when I don't have herb to smoke is sleepiness. That must be because while I have weed I sleep less than when I don't have any. Does that make any sense?

What were we talking about just now and why is that giant spider standing on your shoulder?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

The only withdrawal symptom I get when I don't have herb to smoke is sleepiness. That must be because while I have weed I sleep less than when I don't have any. Does that make any sense?

What were we talking about just now and why is that giant spider standing on your shoulder?
When I have weed I tend to lose track of time and stay up later than I originally intended to.

Also, if I go to sleep stoned several nights in a row, if I don't get stoned one night or sober up before I go to sleep then I have trouble sleeping.


Anyone who still thinks marijuana is dangerous tend to be old, conservative, ignorant, and arrogant to the subject.

It'd be great if studies like this could get some serious exposure, enough to sway things towards legalization, or at least decriminalization. That'd be one less risk we're all taking, one less thing to go to jail and have your life ruined over ...

[Book O'Dead]

When I have weed I tend to lose track of time and stay up later than I intend to.

Also, if I go to sleep stoned several nights in a row, if I don't get stoned one night or sober up before I go to sleep then I have trouble sleeping.

Although i am capable of having sex when I'm high, I can't reach orgasm. My friend becomes very aroused when she's high and says her orgasms are more intense. She accuses me of being too intellectual about sex. I disagree. I think I'm pretty dumb about everything, including sex, especially when I'm stoned.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It'd be great if studies like this could get some serious exposure, enough to sway things towards legalization, or at least decriminalization. That'd be one less risk we're all taking, one less thing to go to jail and have your life ruined over ...

Yeah, I think it's cool that the next generation tend to be pro-legalization. Many of the anti-drug programs out there (I think D.A.R.E. should get special mention here) tend to really lie to kids about the effects of drugs and alcohol. I remember when I was in elementary school (many years ago to say the least) the D.A.R.E. guy said that one puff of marijuana and one sip of alcohol would make you intoxicated and leave you hopelessly addicted. :rolleyes: Then these same people wonder why kids won't believe pills and other harder drugs aren't dangerous either.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

D.A.R.E. made me want to try drugs.

I'm serious.

I can remember dreaming about swimming in a pool filled with weed in 5th grade after a DARE presentation. In 6th grade I asked my teacher what LSD was like then added "because it sounds fun".

[Brosa Luxemburg]

D.A.R.E. made me want to try drugs.

I'm serious.

I can remember dreaming about swimming in a pool filled with weed in 5th grade after a DARE presentation. In 6th grade I asked my teacher what LSD was like then added "because it sounds fun".

I remember one time during a D.A.R.E. presentation in high school (it was in the morning and I just got done smoking 2 bowls before schools started because that's how I rolled back in the day;)) the lady asked "why do people do drugs?" I raised my hand and said "because they fucking rock". lol :D

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I remember one time during a D.A.R.E. presentation in high school (it was in the morning and I just got done smoking 2 bowls before schools started because that's how I rolled back in the day;)) the lady asked "why do people do drugs?" I raised my hand and said "because they fucking rock". lol :D
I hope your teacher was a fusion of Jack Black and Kyle Gass, and the conversation was a segue from a DARE presentation to The Greatest Concert in the World

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I hope your teacher was a fusion of Jack Black and Kyle Gass, and the conversation was a segue from a DARE presentation to The Greatest Concert in the World

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[MarxSchmarx]

Anyone who still thinks marijuana is dangerous tend to be old, conservative, ignorant, and arrogant to the subject.


You will undoubtedly struggle to find an objective and conclusive report one way or the other. Take lung cancer. Some epidemiological work argues there is no link betw3een cannabis use and lung cancer, whilst subsequent work shows a single joint is akin to 20 cigarrettes in terms of its negative effects. THC is also known to limit the functioning of the immune system and has chemical profiles quite toxic.

I actually found the recent British Lung Foundations report incredibly informative and, judging by my reading of the scientific articles they cite, largely fair.

The impression I get is that although I don't like to think of myself as "old, conservative, ignorant, and arrogant", the jury is still out and I think there is enough reason to be cautious about cannabis's adverse health effects.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

You will undoubtedly struggle to find an objective and conclusive report one way or the other. Take lung cancer. Some epidemiological work argues there is no link betw3een cannabis use and lung cancer, whilst subsequent work shows a single joint is akin to 20 cigarrettes in terms of its negative effects. THC is also known to limit the functioning of the immune system and has chemical profiles quite toxic.

I actually found the recent British Lung Foundations report incredibly informative and, judging by my reading of the scientific articles they cite, largely fair.

The impression I get is that although I don't like to think of myself as "old, conservative, ignorant, and arrogant", the jury is still out and I think there is enough reason to be cautious about cannabis's adverse health effects.

I wasn't saying that weed didn't have any negative effects. I was saying it wasn't dangerous as in that it isn't addictive, doesn't break apart homes and families, etc. I think the negative health effects, while they exist, aren't nearly as bad as tobacco, alcohol, etc.

[Book O'Dead]

I wasn't saying that weed didn't have any negative effects. I was saying it wasn't dangerous as in that it isn't addictive, doesn't break apart homes and families, etc. I think the negative health effects, while they exist, aren't nearly as bad as tobacco, alcohol, etc.

I can personally vouch that marijuana is not addictive in the way tobacco is, or even coffee.

I've gone weeks without smoking weed after weeks of smoking several lids (ounces) 'till the roaches came home and the only withdrawal I get from it is a few days of strong sleepiness. I've quit smoking tobacco and the withdrawals include headache, anxiety and weight gain.

Even though I'm a moderate coffee drinker (about 1 cup per day), if I miss that deliciously scrumptious latte by even a few hours, I get blinding headaches and nausea.

I'd say I'm more addicted to coffee and cigarettes than I can ever be to weed and the withdrawal symptoms of those two substances in me are more severe than marijuana's.

[Comrade Jandar]

My friend overdosed on hookah and now he's dank.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I wish I could understand what the OP says but I'm too damn high :D

[Yuppie Grinder]

D.A.R.E. made me want to try drugs.

I'm serious.

I can remember dreaming about swimming in a pool filled with weed in 5th grade after a DARE presentation. In 6th grade I asked my teacher what LSD was like then added "because it sounds fun".

Same here man. I love wearing my D.A.R.E. shirt while doing drugs.

[human strike]

D.A.R.E. made me want to try drugs.

I'm serious.

I can remember dreaming about swimming in a pool filled with weed in 5th grade after a DARE presentation. In 6th grade I asked my teacher what LSD was like then added "because it sounds fun".

I think that presentation had that effect on a lot of people. I mean, I know for a fact that it gave people who already smoke a strong desire to spark up asap.

[cynicles]

I forget the name of the drug program they tried to foist on us in Canada but it did not work at all. I remember my friend who was forced to live in bc for a year coming back recounting tales drugs growing on the sidewalks and the most fragrant marijuana and all we could think was how we were going to get there.

[Geiseric]

In high school, I smoked weed literally every moening before school, before football practice, before my film class, and most of my teachers knew I was high but didn't care since I was the only person asking questions! i told my school vice principal (when he was suspending me for planning a protest, which happened) that story and he shit brix. Weed is honestly illegal because white politicians need excuses to fill up the prisons for free labor and the oppression of minorities.

[Quail]

I think pro-legalisation people sometimes fall into the trap of claiming that cannabis has no bad health effects whatsoever, and it's just awesome and everyone should do it. While cannabis is indeed fun and relatively harmless, I think it makes pro-legalisation people look a bit silly if they refuse to admit it can have negative effects, and going on about how awesome weed is gives the impression you're just a stoner who wants it to be legal so you can get stoned more.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I think pro-legalisation people sometimes fall into the trap of claiming that cannabis has no bad health effects whatsoever, and it's just awesome and everyone should do it. While cannabis is indeed fun and relatively harmless, I think it makes pro-legalisation people look a bit silly if they refuse to admit it can have negative effects, and going on about how awesome weed is gives the impression you're just a stoner who wants it to be legal so you can get stoned more.
There's obviously physical lung damage when you inhale burning plant material ... anyone who denies that is an idiot. And there's not been anything conclusive regarding lung cancer, so the jury's still out on that one.

But it doesn't kill brain cells. It's for all practical purposes impossible to overdose on and non-toxic... and this study shows the negative cognitive effects (like with short term memory) are temporary...

[MarxSchmarx]

I wasn't saying that weed didn't have any negative effects. I was saying it wasn't dangerous as in that it isn't addictive, doesn't break apart homes and families, etc. I think the negative health effects, while they exist, aren't nearly as bad as tobacco, alcohol, etc.

Well, I actually disagree that weed isn't "as bad as" tobacco and alcohol. Alcohol and cigs are available to a larger fraction of the population than marijuana. People differ in their susceptibility to the ill effects of alcohol and tobacco, and most horror stories involve people that are genetically predisposed to things like lung cancer. The fact is, weed has a much smaller population sample from which its effects can be analyzed. For example, if weed were as available as alcohol, DWI incidents might be comparable, but we don't know, because right now fewer people smoke weed than drink and hence superficially there is the impression that alcohol-induced car accidents are more common than marijuana induced car accidents. A tiny fraction of cigaratte smokers and alcoholics cause most problems. But such tiny fractions are more likely to come into contact with these substances simply because tobacco and booze is so much more available. Thus I suspect that if weed were as readily available as alcohol or tobacco, it wouldn't seem as benign. We'll never know, which is part of why I said one would be hard pressed to find evidence either way.

There is a tiny minority that is, sure, ignorant about the health effects of marijuana and says it will ruin your life in a way alcohol never will. But I doubt they are very numerous. In fact, by the same token, most people demanding the prohibition of weed are vaguely sympathetic to banning or at least further restricting alcohol and tobacco and perhaps even "etc." (which includes what? soda? In my experience alcohol and tobacco are pretty much the only mainstream concessions of escape the ruling class tolerates). In fact, their response to the "but it's no worse than booze or cigs" is basically "yes, it raises real questions about why we as a society tolerate booze doesn't it?".

That's why I don't like these attempts to claim weed is "harmless, or at least no worse than what we tolerate as society". What "we tolerate as society" is dispicable. We tolerate millions of deaths from preventable diseases. We tolerate racism, we tolerate environmental destruction, hell we tolerate capitalism and all sorts of horrible things. Should we?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Well, I actually disagree that weed isn't "as bad as" tobacco and alcohol. Alcohol and cigs are available to a larger fraction of the population than marijuana. People differ in their susceptibility to the ill effects of alcohol and tobacco, and most horror stories involve people that are genetically predisposed to things like lung cancer. The fact is, weed has a much smaller population sample from which its effects can be analyzed. For example, if weed were as available as alcohol, DWI incidents might be comparable, but we don't know, because right now fewer people smoke weed than drink and hence superficially there is the impression that alcohol-induced car accidents are more common than marijuana induced car accidents. A tiny fraction of cigaratte smokers and alcoholics cause most problems. But such tiny fractions are more likely to come into contact with these substances simply because tobacco and booze is so much more available. Thus I suspect that if weed were as readily available as alcohol or tobacco, it wouldn't seem as benign. We'll never know, which is part of why I said one would be hard pressed to find evidence either way.

There is a tiny minority that is, sure, ignorant about the health effects of marijuana and says it will ruin your life in a way alcohol never will. But I doubt they are very numerous. In fact, by the same token, most people demanding the prohibition of weed are vaguely sympathetic to banning or at least further restricting alcohol and tobacco and perhaps even "etc." (which includes what? soda? In my experience alcohol and tobacco are pretty much the only mainstream concessions of escape the ruling class tolerates). In fact, their response to the "but it's no worse than booze or cigs" is basically "yes, it raises real questions about why we as a society tolerate booze doesn't it?".

That's why I don't like these attempts to claim weed is "harmless, or at least no worse than what we tolerate as society". What "we tolerate as society" is dispicable. We tolerate millions of deaths from preventable diseases. We tolerate racism, we tolerate environmental destruction, hell we tolerate capitalism and all sorts of horrible things. Should we?
... bro ...

http://norml.org/library/item/cannabis-and-driving-a-scientific-and-rational-review

There is evidence to show the negative effects on driving are there, but the effects are far less than with alcohol. There may be a few accidents due to impairment from weed, but even if population size were controlled for, alcohol would still be far ahead in terms of accidents.

[Os Cangaceiros]

But I doubt they are very numerous. In fact, by the same token, most people demanding the prohibition of weed are vaguely sympathetic to banning or at least further restricting alcohol and tobacco and perhaps even "etc." (which includes what? soda?

Yes, actually. Just like they're doing in New York City (not banning soda, but at least restricting soda sizes).

Furthermore there've been a couple of academic arguments put forth towards literally forcing fat people to exercise, as they drive up healthcare costs for the rest of us.

Unfortunately I think the end result of utilitarianism is that we'll all be forced to eat mass-produced Nutraloaf. :unsure:

[Rusty Shackleford]

D.A.R.E. made me want to try drugs.

I'm serious.

I can remember dreaming about swimming in a pool filled with weed in 5th grade after a DARE presentation. In 6th grade I asked my teacher what LSD was like then added "because it sounds fun".



soon after DARE gave a presentation in my class, i came up with "Drugs Are Really Exciting"


so much for abstinence education.

[MarxSchmarx]

... bro ...

http://norml.org/library/item/cannabis-and-driving-a-scientific-and-rational-review

There is evidence to show the negative effects on driving are there, but the effects are far less than with alcohol. There may be a few accidents due to impairment from weed, but even if population size were controlled for, alcohol would still be far ahead in terms of accidents.

Interestingly the same article notes that if alcohol is combined with marijuana it can elevate the risks than alcohol alone.

And I wouldn't characterize it as a "few accidents due to impairment from weed"

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/02/09/smoke-and-mirrors-driving-while-on-marijuana-doubles-ones-chances-of-a-serious-car-crash/

Anyway one can quibble over an example that may or may not be the best case study of how weed can be as bad as booze, but it doesn't really address the main point that alcohol's much greater availability means that it will invariably attract far more atrocious outcomes; that doesn't speak to inherent dangers or anything like that, however.

[Vanguard1917]

Anyone who still thinks marijuana is dangerous tend to be old, conservative, ignorant, and arrogant to the subject.

It may not be dangerous for everyone, but i have not known many daily smokers who don't exhibit a few symptoms of what we would normally associate with good old schizophrenia. Less regular smokers tend to just giggle like maniacs for about 25 minutes, talk unclear rubbish for one or two hours, and then have the urge (which they may or may not resist, and assuming the spliffs keep rolling) to sit in a corner under a blanket in complete silence.

Claims of long-term issues after complete cessation seem to be unfounded, but i think regular weed smoking is something most people will grow out of in their early 20s at the latest.

[Clifford C Clavin]

Weed is honestly illegal because white politicians need excuses to fill up the prisons for free labor and the oppression of minorities.

What? So why is it illegal in Asia, where is it also not common to use, and there is no popular urge for legalization?

People are quite happy to get drunk instead, which is quite legal.

[Hit The North]

It may not be dangerous for everyone, but i have not known many daily smokers who don't exhibit a few symptoms of what we would normally associate with good old schizophrenia. Less regular smokers tend to just giggle like maniacs for about 25 minutes, talk unclear rubbish for one or two hours, and then have the urge (which they may or may not resist, and assuming the spliffs keep rolling) to sit in a corner under a blanket in complete silence.

Claims of long-term issues after complete cessation seem to be unfounded, but i think regular weed smoking is something most people will grow out of in their early 20s at the latest.

Actually, cannabis use is growing among the over 50s in the UK, according some data I saw in the Guardian. And I'm not surprised as gardening under the influence is a lovely thing and a lot of these older dudes like their gardening.

Also I know quite a number of people who have been habitual weed smokers for over twenty years and they are swell guys, every man and woman of them. Admittedly they function at about half the pace as other people I know, but so what? Fuck the clock.

[Hit The North]

What? So why is it illegal in Asia, where is it also not common to use, and there is no popular urge for legalization?


Presumably because the Asian bourgeoisie has the same idea? But I don't buy it and mainly blame religion and its hostility towards sensual pleasure. Most Asian societies, like most Western societies, are ruled by narrow-minded, moralistic and hypocritical philistines. That explains drug policy more than anything else.

[Vanguard1917]

Also I know quite a number of people who have been habitual weed smokers for over twenty years and they are swell guys, every man and woman of them. Admittedly they function at about half the pace as other people I know, but so what? Fuck the clock.

But the revolution needs quick thinkers and sharp shooters, comrade. :cool:

Seriously, though, if it's honestly not affecting your mind and personality negatively, keep on puffing. From my experience, though, the average long-term daily smoker needs to cut down... quite substantially.

[Hit The North]

But the revolution needs quick thinkers and sharp shooters, comrade. :cool:


I admit it is definitely not a flame to the fuse of revolutionary enthusiasm :lol:

[Vanguard1917]

I admit it is definitely not a flame to the fuse of revolutionary enthusiasm :lol:

That's why meetings are commonly ended thus:


http://www.thegirlsguidetobeer.com/Portals/100483/images/beer-cheers-toasting.jpg

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is entirely anecdotal, but I know quite a few over-20-somethings who smoke weed, although perhaps not many who smoke regularly.

There's quite a bit of proletarian Archie Bunker stonerdom up here.

[Art Vandelay]

Honestly, I am only 19, but can already see my weed use declining; incidently I enjoy it alot more now. I'll never completely stop though.

[Clifford C Clavin]

I'm 35 and I've never tried drugs.

[Book O'Dead]

I'm 35 and I've never tried drugs.

Are you also still a virgin?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm 35 and I've never tried drugs.

Because you don't want to use drugs or because you because you don't know where to get them?


Are you also still a virgin?

I don't think that question is relevant or fair.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm 35 and I've never tried drugs.

Shit son, get puffin on some cron; you've been missing out. But seriously I doubt that you've never drank, so if you have, you indeed have tried a drug.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Shit son, get puffin on some cron; you've been missing out. But seriously I doubt that you've never drank, so if you have, you indeed have tried a drug.
Caffeine, too.

And you do N,N-DMT every day

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15780487

[Clifford C Clavin]

I don't drink. I have, but I got nothing out of it. I have never done drugs (not including stimulants like caffeine of course - I like tea) before I have never had any urge to do them. I don't really understand people who suggest that I do them. It's like an afterschool special. In real life no one has ever pressured me to do that.

I have actually had plenty of sexual partners, probably much higher number than average even. But I don't think that's anyone's business, or of any relevance.

[Book O'Dead]

[...]
I have actually had plenty of sexual partners, probably much higher number than average even. But I don't think that's anyone's business, or of any relevance.

And that's the reason you don't mention it, right?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And that's the reason you don't mention it, right?

What the fuck is your problem?

[Book O'Dead]

What the fuck is your problem?

"Problem"?!? You're too kind.

Surely you must mean problems! Mine are legion.

[bcbm]

keep it on topic

[black magick hustla]

fortunately my thesis that stoners are horrible/boring people hasn't been disproved by science yet

[black magick hustla]

lAhrr7JNlhk bukowski agrees with me

[Book O'Dead]

[...]

That reminds me: I can't mix alcohol with marijuana; it makes me loud and aggressive.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Problem"?!? You're too kind.

Surely you must mean problems! Mine are legion.

Stop fucking around and playing the silly bugger. When someone mentions being 35 and having never used drugs, precisely what relevance is there to asking them about their sex life?

[Book O'Dead]

Stop fucking around and playing the silly bugger. When someone mentions being 35 and having never used drugs, precisely what relevance is there to asking them about their sex life?

Sheesh! I was injecting a bit of humor into this conversation which, after all, is only about smoking wacky tabbaky.

If you want I can give you like, 25 cents. That's what each one of my jokes costs, retail.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sheesh! I was injecting a bit of humor into this conversation which, after all, is only about smoking wacky tabbaky.

If you want I can give you like, 25 cents. That's what each one of my jokes costs, retail.

The reason I jumped down your throat is because all too often one's virginal status is used by bullying interlocutors as a stick to (metaphorically) beat one over the head. The common implication being that one is not a fully rounded human being unless one has had (vaginal) sex (if one is male - females are typically subjected to a different set of impossible standards for sexual behaviour).

What you are now claiming to be an attempt at humour, and I quote:


Are you also still a virgin?

Was offered as-is, with no qualifying statements or emoticons or any other indication that the question was being made in jest. I'm not seeing how that question was supposed to be amusing.

[Book O'Dead]

The reason I jumped down your throat is because all too often one's virginal status is used by bullying interlocutors as a stick to (metaphorically) beat one over the head. The common implication being that one is not a fully rounded human being unless one has had (vaginal) sex (if one is male - females are typically subjected to a different set of impossible standards for sexual behaviour).

What you are now claiming to be an attempt at humour, and I quote:



Was offered as-is, with no qualifying statements or emoticons or any other indication that the question was being made in jest. I'm not seeing how that question was supposed to be amusing.

I can't help it if you're unable to get a joke because it lacks emoticons. I don't use them out of respect to my readers.

Emoticons are like laugh tracks in sitcoms; they cue the audience when to laugh at jokes that aren't funny.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::l augh::laugh::laugh:

Now you know how stupid they look.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I can't help it if you're unable to get a joke because it lacks emoticons.

Not just that, how about the fact that there was nothing remotely funny or amusing about your question?


Emoticons are like laugh tracks in sitcoms; they cue the audience when to laugh at jokes that aren't funny.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::l augh::laugh::laugh:

Now you know how stupid they look.

They look stupid when stupidly used, like you have just done (you even managed to break one). That doesn't speak to their effectiveness when judiciously applied. That you think there exists no middle ground between over-use and non-use of emoticons speaks only to your shortcomings in communication skills.

[maskerade]

Noxion's relentless logic is always so pleasing.

Does anyone savvy on these matters know anything about the relationship between weed smoking and Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? i've heard a few anecdotal stories about chronic weed users sometimes developing this, though those reports have always come from sweden, a country where most forms of fun are socially forbidden.

[Book O'Dead]

Not just that, how about the fact that there was nothing remotely funny or amusing about your question?

Maybe, but others here seem to have though it was funny the moment they read it. Maybe they were high at the time.


They look stupid when stupidly used, like you have just done (you even managed to break one). That doesn't speak to their effectiveness when judiciously applied. That you think there exists no middle ground between over-use and non-use of emoticons speaks only to your shortcomings in communication skills.

I think the reliance on emoticons betrays, at best, an insecurity that what one writes might be taken wrong, at worst, an inability to properly express in writing what one means.

Also, emoticons are a recent invention, since about the 1880's. They took off in popularity even more recently with the advent of word processors and the internet. (in fact what we have here in Revleft are not true emoticons because they are not composed of real punctuation marks).

Don't you ever wonder how people got along without them for so long? How did humorists make their readers laugh without a moronic happy face tilted at the end of a sentence?

Hmmm!

There can be no compromise between those who want to write properly and those who are too lazy or too stupid to learn how to read well.

[Book O'Dead]

Noxion's relentless logic is always so pleasing.


Not as pleasing a spliff of Crippy!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe, but others here seem to have though it was funny the moment they read it. Maybe they were high at the time.

Being "thanked" for a post is not necessarily an indication of comic genius.


I think the reliance on emoticons betrays, at best, an insecurity that what one writes might be taken wrong, at worst, an inability to properly express in writing what one means.

Also, emoticons are a recent invention, since about the 1880's. They took off in popularity even more recently with the advent of word processors and the internet. (in fact what we have here in Revleft are not true emoticons because they are not composed of real punctuation marks).

Don't you ever wonder how people got along without them for so long? How did humorists make their readers laugh without a moronic happy face tilted at the end of a sentence?

Because they weren't asking fucking asinine and irrelevant questions about the sexual lives of strangers on an internet forum. The spread of smileys/emoticons/whatever the fuck you want to call them, came about because of the shortcomings of reading emotion into plain text alone within the context of a chatroom or forum.


Hmmm!

There can be no compromise between those who want to write properly and those who are too lazy or too stupid to learn how to read well.

You've got a lot of front to go on about "read well" when [i]you're the one writing inane bullshit asking people irrelevant questions about their sex lives.

Just what the fuck makes you so frigging special that you can't just damn well own up to being an unfunny prick?

[Book O'Dead]

Being "thanked" for a post is not necessarily an indication of comic genius.

True. But I never claimed to be a genius at anything.


Because they weren't asking fucking asinine and irrelevant questions about the sexual lives of strangers on an internet forum. The spread of smileys/emoticons/whatever the fuck you want to call them, came about because of the shortcomings of reading emotion into plain text alone within the context of a chatroom or forum.

Look up emoticons in Wiki. They precede chat.


You've got a lot of front to go on about "read well" when [I]you're the one writing inane bullshit asking people irrelevant questions about their sex lives.

Damn! You seem to have taken this rather personally. Maybe I should ask you something about your own personal sex life so as to justify your feigned outrage.


Just what the fuck makes you so frigging special that you can't just damn well own up to being an unfunny prick?

What makes me special to me is that I am me and not you. If I were you then it would be a different story altogether.

Look, my friend, what seems to distinguish us (me from you) is that I have a thick skin and don't offend easily; I retain a sense of humor about myself and others, despite my many flaws and can often be quick on the repartee.
Whereas you seem to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation, are easily offended and cannot refrain from using childish insults.

Your problem is easily solved, though. The distance between your fingers and your brain is considerably greater than the distance between your brain and your mouth. Use that difference to your own advantage by stopping to think what you're going to say before you start typing.

Oh, and one more thing: Smoke a joint and learn to relax.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Damn! You seem to have taken this rather personally. Maybe I should ask you something about your own personal sex life so as to justify your feigned outrage.

Or maybe you should stop trying to be "funny" by asking questions of a personal nature in threads where such topics are not germane to the discussion.


Look, my friend, what seems to distinguish us (me from you) is that I have a thick skin and don't offend easily; I retain a sense of humor about myself and others, despite my many flaws and can often be quick on the repartee.

Don't flatter yourself.


Whereas you seem to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation, are easily offended and cannot refrain from using childish insults.

The guy who asks "are you a virgin" in a thread where sexuality isn't the subject accuses me of being childish?


Your problem is easily solved, though. The distance between your fingers and your brain is considerably greater than the distance between your brain and your mouth. Use that difference to your own advantage by stopping to think what you're going to say before you start typing.

Why didn't you take your own advice before asking what was, at best, an irrelevant question?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

So, uh, can you two take that argument somewhere else? Maybe can a mod split those posts off into a debate about virginity jokes?


Noxion's relentless logic is always so pleasing.

Does anyone savvy on these matters know anything about the relationship between weed smoking and Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? i've heard a few anecdotal stories about chronic weed users sometimes developing this, though those reports have always come from sweden, a country where most forms of fun are socially forbidden.

Basically it physically damages the lungs and breathing passageways, but has never been conclusively linked to COPD/emphysema like tobacco has.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2665954/

Firm conclusions cannot be drawn about the association between use of marijuana and COPD based on the limited and inconsistent data available. The studies that address this topic are limited by their small numbers of participants and by the uncertain accuracy of self-reported use of marijuana, particularly in view of its illegality and the difficulty of accurately recalling amounts previously used. Some of these studies are also limited by their cross-sectional design, and most are limited by the young age (40 years or younger) of participants. Nevertheless, the consistency of some aspects of the available data allows us to more firmly conclude that smoking marijuana by itself can lead to respiratory symptoms because of injurious effects of the smoke on larger airways. Given the consistently reported absence of an association between use of marijuana and abnormal diffusing capacity or signs of macroscopic emphysema, we can be close to concluding that smoking marijuana by itself does not lead to COPD.

[Book O'Dead]

So, uh, can you two take that argument somewhere else? Maybe can a mod split those posts off into a debate about virginity jokes?


We did what you said.

We took a motel room and moved in; A bag of the finest sinsemilla and bottle of Jose Cuervo tequila later, we were rolling on the bed making wild love and screaming out the window like two crazed banshees.

It was good as for me as it was for Noxio.

[black magick hustla]

forum proposal: ban anyone who accuses someone else of virginity to discount arguemnt

[maskerade]

So, uh, can you two take that argument somewhere else? Maybe can a mod split those posts off into a debate about virginity jokes?



Basically it physically damages the lungs and breathing passageways, but has never been conclusively linked to COPD/emphysema like tobacco has.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2665954/

Thanks! it's a bit worrying that on its own, marijuana can't be conclusively linked to COPD yet in combination with tobacco it can "synergistically increase respiratory symptoms and risk of COPD." Bad news for me considering i only roll spliffs, but who can afford to roll pure?? Definitely need to get a pipe.

Do you reckon such an increase in COPD symptoms has anything to do with the fact that in spliffs one doesn't use the cigarette filters?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Thanks! it's a bit worrying that on its own, marijuana can't be conclusively linked to COPD yet in combination with tobacco it can "synergistically increase respiratory symptoms and risk of COPD." Bad news for me considering i only roll spliffs, but who can afford to roll pure?? Definitely need to get a pipe.

Do you reckon such an increase in COPD symptoms has anything to do with the fact that in spliffs one doesn't use the cigarette filters?
I think the article was referring to someone who smokes both cigarettes and cannabis, not necessarily mixes tobacco with cannabis. I suppose the risk with rolling an occasional spliff wouldn't be as bad as smoking cigarettes, or rolling the occasional blunt wouldn't be as bad as smoking cigarettes (but remember you're still inhaling tobacco smoke ... ). My non-expert conjecture is that since cannabis already damages the airways and lungs, it makes them more vulnerable to tobacco's far worse effects (like COPD).

But, like I said, non-expert, I'm not a doctor or a researcher, so take that with a grain of salt. Maybe try /r/askscience (http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience)? There are actual pulmonologists and other doctors / researchers that post there.