/sci/ - Science & Math

No one has ever made the claim that weed is good for children. This shit is old news.

Alcohol is bad for people too, yet it's legal.

$128,000. As if that's a lot. Why do you fuckers always think so small? Why is everyone setting mediocrity as their goal?

Also not surprising that heavy weed smokers have a 'drop' in IQ. Higher IQ individuals are probably too busy doing shit in school to have time to be heavy consumers of weed.

I wouldn't be surprised if working in McDonalds for thirty years lowered your IQ 8 points, either.

Good thing you have intact cognitive ability so you can lavish it on decrying the hobbies of others over the internet at 10 pm on a Thursday.

>>7065277
every stoner's pro weed argument is always an argument against alcohol

>>7065307
>what alcoholics actually think

>>7065307
because alcohol is legal while marijuana is illegal you fucking moron. It's a pretty logical comparison that the two most widely used drugs would be compared.

>>7065305

I appreciate it's a single data point, but I know a guy who smokes a fucking ridiculous amount of pot. He forgets things all the time, so his memory is shit, but he's certailny not stupid. Amongst my friends who aren't universty level educated, he's actually one of the smartest.

>weed is bad for you
What a surprise.

>>7065305

>>7065255
Know what else permanently lowers your IQ and tax bracket? Being black.

>>7065305
holy shit rekt

>>7065305
Get fucking rekt OP

>>7065347
Therefore, smoking pot turns you black.

>>7065305
I think you mean 3pm.
He doesn't have anything better to do during the day

>>7065312
They should both be illegal for consistency.

>>7065421
>wanting government interference in personal matters
You can fuck right off, they should both be legal.

inb4 non sequitur arguirments like hurr murder should be legal durr

>>7065421
It's not entirely consistent. Europes who comprise majority in the US or, well, Europe.. Have had thousands of years to adapt to alcohol.
On this basis alone I can kind of understand making pot illegal.

>>7065432
And Indian civilizations had thousands of years to adapt to weed. Guess what? Ronald Reagan forced India to make it illegal in the 80's. Also, it was widely prevalent in the middle east and even europe and still is in countries like Egypt to this day. This isn't about culture at all, but rather alcohol industrialists not wanting their business harmed. Incidentally, hemp was the reason marijuana was banned in the first place in the US.

Your argument makes zero sense, please try and learn about things before mouthing off on an taiwanese fingerpainting archive.

>>7065255
>not reading or citing the article but relying on some Forbes contributor to accurately sum it up for you
>thinking that this correlative study is conclusive

lol okay

>>7065430
It's not a personal matter, dumb ass. You don't live on an island, your actions affect other people.

>>7065449
>your actions affect other people
Duh, humans are social by nature. If me smoking weed has effects on other people, then so does everything else. Should I just be petrified by morality because me having a job would potentially take a source of income from someone else? Should we all become pacifistic asexual bodhi's and let humanity die out because there is no win-win scenario for everyone that is alive?

Your line of reasoning is bad and you should feel bad.

>>7065449
I hope you exercise regularly, eat well, and are healthy. Otherwise you will negatively impact other people. Don't be fat.

>>7065444
Right because India is a subset of the places I mentioned. Right there in Europe next to switzerland. Or was it sweden I forget?
Are you or are you not disagreeing that Europes are more adapted to alcohol than pot?

>>7065481
Describe the specific biological adaptations that Europeans have to ethanol consumption and provide evidence that they are "not adapted" to Cannabis usage"

doesn't matter what side of the argument you are on. this weed legalization thing is happening. come to terms.

>>7065481
So basically you're saying that a grandfather clause should exist for alcohol in europe because of historical reasons.

Right, I'm just going to greentext the numerous ways in which you are wrong.

>thinking Europe was a monolithic entity with a uniform view on everything
>thinking Europe was a monolithic entity through a history of thousands of years
>thinking cocaine and opium weren't legal till a century ago
>thinking Alcohol and even tobacco were always legal in Europe
>thinking being adapted to alcohol over marijuana is a thing
>not knowing that Mariujuana only affects humans because of a special receptor in the brain i.e. adaptation


Besides, that wasn't even my point. People will always protect their vested interests, nobody wants to give up power, money or anything else >for free.
Marijuana is the main competitor to alcohol in both usage and effects (both used for socialization and self-medication).
Do you think the alcohol industry cares if the democrats or republicans are in power? They donate to both so they can have their vested interests and protect them too, and it is the same in whatever european country you can think of. The government-industry nexus is a real thing and is not limited to alcohol at all.

inb4 b-but this is only America and not Europe
Well good thing that America isn't the most powerful country and it hasn't directed the world's drug policy for 50 years or anything.
Also not like the UK and germany (basically the EU) follow US' foreign policy or anything like that.

>>7065494
Different alcohol dehydrogenase enzymes.

Would you also disagree that Swedes have a much lower rate of lactose intolerance than the Japanese?

>>7065365
Solid conclusion.
/thread

>>7065481
You know, I was going to make a point that upregulation of alcohol dehydrogenase doesn't make alcohol less toxic but that's exactly what it means.

However, we can do things like go to this (http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/globalstatusreportalcoholprofiles/en/)) website and actually compare rates of alcohol dependence as compiled by the WHO.

Germany - 6% / 1.5%
France - 13% / 4.1%
Japan - 8.4% / 0.7%
USA - 10.8% / 4.8%
India - 6.8% / 0.7%
Indonesia - 1.7% / 0.3%
Russia ~ 37.1%
UK - 7.5% / 2.1%

male / female respectively. I'd say it has a lot more to do with culture and socioeconomy than biology.

>>7065543
I would hate to see what Russians are like with pot.
I'm not saying it's necessarily justified to outlaw weed, or even a smart move - personally I like the nederlands approach - my only point above was that it's not entirely inconsistent to ban weed and not alcohol for US/europes because they're two entirely separate issues. Talking about US because Forbes.com and europes because US is from europe.

>>7065514
strawman.jpg
conspiritard.jpg

>>7065539
Explain how and why ancestral alcohol consumption has resulted in the selection for these traits and how Europeans lack "Cannabis tolerance".

>>7065543
Those values aren't taking population subsets into account, which is of course what is significant.

I know what anon is getting at, but I doubt social alcohol consumption resulted in epigenetic mutations selecting for increased ethanol metabolism/tolerance. It's a "chicken or the egg" scenario and he is trying to use this as evidence for alcohol consumption being "safer" than marijuana usage among Europeans, which is quite simply absurd based on all available metrics.

Marijuana use could impact neurological function, but I would never consider this small study and its faulty methodologies to be convincing.

It is clear that OP has an issue with marijuana for a personal reason and is gloating over this recent article for some odd purpose.

>>7065550
>conspiritard
Not really, it is pretty clear that the alcohol industry has considerable sway. History of the tobacco industry illustrates this type of sordid relationship with research and government.

>>7065553
The ones that didn't have it are less common, because the ones who did passed on more copies of their genes.

>>7065550
Strawman? Sure.
Conspiritard? Hardly.

>>7065569
Why would this trait be so beneficial? What would be driving its selection in one population versus another? It isn't like lacking this trait is highly deleterious and would prevent reproduction.

>>7065593
>Why would this trait be so beneficial?
Lets say you had to drink alcohol (probably beer or something; not spirits so much) because it's the only sanitary liquid available. Well you'd be drinking a lot of beer. People for whom that is a problem might die.

>>7065599
Oh, sorry I forgot to add: and dying might pose a problem for your overall reproductive success. Can't fuck when you're dead. no bump

>>7065599
No one is going to die from drinking a few litres of low ABV beer throughout the course of a day. If that was the case, safer ways to make water potable would be realized.

>>7065599
Haha, nice one.
I sure hope this is supposed to be ironic.

>>7065605
Well nobody from a nordic european country that has been drinking a few litres of low abv beer for millennia....

>>7065611
No one period.

>>7065613
Meh; doesn't change the fact that europes have a pretty good alcohol tolerance thing going on.

Anyway I still haven't found any information on europes being poorly adapted to weed but THC is where I've been investigating since its implications in negative psychological outcomes of pot smokers.

>>7065620
>doesn't change the fact that europes have a pretty good alcohol tolerance thing going on
Is this a "Vikings FUCK YEAH XDD" thing? How the fuck is this relevant vis-a-vis weed?

>Anyway I still haven't found any information on europes being poorly adapted to weed
What a surprise.

>>7065626
Eh you can sift through the literature or disregard my opinion if you want but I reckon the native populations of india and nepal would react differently to the ingestion of bud than that of europeans.
Obviously talking about averages and all that.

>>7065662
I know, one guy I knew from a conservative muslim family drank half a bottle of piss beer for the first time and he couldn't walk after that kek.

Not really sure how it fits into your argument though because even though excess alcohol may kill, smoking excessive weed isn't humanly possible.

>>7065669
I hear that it won't kill you because whatever controls heart rate and breathing has not the necessary receptors. Which is nice :).

>>7065514
>>not knowing that Mariujuana only affects humans because of a special receptor in the brain i.e. adaptation
This cunt though.
Cannabinoid receptors are a feature of mammals. They are in no way special.

>>7065684
>2 (you)'s
It's okay, I was just being disingenuous about that second bit, this being 4chan after all.

>>7065686
>I was just being disingenuous about that
retard

>>7065882
Thank you for your valued contribution, 18th IP in this thread.

>>7065461
I believe that his point was that your actions affect others in the way that drinking and driving affects others.It is about the magnitude of the effect. If you get a job some other person didn't, then it is likely that the person will eventually find some form of income.
Your reading comprehension is bad and you should feel bad.

>>7065904
So what ill effects does smoking weed have on others?

>>7065915
I don't know and don't really give a shit. I was just pointing out how anon sucks at reading comprehension.

>>7065933
That's because it was a counter-argument mirroring his comment. learn2read learn2arguments

>>7065935
No. He was generalizing incorrectly. The point was about negative affects, not all effects.

>>7065944
>someone being out a job isn't negative effect
>someone forced to go hungry isn't a negative effect
Considering the fact that 100% employment isn't possible at all, you taking a job has a negative outcome for someone. Even if it was possible, the extra time someone has to wait for a job is also a negative. You affect someone else negatively, which is what his point was, which is a stupid point because people would be paralysed if everyone followed it to the letter as some sort of prime directive.

>>7065952
*magnitude
I forgot to put the magnitude part in. By that reasoning, then drunk driving should be legal. The argument would be that it can have a negative effect on others. And then you can just say, >>7065461 as a counter argument.
It is a shit response.

>>7065964

>>7065964
That's not my fucking point, jesus, what the fuck are you smoking?
The legality of alcohol and weed shouldn't be decided by a variation of the "think of the children!!!" argument. Period, that is it. If he (or you) want to point out some real issues with weed then go on ahead. I'm not going to think of the fucking children.

Know why drunk driving is bad? Because it increases the risk of a lethal accident by magnitudes. Should we ban Alcohol? No, ban drunk driving like it already is.

>>7065975
By your argument, we could also legalize coke.

>IQ

/pol/ pls go. Nobody cares about your racist pseudoscience. IQ means absolutely nothing. An IQ of 40 can become a physics PhD and an IQ of 200 can be a virgin loser NEET.

>>7066006
Fuck it why not.
I read a report that the coke available here is on average only 33% pure, and mixed with various different shit you have no idea of knowing. Atleast overdoses would fall down if there was a legal system of purchase with quality checks and whatnot.

>>7065593
Holy shit do your own research don't come on here asking millions of questions because you have no argument.

>>7066026
You don't really understand IQ, I take no issue with the assertion someone with an IQ or 200 could be a loser neet, it seems likely, but an IQ of 40 is well into severely retarded. The most people with down syndrome are right around 70 to give you some sense of scale.

>>7066006
>logical fallacy
By what right should an oligarchy of corrupt politicians be able to dictate the hobbies of 300+ million Americans? Regulating, researching, and taxing mostly harmless drugs (weed, acid, shrooms, ecstacy, dmt, etc) is the right move for the government of a "free country.

>>7065305
damn...

OP Just read your stupid shit and it is all bs. You didn't even read it. There is no experiment that measured anything. They are just making claims with nothing there to back it up.
Just so they can put the head line: Study Says pot reduces iq.