so my dad is a Dr and against pot. he told me this story. comments plz

[Rico420]

One just has to look at the increased incidence of Autism to counter what you just stated above. (recent studies are pointing towards the use of antidepressants during pregnancy as a possible cause)

Increased incidence or increased incidence of diagnosis? I don't know if you can truly say that autism has increased. I reckon many kids with low level autism or aspergers would have just been dismissed as weird until relatively recently.

Good point and I have no doubt that that is the cause of "some" of the increases but I don't believe that it covers it all. These increases are not just low level symptoms.

I agree, autism is a spectrum disorder, with lots of different psychological, environmental, and chemical factors. Not only are the affects varied considerably between patients, but the causes of the disorder, i suspect come from a number of different sources. Commercialization of everything has made this impossible to pinpoint, as we are (most likely imho) getting toxins at all levels of development. Not to say that could not have happened naturally 10k years ago, but still its widespread now. Also, psychological development probably takes a role in autism, so twins who were both exposed to (thc. etc. whatever in this case just an example) prenatally, both autistic, could be widely different in symptoms and how much the disorder affects their lives.

People are always trying to find the one cause of autism, thimerosal in vaccines, thc prenatally, etc. I think its more of a lifestyle change over the history of humanity. We are in such a different environment chemically, psychologically, and socially that its really quite ignorant to try to pin autism (or any psychological disorder) on any one or even multiple triggers. Sad to see such dogma in society about mental illness esp in this instance. Everyone is different, and the gov. saying that amphetamines are ok for atusim/add, but cannabis is not is pretty fucked up on many levels. Not that either of them may actually help. Acceptance and not telling people they are fucked up and must be fixed is a good place to start. People need to find out their problems on their own, they can be helped, but it must appear to them through their own willpower or they can never make the steps necessary to change. if they don't understand whats wrong with them on a certain level, they can never change their lives. the easy way out never works.

 

[djonkoman]

weed causing autism... I just don't buy into that
there is suggested at one time that I have asperger, with wich I don't agree at all, there are maybe some traits I have in common but socially I have no problems
altough as a kid I had much more of the aspergertraits/symptoms, but there was a period of change(beginning a year or so before highschool and going trough in highschool), one of the elements of that change was weed, and after weed my socialness really took of, for example I could get along with almost everyone in my year and there were multiple groups of stoners I often hung out with(I think at least half of everyone at that school, in the higher years, was at least an ocassional toker)
so if anything, weed should help, if only it's the stonerculture wich makes it really easy to be social(not so judgemental, you meet new people trough smoking together, you meet random stoners and smoke eachother out, you easily open up when high etc)

 

[lwien]

weed causing autism... I just don't buy into that

Who here stated that weed causes autism?

 

[djonkoman]

well I think no one stated it here but it was said that some think it, and only as a small trail in conversation

People are always trying to find the one cause of autism, thimerosal in vaccines, thc prenatally, etc.

for example, ofcourse prenatally is dofferent, but still I don't think weed could cause autism

 

[9Samurai]

Great post Rico! For a lot of people how we live nowadays goes quite strongly against their instincts.

I know exactly what your are getting at lwien, people who blindly believe it is a benign substance are just as bad as the people on the other end of the spectrum.

I don't want it legalised because I believe it's inherently safe and beneficial, I want it legalised because that is the position a logical, sensible and scientifically minded country should take.
That, and the fact that it's criminalisation is based on nothing but misinformation. Whether you want to use drugs or not, lies are lies and we should not put up with it.

 

[VWFringe]

Iwien:
I think, but don't know, that some studies are wrong, and assume others have the same skepticism.

Using the meat industry as an example: Gary Yourofsky said in his "best speach" that there exists a two-to-one ratio of the studies that show eating meat is bad, to the studies that show you have to eat it. He says further that the studies showing you must eat meat are funded by the meat industry.

Where is that transparency in cannabis research?

smoke and mirrors to get us to ignore what we know, and obfuscate the new knowledge of developmental problems...if they can get us to think it's caused or may be caused by smoking pot, they can get people to ignore what's true: parents who are not calm and emotionally available to their children cause developmental problems that cause people to reach for the bottle or whatever else can help them feel loved and connected to the world. my opinion anyway.

 

[WatTyler]

All due respect VW, but that seems to me quite a selective interpretation.

So you trust GY, but not the Burger King. Why? GY is also making a fine living from what he's doing, and even if his rewards aren't immediately financial (I have no idea, he claimed not); he's a man on with a cause, getting off on spreading his message as a reward in itself. He's an animal rights activist. He's all about stopping you eating meat, not necessarily understanding the full complexity, or even truth, of the issues related to either diet, agriculture or global economics which he uses and misuses to substantiate his beliefs. (and I'm not taking his 2:1 published research ratio as gospel yet- I suspect that's a manipulated statistic)

I don't mean offense by picking apart your point of view, and accept the uncertainty you offered, but it seems you're more inclined to believe argument/research that indicates that meat does cause damage to the body, than to believe research showing a drug can. On the basis of politics and economics?

I'd argue that eating meat is quite natural to humans as a species. It is not a 'drug' in that is doesn't alter normal bodily function- digesting food IS normal natural bodily function in itself (don't want to dwell on this debate- it can be bad for health, agreed, but not necessarily)

MJ however causes a massive wide range of physiological responses, and is something that humans have cultivated and bred as a potent drug.

I just can't buy into the logic that something as natural and limited in its range of effects as eating meat could be poison, whilst something that is actually a drug with wide affects on biochemistry could not possibly have a far wider range of negative effects on some peoples physiology or the developing brain. I don't however believe the potential for these effects (on adults) to be anywhere near significant in the grand scheme of things, and that's well supported empirically. (But for some I do think it's a bad idea and not always harmless; I have mentally ill relative for who MJ causes big issues. And I personally don't believe mental health is a discrete condition; instead I think it's more of a spectrum that we all move around on at various stages in our life. like all illnesses some are more susceptible. If your one of those few, maybe MJ (or any psycoactive drug), is not for you. In some cases it undeniably helps, of course)

Transparency in MJ research? Well to play devils advocate I'd argue that many of the positive studies stem from the pro legalisation lobby, so arguably aren't really any more impartial in themselves than some of the meat industry funded studies you refer to. We just happen to agree with these results. take the Volcano study we quote so often- researched by a NORML scientist and it was published in the Journal of Cannabis Theraputics, which is hardly the worlds most regarded scientific journal. And could there be the potential argument for some corporate involvement from S&B? (their website is linked to in the paper). Admittedly that first point about the journal is perhaps not a fair comment because the cards are stacked against positive MJ research getting published in a mainstream scientific journal, but it is a reflection on how the rest of the medical community might view such a paper. Perhaps the same as you might consider a paper on meat eating published in the Journal for Bovine Agriculture? (I made that up). I personally like the Volcano study, and agree and believe in it. But I'm just saying........

But at the end of the day science is good- it's about evidence and establishing truth, in the end. However, I don't believe there's ever such a thing as impartial research, and all research should be considered accordingly but still with an open mind. Nevertheless we all pick and choose the bits of research that fit our beliefs and tout them accordingly to defend those beliefs. But in the end though the evidence each way mounts and the truth will out. It did with smoking tobacco, despite the massive corporate influence of the tobacco companies. It just takes a while and a lot of research. I hate to think how long it's going to be before we adequately scientifically understand the full range of benefits, as well as any potential issues, with the use of MJ. I mean, tobacco had such massive samples to study and huge quantities of data on users health. Enough to be conclusive. We'll never get that whilst mj remains illegal

Doctors on the whole aren't bad people IMO, although they're not very popular on these boards. Of course there are issues with the commercialisation of medical treatment, the same as anything, and these are issue that need addressing, but ultimately doctors do want healthy and happy patients. It's a measure of their own personal success and it's why they got into the job in the first place. I have faith in human nature. Of course there are bad apples and humans are fallible, but I think doctors like to get their diagnosis correct, and in the OP's case I'm inclined to believe that he was trying to persuade his son to his point of view, rather than offering a genuine diagnosis.....(I hope)...

Fudge me, I finished work hit a big ssv bong, and wrote, and wrote, and wrote, and wrote ..... well done to anyone who got to the end of my disjointed ramblings. I'll edit it soon to make it make sense.