How to convice my girlfriend that there is nothing wrong with psychedelics

[lurkerguy]

The results indicate an absence of marked long-term residual effects of marijuana use on cognitive abilities.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=255433

I am impressed with your ability to critique, and refute so many scientific studies.

You should write a letter to the people at Cambridge informing them that they are using improper methods for their studies.

Maybe you should start your own journal?

P.S.

You will have a great deal of writing to do, look at all the people involved in the recent Cambridge study:

Neuropsychological consequences of regular marijuana use: a twin study
M. J. LYONS a1c1, J. L. BAR a1, M. S. PANIZZON a1, R. TOOMEY a1, S. EISEN a1, H. XIAN a1 and M. T. TSUANG a1

a1 Department of Psychology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

Harvard Medical School, Department of Psychiatry at the Brockton/West Roxbury VA, USA

Harvard Institute of Psychiatric Epidemiology and Genetics, Boston, MA, USA

Research and Medical Service, St. Louis VA, St. Louis, MO, USA

Division of General Medical Sciences Department of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA

Harvard Medical School, Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts Mental Health Center, Boston, MA, USA

Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Boston, MA, USA

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=255433

Look at the study I posted, really read it.

It is two years old.

It explains why the 7 year old study you posted is junk science, and used improper methods.

 

[happyus]

wheni first started dating my partner i hated all drugs. i didn't want him to take acid becasue he'd never tried it and i didn't like the idea of him doing it however he had taken mushrooms before so i didn't want to tell him he couldn't do those. he tried acid behind my back and i found out from other people and it nearly wrecked our relationship.
after a bit of time, and after experimenting with other drugs with my partner i tried a low dose of acid and havn't looked back since.
you can't pressure her into doing it, and definately don't do it behind her back.
But maybe make the point that you've taken psychedelics before and nothing about you has changed, she likes you the way that you are and for you the idea of sharing such a deep and wonderful experience with her is just amazing.
at the end of the day what ever you say if she is dead against it you won't change her mind. and if you nag her about taking somehing and wear her down there will end up being resentment.

 

[burn out]

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=255433

I am impressed with your ability to critique, and refute so many scientific studies.

You should write a letter to the people at Cambridge informing them that they are using improper methods for their studies.

Maybe you should start your own journal?

i didn't bother with a refutation because its so easy. but here we go:

lso, if you read carefully you'll see your studie son marijuana don't even support your argument. for example:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=255433

Results. Marijuana-using twins significantly differed from their non-using co-twins on the general intelligence domain; however, within that domain only the performance of the block design subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised reached a level of statistical significance.

Conclusions. Out of the numerous measures that were administered, only one significant difference was noted between marijuana-using twins and their non-using co-twins on cognitive functioning. The results indicate an absence of marked long-term residual effects of marijuana use on cognitive abilities.[/quote]

so in other words, there was a statistically significant difference between the marijuana using twins and the non using twins. sure, the difference was small, thus indicating an absense of MARKED residual affects. it doesn't say there are NO residual, it actually says the opposite, there are or might be some residual affects so thank for you providing me another study backing up my argument.

you still have provided no evidence that drinking a few beers causes brain or organ damage.

 

[lurkerguy]

The results indicate an absence of marked long-term residual effects of marijuana use on cognitive abilities.

marked (märkt) pronunciation
adj.
Clearly defined and evident; noticeable: has a marked limp. See synonyms at noticeable.

The results indicate an absence of noticeable long-term residual effects of marijuana use on cognitive abilities.

The study found no noticeable differences in cognitive abilities after long term Cannabis use.

Can it be any more strait forward than that?

These are the groups of researchers who found no noticeable difference in cognitive abilities after long term Cannabis use:

Neuropsychological consequences of regular marijuana use: a twin study
M. J. LYONS a1c1, J. L. BAR a1, M. S. PANIZZON a1, R. TOOMEY a1, S. EISEN a1, H. XIAN a1 and M. T. TSUANG a1

a1 Department of Psychology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

Harvard Medical School, Department of Psychiatry at the Brockton/West Roxbury VA, USA

Harvard Institute of Psychiatric Epidemiology and Genetics, Boston, MA, USA

Research and Medical Service, St. Louis VA, St. Louis, MO, USA

Division of General Medical Sciences Department of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA

Harvard Medical School, Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts Mental Health Center, Boston, MA, USA

Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Boston, MA, USA

 

[burn out]

The study says there are no noticeable differences in cognitive abilities.

Can it be any more strait forward than that?

noticeable |ˈnōtisəbəl| adjective easily seen or noticed; clear or apparent : a noticeable increase in staff motivation. • noteworthy : a noticeable new phenomenon.

in other words, just because there are no easily seen differences in cognitive function, doesn't mean marijuana doesn't damage the brain. actually, the study did find a STATISTACALLY SIGNIFICANT difference between the two groups. if your argument was correct, THIS SHOULD HAVE NOT BEEN THERE.

and im still waiting for the proof than drinking a few beers will permanently damage my brain and organs.

can i be any more straight forward?

 

[lurkerguy]

It said there was a statistically significant difference in a single test, out of dozens of tests, which is consistent with a normal variation in the intelligence of two identical twins!

Hence why they concluded no noteworthy or noticeable effects in the conclusion.

Also, a "few" means more than a couple, so by a "few" I am assuming you mean at least 3 or 4?

Any study you find will tell you that anything over "moderate" consumption causes
serious brain damage.

So what is considered "moderate" consumption?

What’s a moderate. drinker?
Men = 2 drinks/day. file:///usr/share/ubuntu-artwork/home/index.html
Women = 1 drink/day

www.utexas.edu/student/utlc/lrnres/handouts/life_mgmt/alcohol-truth.pdf

So if your a women, it isn't safe to drink even a couple of beers a day without causing brain damage.

If your a man, it is safe to drink a couple, but never a "few".

 

[happyus]

stop bloody arguing with each other!!! answer the op's question and take the fight elsewhere.

 

[lurkerguy]

His question was all ready answered, and the OP hasn't responded to the thread in a long time.

In fact, he hasn't responded to it once since he started it.

P.S.

Nothing is wrong with debate.

I hate all the Jr. Mod wannabes on bluelight.

One mods says something, and right away you have a line of members to repeat what they said like your fucking little brother saying "yeah mom said to eat your spinach!".

Pathetic.

 

[burn out]

It said there was a statistically significant difference in a single test, out of dozens of tests, which is consistent with a normal variation in the intelligence of two identical twins!

Hence why they concluded no noteworthy or noticeable effects in the conclusion.

Also, a "few" means more than a couple, so by a "few" I am assuming you mean at least 3 or 4?

Any study you find will tell you that anything over "moderate" consumption causes
serious brain damage.

So what is considered "moderate" consumption?


www.utexas.edu/student/utlc/lrnres/handouts/life_mgmt/alcohol-truth.pdf

So if your a women, it isn't safe to drink even a couple of beers a day without causes brain damage.

If your a man, it is safe to drink a couple, but never a "few".

so youre totally contradicting yourself now. before you stated:

When you drink beers, and the high goes away, after that you are never the same.

now youre saying there is a safe level of alcohol consumption? even a safe level of DAILY alcohol consumption? keep in mind the argument was NEVER about daily alcohol consumption to begin with but simply a single or occasional use of alcohol, in which case drinkinng 3 beers won't cause you permanent brain and organ damage.

 

[happyus]

lurkerguy- actually i was getting a little peeved that valid points (and yes i see mine as being valid) were getting lost in a debate over the meaning of moderation.
I am not trying to be a 'junior mod', just as you're probably NOT trying to be a complete asshole, i guess people are just perceived the wrong way sometimes.

 

[lurkerguy]

It is 1-2 beers a day for the entire year.

It doesn't have to be daily.

Read the article.

So if you are a woman and you drink any more than 7 beers in a week you get permanent brain damage, or a man drinking any more than 14 beers a week.

Meanwhile with Cannabis you can use it heavily over a long period of time, with no noticeable effects on brain function.

So have fun drinking your "glass of wine with dinner", or your "3 beers".

You won't have to worry about brain damage, I know you would never drink more than 14 drinks in a week.

I drink beer all the time, to the point of excess, even hard liquor, I am honest with myself about what I am doing to my body though.

I will leave this thread be now, it is pointless to debate with someone who challenges the meaning of the word "noticeable".

 

[burn out]

It is 1-2 beers a day for the entire year.

It doesn't have to be daily.

Read the article.

So if you are a woman and you drink any more than 7 beers in a week you get permanent brain damage, or a man drinking any more than 14 beers a week.

Meanwhile with Cannabis you can use it heavily over a long period of time, with no noticeable effects on brain function.

So have fun drinking your "glass of wine with dinner", or your "3 beers".

You won't have to worry about brain damage, I know you would never drink more than 14 drinks in a week.

I drink beer all the time, to the point of excess, even hard liquor, I am honest with myself about what I am doing to my body though.

so in other words, youre admitting what you said was incorrect. a single use of a few beers wont permanently damage your brain and organs. you must use alcohol on a regular bases in order for that to happen.

the whole point is that the consumption of alcohol is not necessarily accompanied by permanent brain and organ damage, its quite possible to use alcohol in such a way that wouldn't result in either of those things (such as only drinking on holidays. there are people who do this believe it or not).

and thus my argument is complete in proving that just because someone consumes alcohol, doesn't mean they are irrational for being opposed to radically altering their perception for 12 hours with an LSD trip. as i said, if the person were an alcoholic you might have a point, but since the OP specificied nothing about how much alcohol his girlfriend consumes, your point is void. for all we know, she could be someone who only drinks a couple of beers on new years eve, st patricks day etc.

 

[lurkerguy]

I am sure she only drinks a glass of wine to celebrate New Years.

You know how well teenagers moderate their alcohol.

Also, I still consider someone who drinks occasionally, but looks down on psychedelics to be an irrational hypocrite, because drinking has the potential to turn people into bigger assholes than any other drug.

60% of people who commit murder drink alcohol before hand.

So I consider alcohol to be a drug that drastically alters you perception, and your ability to make smart decisions, and it also increases risk taking behavior.

I can post a study that says after only a few beers, your decision making skills are highly depleted.

So I still say alcohol is the most dangerous drug, short term, and long term, and anyone who uses it, and condemns other drugs, is a hypocrite.

 

[burn out]

I am sure she only drinks a glass of wine to celebrate New Years.

You know how well teenagers moderate their alcohol.

that's beside the point. from reading the original post again, his girlfriend doesn't sound all that bright and she very well might drink a lot. who knows? but the point is i cant and you can't judge her by that one post. you cant judge her by the fact that shes a teenager, in fact he didnt even specify whether she was a teenager.

the point i was trying to make is that its not irrational for someone who consumes alcohol (perhaps even someone who consumes alcohol to excess) to have reservations about the use of highly illegal and extremely powerful conciousness altering agents such as LSD. the psychedelic experience and the expeirence of drinking a couple of glasses of wine after dinner, are really so different that it doesn't even make sense to compare them. and if i had a significant other who was planning to either have a couple drinks, or embark on a mystical mushroom journey tonight, i would have to say i would be far more concerned about the potential outcome in the latter scenario. alcohol is predictable, psychedelics are not.

 

[lurkerguy]

Alcohol is not predictable.

A "bad trip" on alcohol can mean you curse your family, beat your wife, kill your friend etc.

Like I said, the most crazy, out of control, violent people I have ever dealt with have been under the influence of alcohol.

Even dealt with a women on an empty stomach who only drank 5-6 beers, starting crying, acting hysterical, ended up pulling out a knife and threatening to kill people at a party if they didn't let her drive, because someone took away her keys.

Then passed out, woke up a few hours later, and pissed herself in front of every one in the party.

Later denied the entire event.

 

[burn out]

I am sure she only drinks a glass of wine to celebrate New Years.

You know how well teenagers moderate their alcohol.

Also, I still consider someone who drinks occasionally, but looks down on psychedelics to be an irrational hypocrite, because drinking has the potential to turn people into bigger assholes than any other drug.

key word being potential.

60% of people who commit murder drink alcohol before hand.

So I consider alcohol to be a drug that drastically alters you perception, and your ability to make smart decisions, and it also increases risk taking behavior.

I can post a study that says after only a few beers, your decision making skills are highly depleted.

but the fact remains that alcohol is predictable. because we know what it does to us and what it willl will do us, we can take precautions to ensure a safe drinking experience. i myself will often take such precautions, because i know alobhol will impair my judgement. however, reguardless of what precautions i take, there is no way i can predict the outcome should i choose to ingest something as powerful as psilocybin mushrooms. psychedelic drugs have changed the way i view myself and the world in a radical way and this change is forever. its not even comparable to alcohol and someone who is against using psychedelics should even be judged on the bases of whether or not they consume alcohol or even other non psychedelic drugs.

So I still say alcohol is the most dangerous drug, short term, and long term, and anyone who uses it, and condemns other drugs, is a hypocrite.

this is totally subjective and entirely dependent on the criteria one uses.

 

[lurkerguy]

Also, if you read the original post, it says she is "against drugs in general".

So she is against anyone smoking Cannabis, or taking mushrooms, even if they are comfortable with them.

It even implies she would like them to go to jail for that, because if she is "against drugs" she probably supports Prohibition.

So yes, she is a total hypocrite, anyway you look at it.

 

[burn out]

Alcohol is not predictable.

A "bad trip" on alcohol can mean you curse your family, beat your wife, kill your friend etc.

Like I said, the most crazy, out of control, violent people I have ever dealt with have been under the influence of alcohol.

Even dealt with a women on an empty stomach who only drank 5-6 beers, starting crying, acting hysterical, ended up pulling out a knife and threatening to kill people at a party if they didn't let her drive, because someone took away her keys.

Then passed out, woke up a few hours later, and pissed herself in front of every one in the party.

Later denied the entire event.

sounds like alcohol to me, hence my point in it being predictable. we know what it does, we know it drastically impairs peoples judgement, we know drunk people are not safe to be around.

this doesn't mean someone who consumes a few glasses of wine with dinner is a hypocrite or irrational for having reservations about their significant journeying into psychedelia. its a totally different thing, only similar in that they both involve drug taking.

 

[lurkerguy]

Sometimes you laugh on alcohol, sometimes you cry, sometimes you get angry, sometimes you take huge risks etc.

I don't see how you can consider that predictable.

By your definition I can say mushrooms are predictable because they always make you whacked out for a few hours, and you always know that someone on mushrooms is going to be spaced out.

 

[burn out]

Also, if you read the original post, it says she is "against drugs in general".

So she is against anyone smoking Cannabis, or taking mushrooms, even if they are comfortable with them.

It even implies she would like them to go to jail for that, because if she is "against drugs" she probably supports Prohibition.

So yes, she is a total hypocrite, anyway you look at it.

thats why i said she doesn't sound too bright (but im not going to judge her based on one sentence written by someone who isnt even her). however, i will defend the point of view that it is not irrational to be against against psychedelics if you consume alcohol. i honestly see little relation between the two things.