Live Stoner Chat Live Stoner Gossip

[Anthropolis]

The Guardian is even more strange, first they ran an article by a supposedly real Dr studying cannabis which criticized and called out the issues with the Daily Mail article... But then they ran the same article reworded lmao! (I'm not saying American news is any better, probably worse actually lol, but UK news media does this weird thing all the time I've noticed.)

Anyway, in case anyone is missing this, here's the thing. Several studies have found that people who have markers for or are predisposed to psychosis will use cannabis (maybe in search of some healing or relief, but they fail to mention that lol). In technical terms that would be called correlation, and not even a strong one at that.

Correlation does not prove nor imply, statistically or otherwise, that there is causation. In other words, you can't say weed causes something simply because it's correlated. So just because they interviewed people in the psych ward with psychosis, and they happened to have previously used "skunk" whatever that is, doesn't mean that the skunk caused the psychosis. I bet they've taken asprin before too, but doesn't mean that asprin causes psychosis lmao!

I went to a very nice and rather expensive school for psychology, and if I had presented this paper, I'd be laughed right out of the school for horribly improper procedures.

 

[9bear]

The Guardian is even more strange, first they ran an article by a supposedly real Dr studying cannabis which criticized and called out the issues with the Daily Mail article... But then they ran the same article reworded lmao! (I'm not saying American news is any better, probably worse actually lol, but UK news media does this weird thing all the time I've noticed.)

Anyway, in case anyone is missing this, here's the thing. Several studies have found that people who have markers for or are predisposed to psychosis will use cannabis (maybe in search of some healing or relief, but they fail to mention that lol). In technical terms that would be called correlation, and not even a strong one at that.

Correlation does not prove nor imply, statistically or otherwise, that there is causation. In other words, you can't say weed causes something simply because it's correlated. So just because they interviewed people in the psych ward with psychosis, and they happened to have previously used "skunk" whatever that is, doesn't mean that the skunk caused the psychosis. I bet they've taken asprin before too, but doesn't mean that asprin causes psychosis lmao!

I went to a very nice and rather expensive school for psychology, and if I had presented this paper, I'd be laughed right out of the school for horribly improper procedures.

My take on psychosis . It already exists in some of us . Hidden away in the deep dark recesses of the cerebral cortex and exposes itself when we use cannabis . Not a bad thing as now we can seek help , if needed . Just a layman's thoughts on this deep matter . :tiphat:

 

[pop22]

The Guardian is even more strange, first they ran an article by a supposedly real Dr studying cannabis which criticized and called out the issues with the Daily Mail article... But then they ran the same article reworded lmao! (I'm not saying American news is any better, probably worse actually lol, but UK news media does this weird thing all the time I've noticed.)

Anyway, in case anyone is missing this, here's the thing. Several studies have found that people who have markers for or are predisposed to psychosis will use cannabis (maybe in search of some healing or relief, but they fail to mention that lol). In technical terms that would be called correlation, and not even a strong one at that.

Correlation does not prove nor imply, statistically or otherwise, that there is causation. In other words, you can't say weed causes something simply because it's correlated. So just because they interviewed people in the psych ward with psychosis, and they happened to have previously used "skunk" whatever that is, doesn't mean that the skunk caused the psychosis. I bet they've taken asprin before too, but doesn't mean that asprin causes psychosis lmao!

I went to a very nice and rather expensive school for psychology, and if I had presented this paper, I'd be laughed right out of the school for horribly improper procedures.

They need to change the name of that rag to: Tall Tales and Tits

 

[Feenix]

The Guardian is even more strange, first they ran an article by a supposedly real Dr studying cannabis which criticized and called out the issues with the Daily Mail article... But then they ran the same article reworded lmao! (I'm not saying American news is any better, probably worse actually lol, but UK news media does this weird thing all the time I've noticed.)

Anyway, in case anyone is missing this, here's the thing. Several studies have found that people who have markers for or are predisposed to psychosis will use cannabis (maybe in search of some healing or relief, but they fail to mention that lol). In technical terms that would be called correlation, and not even a strong one at that.

Correlation does not prove nor imply, statistically or otherwise, that there is causation. In other words, you can't say weed causes something simply because it's correlated. So just because they interviewed people in the psych ward with psychosis, and they happened to have previously used "skunk" whatever that is, doesn't mean that the skunk caused the psychosis. I bet they've taken asprin before too, but doesn't mean that asprin causes psychosis lmao!

I went to a very nice and rather expensive school for psychology, and if I had presented this paper, I'd be laughed right out of the school for horribly improper procedures.

Very well put Anthro. If they have a comment section, I hope you set them straight. Here in the states the biggest liars are gaining the most ground merely by repeating how honest they are over and over.

Maybe you could do a paper on psychosis and mass hysteria related to media lies.
:Sharing One:

 

[Mossy]

Anyway, in case anyone is missing this, here's the thing. Several studies have found that people who have markers for or are predisposed to psychosis will use cannabis (maybe in search of some healing or relief, but they fail to mention that lol).

People with undiagnosed/untreated psychosis will gravitate towards Cannabis to Treat it..whether they realise they are Treating it or not..so you will get a Higher concentration of Undiagnosed psychotics using cannabis.

That is a Failing of the Doctors to Recognise and treat the Problem.

Cannabis Treats it. Poor mans meds..if you can't afford a Good Doctor..your body/brain will Instinctive draw you to what It needs to Treat it.

What gets me..:dunno:..what is this Super Skunk that seems to be the New Big Scarey news views word.

It is supposed to be so much Stronger that what people smoked in the 70's...:no:..and make tokers psychotic..

Where the Chuff is that..coz we are on a bloody toker forum and I haven't seen the Stories..Who the Hell made That Myth up...and why is no one challenging it..?

 

[Feenix]

What gets me..:dunno:..what is this Super Skunk that seems to be the New Big Scarey news views word.

It is supposed to be so much Stronger that what people smoked in the 70's...:no:..and make tokers psychotic..

Where the Chuff is that..coz we are on a bloody toker forum and I haven't seen the Stories..Who the Hell made That Myth up...and why is no one challenging it..?

They probably went on line and saw the same spoof stories we see here occasionally. One article and they tailor it to fit their agenda. Who needs research when they already had the conclusions they would present as fact no matter the reality.
They aren't trying to sell the idea to anybody who is likely to know the difference. Their target are those still thinking in the tiny box that got a good tear last week when our Surgeon General admitted Cannabis has benefits.
by-by schedule 1."Bailers Booya"

 

[Anthropolis]

Can any of our UK friends verify that "skunk" is just the new brit buzzword for "high grade cannabis"? I'm just a little confused still lol as far as I know, skunk was a strain family.

Also, what is this crappy hash they're getting at %5??? Lol! I'm sure I couldn't be the only one surprised by this. I was under the impression that just about any hash would/should be stronger than the associated pot.

I really thought I understood pot pretty well lol, but the media is doing a good job of confusing the heck out of me latey lol.

 

[User K]

Skunk is the term for strong weed by people who don't, and have never smoke weed. It's sooooo annoying. I can't comment on hash as it's hard to come by my way now, but 5%? Certainly not back in the day 'Soap Bar' was quite common.

In the UK government and police bang on about cannabis getting stronger and stronger but I remember a news paper where they tested 20 strains of street weed, and I think the highest TCH record on that test was 7.9%, lol what a joke.

 

[The Elvis]

In the lower US in the late 80s when I first tried "weed" we liked getting the "skunk" or "polecat" and it smelled like skunk. and it was not very much money about 30.00 US. All it was was imported Colombian bud..

the polecat! i think they live in the UK..

 

[growbeast]

I thought all the idiots saying mmj Is bad called all potent weed kush? Now they say skunk, atleast there almost familiar with more than one strain now.

imagine how mind blowing it will be when they find out about haze lol that will get their rockers rockin