File: 1757806457408878.jpg (163.5 KB)

163.5 KB JPG

>>16918000
checked
but it's statslop

yeah... my anecdotal experience disagrees
has this become another politically charged topic where it's not correct to point out that cannabis is bad for your brain?

>>16918026
It can be good for the brain but bad for the mind.

File: 71e4CdDsSHL._AC_UY1000_.jpg (123.3 KB)

123.3 KB JPG

The author of the study

>>16918038
It can be good or bad for the mind. It mostly depends on what kind of mind you have to begin with. If you're afflicted with the deadly combination of high neuroticism and low meta-cognition (which seems to be the case for most anti-drug types, for example), it will do your mind no good.

>>16918000
yeah right, now do memory loss study

>>16918000
>cognitive decline
it probably helps if you're already an 70 iq fecaloid to begin with
the decline from 70 to 68 is going to be relatively less.

>>16918000
>Age-related cognitive decline
>Age-related
Wow, a retarded study investigating a hypothesis that nobody cares about came up with no conclusion. In other news, Studies showed that eating fast food doesn't affect your penis size.

>>16918000
>endogenous cannabinoids are involved in stress regulation
>stoners have less long-term stress cognitive decline
it's a mystery

File: 1730814078196010.png (72 KB)

72 KB PNG

>>16918135
> the author of this post

>>16918000
they suffered all the decline they could before they even entered the study, and that's assuming they aren't retarded in the first place. all the stoners I know are fucking stupid, and they use cannabis *because* they are stupid and have to deal with the consequences of being stupid.

>>16918000
Using canabis as an adolescent especially tween-early teen years is definitely correlated with a higher rate of developing schizophrenia which causes cognitive decline.

File: ...huh.gif (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB GIF

>>16918000 (OP)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/brb3.70136
>Variable , Has never used cannabis , Has used cannabis , Total
>n (%) , 3134 (60.7) , 2028 (39.3) , 5162 (100)
>IQ change , -6.82 ± 9.54 , -5.29 ± 9.88 , -6.22 ± 9.70
>Current or former smoker , 1690 (53.9) , 1755 (86.5) , 3445 (66.7)
>Years of weekly binge drinking , 3.34 ± 9.34 , 6.95 ± 12.97 , 4.76 ± 11.05
>Use other illicit drugs , 21(0.7) , 564 (27.8) , 585 (11.3)
So smoking pot makes you 60% more likely to be a smoker, 200% more likely to binge drink, and 4,000% times more likely to use other illicit drugs...

... and their big takeaway from this was that people who smoke pot might lose 1 ± 10 IQ points fewer than people who don't over an average of 44 years.

>>16918710
one has to wonder how they even reached that conclusion. maybe pot, drug & alcohol users manage their stress with substances and therefore it's easier for them and causes less health issues or whatever? how the fuck does that translate into losing fewer IQ points than people who don't do pot, drugs or alcohol? I mean, isn't smoking and abuse of alcohol and drugs actually bad for your health?
maybe, like I said here >>16918624, they were already kind of retarded to start with?

>>16918209
I see you have no idea how statistics work, retard. Look up the bell curve, and apply your limited brain cells for a second. A drop like that would be relatively more, not less. Fuck sake. Not a day goes by I don't need to school someone on stats.

File: dont-care-idc.gif (221.6 KB)

221.6 KB GIF

>>16918026
>>16918147
>Anecdotal

>>16918000
Its clear SCIENCE has a bias to shill cannabis because zog loves when people smoke it since it makes people dumb and slow.

File: wqdr.png (206.8 KB)

206.8 KB PNG

>>16918026
Always was

>>16918980
No one asked, cretin.

>>16918000
>>16918026
>>16918613
Weed junkies are almost as annoying as AHDH faggots. Just can't shut the fuck up and smoke their junk/eat their adderall, have to constantly scream for attention.

>>16919885
this depends on age in my experience
what you describe is true of immature children, but not of working adults who have to function in society such as myself

File: 8bs839.gif (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB GIF

>>16918000
Nice trips and thank you for the useful scientific data. Sorry, nobody seems to care about objective reality and just wants to be emotional monkeys arguing with you based on subjectivity. Imagine posting scientific research on a 4chan board titled "science and math" and expecting anything other than a bunch of pissed of schizophrenics are going to react to you with their delusional cope. What a tragedy.

>>16919958
Thank you for confirming this thread was created by shills.

>>16919965
take your meds

>>16918624
>all stoners I know
Confirmation or sample bias.
Stoners that talk about it and that you know about are highly likely to be retarded.
However, my group of friends since youth, all smoke weed and don't talk about it.
This group includes me running a large business (quite large by private standards), my two lawyer friends, another guy running a large tire shop and making money hand over fist, the top landscaping company in the area, the college librarian, and etc.
None of the above I mentioned talk at all to anyone about how they smoke weed.

>>16918000
>>16918026
>has this become another politically charged topic where it's not correct to point out that cannabis is bad for your brain?
No, but it has become an economic one. Now that weed is becoming increasingly legal and available, there's a huge economic incentive to "prove" that it's perfectly harmless.

Legal weed is heavily taxed so pretty much everyone in a position to pump out flimsy studies is heavily invested in this. Growers want to make money, dispensaries want to make money, the government wants to make money, so you can expect to see a lot more headlines like this in the future despite the fact that anyone who's known habitual smokers can easily tell that it does not have a positive effect on people.

>>16920216
At least you acknowledge the scientific "authorities" telling you what's good and bad for you will lie about everything and flipflop on a whim depending on what suits their current interests.
>anyone who's known habitual smokers can easily tell that it does not have a positive effect on people.
>habitual smokers
Whatever that means. Anyone who's known anti-drug shills can easily tell that whatever unbringing causes it does not have a positive effect on people.

>>16919958
>>16920016
>useful scientific data

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
>only 11% of 53 pre-clinical cancer studies had replications that could confirm conclusions from the original studies.
>A survey of cancer researchers found that half of them had been unable to reproduce a published result.
We know for a fact that all modern fields of research are packed with people falsifying data and studies and this means that you should approach every new paper with a degree of skepticism. The first thing you should ask yourself is, "What motive would these researchers have to falsify data in order to be able to publish their preferred conclusion?"

The more powerful and likely their motive, the less you should trust their results, especially for a study like OP where cherrypicking data is extremely easy.

>>16920218
>Whatever that means.
It means you, Timmy. It means people who use drugs as a lifestyle coping mechanism rather than an occasional indulgence. I've done plenty of drugs in my life but I do them on special occasions, not on a daily basis. If you'd ever known people who start their day by getting high (or if you weren't one yourself) then you'd know exactly what I'm talking about.

That's the goal, by the way. When you're selling a product then the goal is always to sell more product and the point of studies like this is to make people feel like they're not doing anything wrong by getting high every day.

>>16920220
>It means you, Timmy.
See, this is what I mean. Habitual exposure to conservative ideology isn't doing your psychological health any good.

> I've done plenty of drugs in my life but I do them on special occasions
That quite literally means you have a drug habit.

>>16920223
>Habitual exposure to conservative ideology
Weird projection. Does this mean you're scared of addressing the content of my posts?

>That quite literally means you have a drug habit.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree that doing psychedelics once or twice a year qualifies as a "drug habit" but I'd happily take that over your weed addiction.

>>16920216
It's highly likely your CPA or lawyer smokes pot all the time.

>>16920225
>a year
as in...
>per year
as in...
>regularly for years
as in..
>habitual

>>16920225
>the content of my posts
Your post has zero relevant content. You're talking about some imaginary character in your head who gets high every day as soon as he gets up. I agree that your imaginary character has a drug problem, but it has nothing to do with the thread or my post. It's just habitual exposure to conservative ideology distorting your sense of reality and maybe even causing you to hear voices.

>>16920219
>current year+11
>trusting science
lol

>>16920227
Ah yes, all those habitual drinkers who have one glass of wine a year. Does this disingenuous harping on semantics mean that you have nothing of substance to share and I can safely ignore you?

>>16920229
>conservative ideology
You're the only one bringing up politics. What part of my posts seems political to you?

>You're talking about some imaginary character in your head who gets high every day as soon as he gets up.
Son, I'm an oldfag and I'm talking about many people I've known throughout my life. If you've never had friends or family who became addicts to weed or other drugs then you're lucky.

>>16920231
If you read that post and interpreted it as me telling you to "trust science" then you really need to work on your reading comprehension.

>>16920248
>I'm talking about many people I've known throughout my life
Then maybe the problem is the segment of society you come from, not the safety of weed.

>>16920254
Oh man, you have no idea. The only difference in addiction prevalence among social classes is what drug people are addicted to. I haven't known any meth addicts but I sure have known a lot of heroin addicts.

Go look up how much it costs to spend a week in a nice rehab center and tell me what strata of society you think can afford it.

>>16920255
>social classes
Political indoctrination is causing you to hallucinate again. Nothing in my post says anything about "social classes".

>>16920256
>desperately dragging the argument to semantics again
I think most people would agree that "segment of society" and "social classes" are synonyms but no worries, I can see you don't have anything intelligent to say. Hope your day gets better, anon.

>>16920262
>most people would agree that "segment of society" and "social classes" are synonyms
But you literally just disagreed with it. Unless you're retarded and think it's a pure coincidence that your life is full of drug addicts while mine isn't.

Only low IQ incels dislike smoking weed.

>>16919957
I can tell just from the way you write that you're an insufferable cunt.

Rape