Bad Reporting, Not Email, Worse Than Marijuana 290
MoNickels writes "Turns out, those endless news reports and blog entries in April about "texting makes you stupid" were inaccurate. As linguist Mark Liberman at LanguageLog now reports by way of apologizing to Wilson, it wasn't Wilson's fault, but that of "rotten science journalism." Psychologist Glenn Wilson was reported to have done a study said that chat and email, as the Guardian put it, "are a greater threat to IQ and concentration than taking cannabis." But Wilson says, "This...is a temporary distraction effect—not a permanent loss of IQ. The equivalences with smoking pot and losing sleep were made by others, against my counsel, and 8 [subjects] somehow became '80 clinical trials.'" The original Slashdot story was covered back in April."
Carl Sagan Smoked Pot (Score:5, Interesting)
Billions and billions of stars... whoa man far out.
journalists need better training (Score:3, Interesting)
News media also need to not be profit-driven, but I also want a pony.
Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, I doubt his report would have gotten around quite as much if it would have been reported correctly. And now that the correct info is getting out, he's getting even more publicity. In the end, I think that Wilson probably is going to benefit from this.
Re:really that bad? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, how many pot smokers do you know that just give up and quit?
Depends who you talk to (Score:2, Interesting)
Assumptions... (Score:3, Interesting)
The original article, despite its unfortunate lack of correctness, did give me pause to question whether permitting and accepting distraction with the sort of ease and frequency that is now present between cellphones and e-mail and fax and the Internet is actually causing long-term damage to our ability to think critically and plan the most efficient use of our time -- instead, the immediacy of a phone call or e-mail adds priority from proximity to matters that may be better left till tonight or tomorrow.
I've been noticing a sharp increase of people with brain-fry over the last decade, and it can't all be from drugs.
Re:really that bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:really that bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember in college having roommates who would do just about everything, including homework, while stoned. Personally, I could never remember the details of a movie I'd watched while stoned, so I can't imagine it could be good for schoolwork. Most of the potheads I knew never made it far, and some are doing really great, but Carl Sagan and scores of successful writers (like the entire beat generation from the 50's & 60's) have shown that pot doesn't have to make you stupid if you're motivated to begin with.
If you ever listen to Dr. Drew on radio loveline you know they can tell a pothead, even if he isn't stoned, from the initial drawl of their 'hello.' The apparent IQ effect on potheads probably has a lot to do on the kind of people smoking it and where their priorities lie.
Dude! (Score:4, Interesting)
This website [veryimport...theads.com], while not too reliable-looking, lists several surprising names, including notable politicians (but we're discussing IQ here, so ignore those) and cites Bill Gates as a possible pothead. Most of the names listed are musicians (like Bob Marley-- duh!) and actors and writers, and if you're going to talk about them, you can just go ahead and list about every musician since the 50's :)
Re:really that bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
Grumble.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Besides, who in the hell has authority to dictate what one person can and cannot put in their body?
State dependence (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also part of how we are able to key our personalities for different functions: That morning cup of coffee; the happy hour drink after work.
This is a separate effect from that which can be occassioned by heavy drinking or (perhaps) really heavy pot smoking, where the circuits for laying down long-term memory appear to be interrupted so that even going back to a similar state won't retrieve the memories. But it's a confounding factor in reports about pot. Someone who's normally a bit depressed, but becomes happy when stoned, will remember things from the time when stoned just fine -- when they're stoned again. However, in their accustomed depressive state, not so much.
Interesting observation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Email vs. Marijuana (Score:4, Interesting)
I smoke weed from time to time. I sure ain't addicted.
-ben
Re:Email vs. Marijuana (Score:2, Interesting)
American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV doesn't require drug users to go through withdrawal in order to classify them as addicts. Instead, the criteria for what is called "drug dependence" looks how deeply people are immersed in drug use, for its negative consequences for their lives, and for its disturbances of their normal life functioning, including family, work, and health.
Marijuana does not modify the brain. It affects it yes, but once it's gone the brain
is the same
Although science is not absolutely conclusive on this, it is fairly clear that Marijuana usage does permanently modify the brain to some extent. Once it is gone, the brain may be similar, but it is definitely not the same. As people age, they normally lose neurons in the hippocampus, which decreases their ability to remember events. Chronic THC exposure may probably hastens the age-related loss of hippocampal neurons. In one series of studies, rats exposed to THC every day for 8 months (approximately 30 percent of their lifespan), when examined at 11 to 12 months of age, showed nerve cell loss equivalent to that of unexposed animals twice their age
Study [nih.gov]
Re:Point Of Order: The Nixon Report (Score:1, Interesting)
As for your hand-waving, unsupported claims about the dangers of marijuana, you have utterly failed to provide even one source to support your claim. I, on the other hand, can negate any source you might find by way of the latest edition of the most widely-used medical textbook in the world, The Merck Manual of Diagnostics and Therapeutics.
From the entry titled Cannabis (Marijuana) Dependence [merck.com]:
Chronic or periodic use of cannabis producing some psychologic dependence but no physical dependence.
Any drug that causes euphoria and diminishes anxiety can cause dependence, and cannabis is no exception. However, heavy use and complaints of inability to stop are unusual. Cannabis can be used episodically without evidence of social or psychologic dysfunction. The term dependence probably is misapplied to many users. No withdrawal syndrome occurs when the drug is discontinued, but some heavy users report disrupted sleep and nervousness when they stop.
This entry is, quite simply, the final word on cannabis. Only a study done in the past year could change this. And, even then, the study would, per the scientific method (the basis of medicine), await confirmation. I have seen no such study in the scientific literature. Have you?
And please don't provide a political article or anecdote to support your claim.