But seriously, smoking heavily will diminish your cardio fitness (not terribly important in climbing, but everything helps).

Hit the bong every evening?

Is this a physical set back?
Does it matter?

If I had to choose between a partner who was stoned or one that was drunk ... smoke away!

only if its extra dank though dont climb on mids or kb because the highs are whack!!!

If those were my only two choices, personally.. I'd rope solo.

Cannabis users are 40% more likely than non-users to suffer a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia, say UK experts.

However, they said they could not rule out the possibility that people at a higher risk of mental illness were more likely to use the drug.

Two of the authors of the study were invited experts on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Cannabis Review in 2005. Several authors reported being paid to attend drug company-sponsored meetings related to marijuana, and one received consulting fees from companies that make antipsychotic medications.

Do you believe the finding that even infrequent use of marijuana may hike the risk of becoming psychotic? *19662 responses

18% Yes, I believe the latest scientific evidence. You can't mess around with the brain without serious consequences.

45% No way. This is just Big Brother trying to give a harmless substance a bad rap.

34% There's probably some truth to it, but I doubt the effects are quite so extreme.

3% I'm not sure.


Not a scientific survey. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.

New study says thats not true...that "fact" of yours is about 40 years old...

Hardly new, unless there's been another one recently that I have not heard about. There was a study done at Harvard in 2001, I think, that de-bunked that one.

Edit : Found it http://www.hno.harvard.edu/...10.11/marijuana.html

Using marijuana seems to increase the chance of becoming psychotic, researchers report in an analysis of past research that reignites the issue of whether pot is dangerous.

The new review suggests that even infrequent use could raise the small but real risk of this serious mental illness by 40 percent.

Doctors have long suspected a connection and say the latest findings underline the need to highlight marijuana's long-term risks. The research, paid for by the British Health Department, is being published Friday in medical journal The Lancet.

"The available evidence now suggests that cannabis is not as harmless as many people think," said Dr. Stanley Zammit, one of the study's authors and a lecturer in the department of psychological medicine at Cardiff University.

The researchers said they couldn't prove that marijuana use itself increases the risk of psychosis, a category of several disorders with schizophrenia being the most commonly known.

There could be something else about marijuana users, "like their tendency to use other drugs or certain personality traits, that could be causing the psychoses," Zammit said.

Marijuana is the most frequently used illegal substance in many countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States. About 20 percent of young adults report using it at least once a week, according to government statistics.

Zammit and colleagues from the University of Bristol, Imperial College and Cambridge University examined 35 studies that tracked tens of thousands of people for periods ranging from one year to 27 years to examine the effect of marijuana on mental health.

They looked for psychotic illnesses as well as cognitive disorders including delusions and hallucinations, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, neuroses and suicidal tendencies.

They found that people who used marijuana had roughly a 40 percent higher chance of developing a psychotic disorder later in life. The overall risk remains very low.

For example, Zammit said the risk of developing schizophrenia for most people is less than 1 percent. The prevalence of schizophrenia is believed to be about five in 1,000 people. But because of the drug's wide popularity, the researchers estimate that about 800 new cases of psychosis could be prevented by reducing marijuana use.

The scientists found a more disturbing outlook for "heavy users" of pot, those who used it daily or weekly: Their risk for psychosis jumped to a range of 50 percent to 200 percent.

One doctor noted that people with a history of mental illness in their families could be at higher risk. For them, marijuana use "could unmask the underlying schizophrenia," said Dr. Deepak Cyril D'Souza, an associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Wilson Compton, a senior scientist at the National Institute on Drug Abuse in Washington, called the study persuasive.

"The strongest case is that there are consistencies across all of the studies," and that the link was seen only with psychoses — not anxiety, depression or other mental health problems, he said.

Scientists cannot rule out that pre-existing conditions could have led to both marijuana use and later psychoses, he added.

Scientists think it is biologically possible that marijuana could cause psychoses because it interrupts important neurotransmitters such as dopamine. That can interfere with the brain's communication systems.

In the U.K., the government will soon reconsider how marijuana should be classified in its hierarchy of drugs. In 2004, it was downgraded and penalties for possession were reduced. Many expect marijuana will be bumped up to a class "B" category, with offenses likely to lead to arrests or longer jail sentences.

Medical Writer Marilynn Marchione in Milwaukee, Wis., contributed to this report.

According to the United Nations' 2007 World Drug Report released last week, Canadians leads the industrialized world in marijuana smoking. Canadians are four times more likely to have smoked pot in the past year than residents of nearly every other country: 16.8 per cent of Canadians aged 15 to 64 use marijuana, compared to a global average of 3.8 per cent.

In 2001, Canada became the first country to legalize medical marijuana. In 2003, Jean Chrétien's Liberals tabled a bill to decriminalize marijuana possession, but the legislation died in 2006.

Still, 55 per cent of Canadians believe marijuana should be legal, according to an Angus Reid poll conducted this June.

I'm going to disagree with you about the scientific value of the studies. The study seems to be one of the only meta-analyses done on this field. And the statisitical results that the study yielded are significant by any measure - particularly the risk for "heavy users" to develop psychosis. I think the strongest aspect of the study is that there were consistencies across all of the studies and the link was seen only with psychoses - not depression or anxiety.

I think the confounding variable that researchers will be unable to control for is the fact that people who choose to become heavy users of pot may have a greater predisposition towards mental health problems or that a pre-existing condition could lead to both heavy marijuana use and psychosis. That confounder would come up in all the research models in these studies and will, to an extent, lead to a false conclusion that the dependent variables here are in a causal relationship with the independent variable.

large-scale trial of an illegal drug isn't feasible, the results can't be confirmed by the highest scientific standard, a double-blind study.

I'm usually one to roll my eyes at anti-science conspiracy theories, but when it comes to street drugs things are a bit different.

My girlfriend does medical research, and this info comes from the Principle Investigator at her lab ...

Most research in the U.S. is funded by the National institute of Health, which is a federal government agency. Even though they're charged with funding science for the purpose of informing policy, the tail wags the dog quite a bit when it comes to drugs. Big surprise with this administration, right?

Basically, if you publish a scientific paper showing results that contradict government drug policy, there's a good chance that (mysteriously) you'll never get another penny of federal grant money. So researchers know to stay away from research they think will lead in that direction.

In rare cases, bad scientists have actually done bogus research to support federal policy, knowing that it would be good for their relationship with the grant givers. Most famous was the lab that researched ecstasy over a decade ago, and provided the data that is most cited on the subject. Recently researchers in other countries were unable to duplicate their results (this is science speak for an accusation of fraud, basically). After auditing their results, the original researchers claimed that their samples had been tainted, and that they were actually amphetamine! So basically, everything the government ever told you about the dangers of ecstasy is based on discredited research. And there's virutally no good research, because no one wants to risk doing it.

Sad story.

I'm going to disagree with you about the scientific value of the studies. The study seems to be one of the only meta-analyses done on this field. And the statisitical results that the study yielded are significant by any measure - particularly the risk for "heavy users" to develop psychosis. I think the strongest aspect of the study is that there were consistencies across all of the studies and the link was seen only with psychoses - not depression or anxiety.

http://www.bloomberg.com/...EI4&refer=europe

I think the confounding variable that researchers will be unable to control for is the fact that people who choose to become heavy users of pot may have a greater predisposition towards mental health problems or that a pre-existing condition could lead to both heavy marijuana use and psychosis. That confounder would come up in all the research models in these studies and will, to an extent, lead to a false conclusion that the dependent variables here are in a causal relationship with the independent variable.

Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974 ([16]), but he has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974 ([17]).

A conversation between Bush and an old friend and author, Doug Wead, touched on the subject of use of illegal drugs. In the taped recordings of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” Bush says. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything."

In a biography of Bush, Fortunate Son (ISBN 1-887128-84-0), James Hatfield investigated claims that Bush had been arrested for cocaine possession and that he had the record expunged; Hatfield said he found corroboration from three people close to the Bush family. Bush called Hatfield's book "totally ridiculous" but declined to discuss whether he had used drugs before 1974. [18]. Critics have pointed out the sources for the book are unnamed and the facts uncorroborated. Four days after its publication the book's publisher, St. Martin's Press, discovered that Hatfield had been previously convicted of attempted murder and spent five years in jail. When faced with the allegations Hatfield initially denied them but later admitted they were true. St. Martin's recalled the book and mothballed others. Hatfield pointed out that, before the Bush campaign brought pressure to bear, St. Martin's had stated that the book had been "carefully fact-checked and scrutinized by lawyers". ([19]) The book was later republished by another publisher shortly before Hatfield died of a drug overdose in an act of suicide. [20] [21]

In February 2004, Eric Boehlert in Salon magazine claimed that Bush's cessation of flying in April, 1972 and his subsequent refusal to take a physical exam came at the same time the Air Force announced its Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, which was officially launched April 21. Boehlert said "according to Maj. Jeff Washburn, the chief of the National Guard's substance abuse program, a random drug-testing program was born out of that regulation and administered to guardsmen such as Bush. The random tests were unrelated to the scheduled annual physical exams, such as the one that Bush failed to take in 1972, a failure that resulted in his grounding." Boehlert remarks that the drug testing took years to implement, but "as of April 1972, Air National guardsmen knew random drug testing was going to be implemented". [22]

I'm usually one to roll my eyes at anti-science conspiracy theories, but when it comes to street drugs things are a bit different.

My girlfriend does medical research, and this info comes from the Principle Investigator at her lab ...

Most research in the U.S. is funded by the National institute of Health, which is a federal government agency. Even though they're charged with funding science for the purpose of informing policy, the tail wags the dog quite a bit when it comes to drugs. Big surprise with this administration, right?

Basically, if you publish a scientific paper showing results that contradict government drug policy, there's a good chance that (mysteriously) you'll never get another penny of federal grant money. So researchers know to stay away from research they think will lead in that direction.

In rare cases, bad scientists have actually done bogus research to support federal policy, knowing that it would be good for their relationship with the grant givers. Most famous was the lab that researched ecstasy over a decade ago, and provided the data that is most cited on the subject. Recently researchers in other countries were unable to duplicate their results (this is science speak for an accusation of fraud, basically). After auditing their results, the original researchers claimed that their samples had been tainted, and that they were actually amphetamine! So basically, everything the government ever told you about the dangers of ecstasy is based on discredited research. And there's virutally no good research, because no one wants to risk doing it.

Sad story.

only problem I see with your "10,000 years" theory is that 9,900 of them people didn't drive stoned. And sad fact is that too many retards are too stupid to know about " Time and Place".... I have seen too many of them with a big smile lighting Joint while driving on I-94 ( or any other road)....
Sorry but drunk or stoned shouldnt be in public.....and I dont care how bad case of munchies they have ( so drive to 7-Eleven was needed in there head)

Ahh, but driving while under the influence of intoxicants is an entirely different discussion, isn't it?


and for the record, automobiles (more accuratley people driving automobiles) kill (the last numbers I recall seeing) 50,000+ people every year... I don't hear people clamoring for legislation to criminalize automobiles... do you?


oh, and cut back a tad on whatever it is you're imbibing while quoting... it's degrading your ability to attribute quotes/quote properly!

an additional article, experts said up to 800 schizophrenia cases a year in the UK could be linked to cannabis use.

The researchers looked at 35 studies on the drug and mental health - but some experts urged caution over the results.

The authors said the risk to any individual of getting schizophrenia remained low overall, but because cannabis use was so common, they estimated it could be a factor in 14% of psychotic problems among young adults in the UK.

However, they said they could not rule out the possibility that people at a higher risk of mental illness were more likely to use the drug.

Study author, Professor Glyn Lewis, professor of psychiatric epidemiology, said: "It is possible that the people who use cannabis might have other characteristics that themselves increase risk of psychotic illness

"However, all the studies have found an association and it seems appropriate to warn members of the public about the possible risk."

In an accompanying editorial, Danish researchers said the figures presented in the research translated to about 800 potentially avoidable cases of schizophrenia a year in the UK among 15- to 34-year-olds.

There are an estimated 2m regular users of cannabis in the UK.

But Professor Leslie Iverson, from the University of Oxford, said there was still no conclusive evidence that cannabis use causes psychotic illness.

Their prediction that 14% of psychotic outcomes in young adults in the UK may be due to cannabis use is not supported by the fact that the incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the past 30 years."

Professor David Nutt, head of psychopharmacology at the University of Bristol, said that cannabis was unquestionably harmful but very much less addictive or damaging than either alcohol or tobacco.

If you work in Alberta or B.C., you’re more likely to have to undergo drug testing by your employer than if you work in any other province.

Recent research into impairment and traffic accident reports from several countries shows that marijuana taken alone in moderate amounts does not significantly increase a driver's risk of causing an accident -- unlike alcohol, says Smiley, an adjunct professor in the department of mechanical and industrial engineering . While smoking marijuana does impair driving ability, it does not share alcohol's effect on judgment. Drivers on marijuana remain aware of their impairment, prompting them to slow down and drive more cautiously to compensate, she says.

Smiley, who has studied transportation safety for over 25 years, drew her results from a "metanalysis" of existing research into the effects of marijuana on driving ability, combined with traffic accident statistics in the United States and Australia. Previous studies showing stronger effects often combined "fairly hefty doses" by researchers with driving immediately after consumption, likely exaggerating the drug's effects, she believes.

While Smiley does not advocate legalizing the drug, she says her results should be considered by those debating mandatory drug tests for users of transportation equipment such as truck or train drivers, or the decriminalization of marijuana for medical use. "There's an assumption that because marijuana is illegal, it must increase the risk of an accident. We should try to just stick to the facts."

Smiley presented her findings at a symposium of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in Florida in February. Her paper was also published in Health Effects of Cannabis, a publication of Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, in March.

Could someone please translate this and tell me wtf oatmeal dude is trying to say here?