Weeding Out the MJ Problem « Gaming Outpost Discussions

Gaming Outpost Discussions » Off Topic

Weeding Out the MJ Problem

(113 posts) (7 voices)

Started 1 year ago by M. J. Young
Latest reply from JohnA1nut

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 3 Next »

M. J. Young
Moderator

MJ, I've heard it said that you cannot be both Catholic and pro-abortion. Being pro-abortion flies in the face of everything that Catholicism stands for. Likewise, I don't see how anyone can be Christian, and declare the creations of God, whatever they are, to be bad or evil. Harmful certainly, but God didn't create anything evil. If God didn't want the human race to have everything that's here, then why did He put it here to begin with? I don't see how a Christian can say that. That's just my two cents.

I probably do not need to say who posted that on the When Oak Returns thread; I asked him not to continue proselytizing for the use of marijuana on this board, and this was his response. I want to say that he deserves a reply to that, but I don't know that that's not too strong a statement. Let's say that since he is in some sense a friend it would be rude for me to ignore him.

Some time before we had a Food and Drug Administration, someone invented Sulfa-based antibiotics, which were effective in a lot of ways that Penicillin-based ones were not. These were marketed by drug manufacturers in pill form. There was a problem, though. Southerners--that is, adults in the southern United States--did not at that time take medicine in pill form. They wanted all their medicines as elixirs, liquids they could drink or swallow off a spoon. Sulfa drugs did not dissolve in water; they did not dissolve in alcohol, either. So they wouldn't take sulfa drugs, and their physicians wouldn't usually prescribe them.

Everyone knew that the company that could make a liquid sulfa drug would get a huge boost in sales. Then one company head hired a friend who was a chemist, who was highly intelligent and innovative, and in a very short time this company was marketing a liquid sulfa drug. It became very popular in the south, and the company grew substantially.

In an apparently unrelated event, there was a rash of renal failures. Patients died; others were very sick and would never fully recover.

Researchers determined that nearly all cases of renal failure in the outbreak were in patients who had several months previously taken the sulfa elixir sold by this company. Not all those who took the drug exhibited such symptoms, and the company insisted it was mere coincidence--a lot of people took their drug. But the evidence grew stronger, and the drug was pulled from the market, and ultimately demonstrated to be the culprit.

The chemist knew that he could get many things dissolve in another sweet-tasting liquid which could then be mixed with water to create the elixir. The liquid was ethylene glycol, commonly used for antifreeze and highly toxic, enough so that small doses have effects over a long period. Renal failure--the destruction of the kidneys--is the usual ultimate cause of death, but there are other effects before that.

I have no objection to using ethylene glycol for antifreeze, or in other chemical applications. I do, however, object to using it in foods or medicines.

Maybe that's a bad example; I don't know whether it is found naturally.

Nightshade is, though. Belladonna grows rather freely in most places. I don't know what the berries taste like, but I do know that they are poisonous.

Everything in the world has the potential to be useful. Not all of it should be ingested. Probably none of it should be burned and inhaled--smoke is itself bad for you.

Hemp makes excellent rope, and I would certainly use hemp rope. But the fact that if ingested or inhaled or otherwise put in the blood has effects on the brain tells me that it is something to be used only under the supervision of experts who understand it.

John, based on your argument, I don't know why you wouldn't eat mushrooms, or nutmeg. Sure, they'll kill you--that is, they'll kill you faster. But I am not at all persuaded that marijuana is safe.

At one point one of our presidents announced that he wanted the FDA to take over the regulation of cigarettes. The FDA responded that it was not possible for them to do so under their mandate. They were charged with determining that dose of a drug which was safe and effective. There is no level of cigarette smoke that is safe, and since it does not cure anything no level is effective.

I personally would like to see stricter controls on tobacco and alcohol, and maybe if anyone cares we'll talk about that, too. I would tighten controls on marijuana, because it has not been demonstrated to be safe or effective.

Now, maybe in your particular case, John, there might be an argument for prescribing marijuana as a treatment for your condition. You should find someone willing to run clinical studies and include you in the test group. Until then, I don't think there's enough evidence that tampering with your own brain without supervision is ever a safe practice.

--M. J. Young

Wed Dec 1 2010 12:01 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

One drug that I was on was great at controlling psychosis. It was also approved by the FDA. First couple of days, it gave me lockjaw. I didn't think much of that. Side-effects are common enough, and often go away after a day or two. On about the third or fourth day, my entire body was locked up. I couldn't move. Muscle spasms, I think is what it was called. My head was twisted around one direction, my arms were bent uncontrollably, my right leg was folded. My left leg suffered no ill effects. I had to hop on one leg to get to the bathroom. This lasted about 8-10 hours. When I related this to my doctor, she suggested that I could take a second drug to counter the muscle spasms. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with taking a second drug to counter the side-effects of the first? And, I say again, this was APPROVED BY THE FDA.

Another drug I was on, approved by the FDA, made me sleep upwards of 16 hours a day. I didn't mind that so much, I love to sleep. There's something incredibly wrong with a drug that makes you sleep that much, but I didn't mind. My doctor swore up and down it wasn't habit-forming. Doctor, person trained in these things. After a few months, I started sleeping normally. I was also hopelessly addicted to the stuff and didn't even realize it. When I ran out, I couldn't sleep for three day. I had other withdraw symptoms, but that was the most notable. And, I say again, this was APPROVED BY THE FDA.

The first drug I ever tried made me very violent. The last that I was on made me extremely paranoid. The latter, I didn't even realize that I was more paranoid until I stopped taking it. You may recall MJ that I was writing you 3 or 4 letters each 6 pages long, saying the same thing over and over and over. That was the paranoia. I had to make sure I was absolutely clear to you. I didn't even realize it. And, I say again, this was APPROVED BY THE FDA.

What I'm trying to tell you is that I have no faith in the FDA, and less in anti-psychotic drugs. At best, I got temporary reduction of the psychosis, at worst, the side-effects were worse than the psychosis itself. The therapy is all-natural, the effect is permanent reduction of the psychosis, the side-effects are that I feel really good, I am more creative, and I have an excuse to invite friends over. "Wanna come over and do therapy with me?" Honestly MJ, which of those sounds like the better option?

Besides, I was hardly proselytizing about marijuana with that statement. I was asking how you could declare anything created by God to be evil? Belladonna, Arsenic, Cyanide, etc, are not evil. They have evil applications, but then, I've read of a man who beat someone to death with a Bible. Even the Bible can have evil applications. That doesn't make it evil, anymore than having evil applications makes anything else evil. How can you call yourself a Christian, and be opposed to the use and enjoyment of all of His creations, in their intended uses? Cyanide is not meant to be ingested by humans, it's meant to kill rats. I bet you would have no problem using and enjoying rat poison to kill an infestation in your house, it's intended use. God put it here. He wanted us to have it and enjoy it. That's the way it is.

"Why should I be taking drugs made by man, instead of Medicine made by God?"
John "A1nut"

(Doing Therapy)

Wed Dec 1 2010 12:33 am #
kyler
Member

THC has been shown to be safe, effective, and not chemically addictive.

Smoke is carcinogenic, but is not the only way the THC can be administered.

Wed Dec 1 2010 12:44 am #
Jhiaxus
Member

We need THC mixed with sand in a sandblaster for a contact high :P

Wed Dec 1 2010 12:46 am #
kyler
Member

Though I'd also like to point out the glaring flaw in the Man Vs. God argument;

If man made it, and God made man, than God made it by proxy, especially considering that God could have vetoed the making of it.

Wed Dec 1 2010 12:50 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Now, maybe in your particular case, John, there might be an argument for prescribing marijuana as a treatment for your condition. You should find someone willing to run clinical studies and include you in the test group. Until then, I don't think there's enough evidence that tampering with your own brain without supervision is ever a safe practice.

Honestly MJ, who knows more about psychosis? Me or my doctor? I can learn what she knows, but she could never learn what I know. Who knows more about what goes on inside the confines of my skull? Me or a doctor?

A full-blown psychotic episode, now, is less than I used to deal with on a day-to-day basis.

If you would like, I can provide a link to the Americans for Safe Access forum I visit. It's a pro-medical marijuana site.

Though I'd also like to point out the glaring flaw in the Man Vs. God argument;

If man made it, and God made man, than God made it by proxy, especially considering that God could have vetoed the making of it.

God doesn't make mistakes. Man does. Any more questions?

(Doing Therapy)

Wed Dec 1 2010 1:47 am #
Brock
Member

I agree with Kyler. Though i do not necessarily agree in the existence of a God in the first place. That is a debate for another time.

Oh, and clever name for this thread, MJ.

Wed Dec 1 2010 1:53 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

I would tighten controls on marijuana, because it has not been demonstrated to be safe or effective.

And do you know WHY it hasn't been proven safe or effective? Because it's illegal. Researchers can't get permission to grow it to study the effects to determine if it is safe and effective. Catch 22 from hell, if you ask me.

Do you know WHY it's illegal? What I read is that the drug manufacturers were beginning to realize the medicinal potential. A plant, which people can grow at home, which treats a multitude of ailments. How much money do the drug companies stand to lose from that? So, they lobbied to have it declared illegal over the protest of EVERY MAJOR MEDICAL BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES!!!!!!!

Kindly reread what I put down about the side-effects of the drugs I was taking. Sounds to me like the FDA has their own reason for doing things. And it's name is MONEY!!!!!!

"Why should I be taking drugs made by man, instead of Medicine made by God?"
(My own quote. I so want a bumper sticker which says this)

(Doing Therapy)

Wed Dec 1 2010 2:00 am #
Jhiaxus
Member

So to sum up (Doing Therapy), means (Smoking Pot), glad we cleared that up :P

Wed Dec 1 2010 2:04 am #
JTM
Member

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with taking a second drug to counter the side-effects of the first?

That's apparently fairly typical in a number of cases. It seems perfectly sensible to me.

Do you know WHY it's illegal? What I read is that the drug manufacturers were beginning to realize the medicinal potential. A plant, which people can grow at home, which treats a multitude of ailments. How much money do the drug companies stand to lose from that?

Less than zero dollars. Plants that everyone can grow at home to cure various aliments are the source of most drugs, including current painkillers.

Kindly reread what I put down about the side-effects of the drugs I was taking. Sounds to me like the FDA has their own reasons for doing things.

Different people have various reactions to different drugs. All of the drugs were somewhat effective. Some people have the positive effects without the side effects, and none of the side-effects were lethal or permanent. Banning every drug with major side-effects for anyone would mean banning every drug in existence.

Wed Dec 1 2010 2:10 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

That's apparently fairly typical in a number of cases.

And that, I think, is the problem.

It seems perfectly sensible to me.

Then you've obviously never been the victim of such a side-effect.

Less than zero dollars. Plants that everyone can grow at home to cure various aliments are the source of most drugs, including current painkillers.

Dude, my bullspit detector just hit the ceiling. Let's see, a great deal of anti-psychotics are now off the market, a great deal of anti-depressants are now off the market, a great deal of painkillers are off the market, drugs for nausea are off the market. And that's just scratching the surface. They would lose a FORTUNE!!!!!

Different people have various reactions to different drugs. All of the drugs were somewhat effective. Some people have the positive effects without the side effects, and none of the side-effects were lethal or permanent. Banning every drug with major side-effects for anyone would mean banning every drug in existence.

I was on 30 or 40 of them. Enough is enough already!!!!

(Doing Therapy)

So to sum up (Doing Therapy), means (Smoking Pot), glad we cleared that up :P

Hey, you got me.......

Wed Dec 1 2010 2:30 am #
JTM
Member

And that, I think, is the problem.

I don't get how it is inherently a problem. The second drug would have less severe side effects due to not messing around with brain chemistry by design.

Then you've obviously never been the victim of such a side-effect.

The point of combining the drugs is to not have the side effect while receiving the benefits.

Dude, my bullshit detector just hit the ceiling. Let's see, a great deal of anti-psychotics are now off the market, a great deal of anti-depressant are now off the market, a great deal of painkillers are off the market, drugs for nausea are off the market. And that's just scratching the surface. They would lose a FORTUNE!!!!!

Nope, they'd make a drug consisting of concentrated THC and some inactive ingrediants to make it easily ingested or put it into the same sort of inhaler as is used for asthma and then sell it. That is how drugs work.

Wed Dec 1 2010 2:42 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

The second drug would have less severe side effects due to not messing around with brain chemistry by design.

Dude, you ARE a doofus. What's less severe than feeling really good and being creative? Less severe side effects? That's like saying you got less severely beaten.

Nope, they'd make a drug consisting of concentrated THC and some inactive ingrediants to make it easily ingested or put it into the same sort of inhaler as is used for asthma and then sell it. That is how drugs work.

In California, they do exactly that. The rest of us have to do things au naturale.

(Doing Therapy)

Wed Dec 1 2010 2:50 am #
JTM
Member

Dude, you ARE a doofus. What's less severe than feeling really good and being creative? Less severe side effects? That's like saying you got less severely beaten.

You're assuming, then, that THC does not have hidden side effects like:

* Impairment of thinking, problem-solving skills and memory
* Reduced balance and coordination
* Increased risk of heart attack
* Heightened risk of chronic cough and respiratory infections
* Potential for hallucinations and withdrawal symptoms

http://www.riversideonline.com/health_reference/Articles/GA00014.cfm

The Mayo Clinic is generally considered a reliable medical authority with good reason. Also, apparently there is a synthetic chemical with similar properties but reduced side effects that is available by prescription.

Wed Dec 1 2010 3:07 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Watch Super High Me. A guy went cold-turkey for 30 days, then stayed perpetually stoned for 30 days. He had doctors chart his progress. He scored higher on the SAT stoned, higher sperm count, improved problem solving skills, all manner of improvements.

(Doing Therapy)

Wed Dec 1 2010 3:25 am #
kyler
Member

Heavily religious post to follow, kindly ignore it if that's not your thing.

§

A. God created everything
B. Nothing God created is evil

According to logic, it comes to follow that there is no evil, which we obviously know is a completely inane statement.

God created both good and evil, and allowed us free will to choose between the two. The question, then, is, is marijuana evil in God's Eyes? -- well, is it a stumbling block for your faith? -- is it taking time from you which you could be devoting to His Glory?

I would say that marijuana itself is neither good nor evil inherently, but it can easily become an evil in your life just as all things can when done to excess; once anything becomes more important to you than your personal relationship with God, it closes your ears to His Word and closes your eyes to His Plan for your life.

MJ's got his own sins, John (and yes, drug use is a sin; our bodies are our Father's Temple, and we were told not to pollute them), and that simply isn't one of them. Rather than trying to drag him into more sin, shouldn't you congratulate him and focus on your own life?

§

"This guy obviously doesn't know what he's talking about; he didn't mention a religion SAL..." oh, hush.

Wed Dec 1 2010 5:11 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

MJ's got his own sins, John (and yes, drug use is a sin; our bodies are our Father's Temple, and we were told not to pollute them), and that simply isn't one of them. Rather than trying to drag him into more sin, shouldn't you congratulate him and focus on your own life?

It just occurred to me. The title. MJ is an abbreviation for Mary Jane, which is one of the many slang terms for this plant.

Your body is a temple. What do you do at a temple? You make sacrifices. Offerings of God's creations. Eating food that you enjoy. That is, in a sense, making a sacrifice of God's creations. Smoking something is, in a sense, making a sacrifice of God's creations. I AM obeying the command to treat my body as a temple. I am making sacrifices and offerings of God's creations. Burnt offerings, no less. If anything, I feel it draws me closer to God.

I can't seem to find my Bible at the moment, but in the Creation account, does God not give unto man all of the seed bearing plants, to be used for food? Food, nourishment. Food nourishes the body, this nourishes the mind. It's nourishment, exactly as God commands. I AM obeying God's commands.

(Doing Therapy)

Wed Dec 1 2010 5:25 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Two

Speaking of titles, I know that MJ has a fondness for double-meanings. This could also mean "Removing the problem MJ has." (Getting rid of me) I wonder.......

(Doing Therapy)

Wed Dec 1 2010 8:19 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Third and last

Back to making offerings and sacrifices at the temple of your body. The purpose of a sacrifice was to cleanse you of sin, correct? A psychotic episode is based on a memory. A "sin". The sacrifices I make reduce the psychosis, thereby "Cleansing my sin." I AM treating my body as a temple. I'm making burnt offerings to cleanse myself of sin. How is that not treating my body as a temple?

Yeah, it's extremely metaphorical, but then again, a great deal of the Bible is extremely metaphorical.

(Doing Therapy)

Wed Dec 1 2010 8:57 am #
kyler
Member

Experiencing pain is not a sin. All memory is not of sin. Your psychosis, rather, is your cross to bear; it is your test of faith (see Book of Job, I believe it is).

You are not a problem MJ has any more than hemp is inherently evil.

Okay, so, God gave me nightshade, cyanide, oleander, and poison ivy, all seed-bearing plants, all to eat?

Wait, you're making burnt sacrifices of hemp? No, you're *using* it, not *sacrificing* it, and breathing in any kind of smoke pollutes your body and mind. Blurring the line between the two could be considered offensive. Thankfully, we no longer have to make offerings.

Wed Dec 1 2010 3:57 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Wait, you're making burnt sacrifices of hemp? No, you're *using* it, not *sacrificing* it, and breathing in any kind of smoke pollutes your body and mind. Blurring the line between the two could be considered offensive. Thankfully, we no longer have to make offerings.

Did you see the part where I said I was speaking metaphorically?

Okay, so, God gave me nightshade, cyanide, oleander, and poison ivy, all seed-bearing plants, all to eat?

Those don't prove nourishment of any kind. (I've heard that you can eat poison ivy if cooked properly, but that's not the issue) Plants nourish you. That was God's intention there, I think.

Kyler, with all due respect, you're the last person I would have expected to be opposed to this.

(Doing Therapy)

Wed Dec 1 2010 5:57 pm #
kyler
Member

Begging your forgiveness, but I was born a Virgo on the cusp of Libra. We Virgos have very critical, analytical minds, and we Libra have an excellent sense of right and wrong (how we use that sense is another question entirely). As such, we do enjoy becoming involved in debates (as perhaps you may have noticed by how freely I throw my two cents in).

Smoking is unhealthy. That's the plain and simple truth of it; having your skin exposed to smoke, your eyes, your mouth, your lungs, anything, it's not good for you. I do smoke (cigarettes).

I draw the line at trying to persuade other people to join me in my habit, and I definitely won't try to find scripture to support doing something which will likely result in cancer in more places than probably any other single action you could possibly make.

Wed Dec 1 2010 6:33 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

I draw the line at trying to persuade other people to join me in my habit, and I definitely won't try to find scripture to support doing something which will likely result in cancer in more places than probably any other single action you could possibly make.

Where did I ever try to persuade anyone to join my habit? As far as scripture, you gave me your interpretation of scripture, and I gave you mine. MJ is going to write 50,000 words explaining why my interpretation is incorrect, and that's his prerogative. Won't change anything.

(Doing Therapy)

Wed Dec 1 2010 6:41 pm #
Brock
Member

Please, john. You are constantly touting the 'benefits' of marijuana. You may not intend to persuade people to join your habit, but that is how it comes across.

Wed Dec 1 2010 6:49 pm #
kyler
Member

"Speaking metaphorically" and "lying" are distinct from one another.

Hemp, like many other plants, is difficult for humans to digest. Even when digested, the effect is one that I would not recommend for everyone, and the amount of nourishment provided is likely extremely negligible.

Your interpretation of the scripture was purposefully prejudiced for reasons marijuana is alright in His Eyes, so of course you'll "find" them.

Wed Dec 1 2010 7:49 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

"Speaking metaphorically" and "lying" are distinct from one another.

And exactly what does this have to do with anything? Lying implies a direct deception. I'm not lying. I'm giving my rather metaphorical interpretation.

Hemp, like many other plants, is difficult for humans to digest. Even when digested, the effect is one that I would not recommend for everyone, and the amount of nourishment provided is likely extremely negligible.

Nourishes the MIND!!!!!!! You can't tell me it doesn't do that. Besides, I've heard that hemp seeds are actually very nutritious when eaten. High fiber and protein.

(Doing Therapy)

Thu Dec 2 2010 6:11 am #
M. J. Young
Moderator
THC has been shown to be safe, effective, and not chemically addictive.

I think the problem with that statement is, effective at what? It has been shown to be an effective anti-emetic for persons receiving chemotherapy. I'm not sure of any other effective uses that have been demonstrated.

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with taking a second drug to counter the side-effects of the first?

That's standard practice in the medical field, and very common with the elderly and patients who take medications for multiple conditions. Drug interactions are a concern, so you can't necessarily shift someone to another drug for the problem if it's going to react with something you're taking for something else.

How can you call yourself a Christian, and be opposed to the use and enjoyment of all of His creations, in their intended uses?

Is it not at least a bit presumptive for you to claim to know the intended use of anything God has created? I'm reminded that in his discussions with the Corinthians, Paul had to explain to them that the body was not made for immorality. It seemed obvious to them that the sex organs were made for having sex with anyone who had the appropriate corresponding sex organs, just as it seemed appropriate that food was made for the stomach and the stomach for food. But Paul objected that sex organs were not made for indiscriminate use.

In the same way, you are presuming you know the appropriate use of a particular plant and arguing that I am opposing its intended use. I'm only saying I think that anything that tampers with cognitive function is an inappropriate use.

Honestly MJ, who knows more about psychosis? Me or my doctor?

I'd bet on your doctor. I would also bet that your doctor has more knowledge of the potential effects of drugs, including the one you are taking. You have a 2@1 Education Level, which if I recall correctly is based on a post-high school technical training program. She has completed a doctorate in the field, with some advanced training beyond that. That gives her a 2@5 ed lev, probably, with professional skills in diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric disorders.

Sure, you have an insider's view of what it feels like to be psychotic. That and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee. Yes, you could learn what she knows--take you about ten years, maybe more, because it's likely that anyone who passed the MSAT has a higher than 1@10 intellect, so you might not be able to get through the training she received in the stated time. Of course, she's still keeping the edge on her knowledge--continuing education is required for every medical professional--so by the time you know what she knows now, she'll be a few years ahead of you. You'll also need her experience to build her level of skill.

You keep thinking you know more about your condition than your doctor does. That suggests to me that either you are too arrogant to recognize that she knows more than you or you need a doctor in whom you have more confidence.

Oh, and clever name for this thread, MJ.

Thanks, Brock. I'm glad someone noticed.

And do you know WHY it hasn't been proven safe or effective? Because it's illegal.

That's not true. Drug companies and other pharmaceutical researchers have worked with the plant.

One reason it's not been pursued is that it hasn't been shown to treat much for which other reliable treatments are not already available.

As to the fact that drugs have side effects, it's true of marijuana as well, and it's true that the side effects are different in different people. Some users become suicidal. Some become ravenously hungry. Some become paranoid. Even caffeine has side effects in some patients. Nicotine certainly does. Drugs have side effects. They tamper with the central nervous system in unpredictable ways. Until you've tried them on a particular patient, you can't know how that patient will respond.

John, you're wrong about drugs going off the market. You could grow your own salicylates--acetyl salicylic acid, or aspirin. You don't. It's easier to buy aspirin. There are other anti-emetic plants you can grow, but you don't. Not many people grow aloe for use on irritated skin.

Reasons for this:
1. Natural remedies are not usually as effective as the processed versions available from pharmaceutical companies. Even with drugs that are distilled from natural sources, the purified form of the drug is more effective than the natural form.
2. Just as not all drugs are effective for all patients, not all natural remedies are effective for all patients. The existence of a natural anti-emetic would not necessarily mean that it would work as well for all patients as phenergan.
3. Very few people are willing to maintain gardens for their personal needs. You don't see as many vegetable gardens as you might, even in rural areas, because maintaining the plants is more work than people want to do. Tell me that I can grow half a dozen herbal remedies that will be useful in treating ninety percent of my ailments, and I'll ask you where I can buy the pills so I don't have to watch the plants die from neglect.
4. The particular drug you promote has serious side effects: people using it ought not drive or operate heavy machinery. If I need an anti-emetic, it's probably so I can go to work. If I can't drive or think clearly or react quickly, then I can't work.
It's not so simple as you dream.

It just occurred to me. The title. MJ is an abbreviation for Mary Jane, which is one of the many slang terms for this plant.

The fact that you were the last one to get that, even though someone else already commented on the threat title, suggests to me that your excessive drug use is stunting your intelligence, or at least your awareness and processing skills.

Oh, and as to the guy who took the SAT straight and then a month later took it again stoned and scored higher, it is generally true that people who take the SAT again score higher. You need a control group of someone who took it twice at the same times, to see how much gain there was the second time. You could easily be looking at "opportunity costs"--he scored twenty points higher, but had he been sober he'd have scored fifty points higher, so he actually scored thirty points lower.

Where did I ever try to persuade anyone to join my habit?

You've pressured me to try it quite a few times.

--M. J. Young
Thu Dec 2 2010 6:35 am #
Brock
Member

Where did I ever try to persuade anyone to join my habit?

You've pressured me to try it quite a few times.

QUITE a few times, indeed.

Thu Dec 2 2010 8:12 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

It just occurred to me. The title. MJ is an abbreviation for Mary Jane, which is one of the many slang terms for this plant.

The fact that you were the last one to get that, even though someone else already commented on the threat title, suggests to me that your excessive drug use is stunting your intelligence, or at least your awareness and processing skills.

No, it's because I read the title as "MJ (Young) is weeding out his (John) problem." I know you have a passion for double meanings, is that so far-fetched? Besides, you're sober, and you wrote "threat" instead of "thread". That's proof that something is stunting your intelligence. It couldn't possibly be that you made a typo. See what I mean?

http://safeaccessnow.org/punbb/index.php

Medical Marijuana forum.

(Doing Therapy)

Thu Dec 2 2010 8:13 am #
Brock
Member

OH MY LORD >_<

John insulted MJ's intellect directly!!!!!!

*falls over and dies from the horror of it*

Thu Dec 2 2010 8:15 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

No, Brock is just too intellectually stunted to see blatantly obvious sarcasm. MJ misspelled something. There's two explanations. Either something is stunting his intelligence or he made a typo. Likewise, I didn't notice the meaning of the thread. There's a few ways that could be taken. Either I misread the post, or I'm being intellectually stunted. I'm going with the former.

(Doing Therapy)

Thu Dec 2 2010 8:22 am #
Glantri
Member

John, have we made a list of people who's intelligence you've insulted on this board?

Off the top of my head I can think:
Myself
Brock
Adam
and MJ now

You've made somewhat discourteous remarks to just about everyone on the topic of their intelligence, but outright insulted the ones I listed. Stop it, it's growing tiresome.

Thu Dec 2 2010 2:38 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

And you also missed blatantly obvious sarcasm, even after I explained it in detail. Obviously something is stunting your intellect. MJ started it.

Thu Dec 2 2010 3:12 pm #
Jhiaxus
Member

Eh, this thread will only cause John to lash out at everyone. Consider the source, I consider it a badge of honor to have an insane person remember events in a game, and bring them up constantly 6 years later. Just treat him like an autistic child, and you'll find he can't or won't get better.

Thu Dec 2 2010 3:22 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

That was only four years ago. Something is stunting Adam's intellect.

MJ, if you're going to say that the fact that I missed a joke proves that my intellect is stunted, then everyone who ever makes the tiniest mistake is having their intellect stunted as well. Or it could be just that. They made a tiny mistake.

Thu Dec 2 2010 3:27 pm #
Brock
Member

I have had enough of you. You will receive no more of my time. You will be ignored. Have a nice day, jackass.

Thu Dec 2 2010 4:23 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Resorting to name calling. Intellectual stunting at its finest.

Not everyone who misses a joke or makes a mistake is intellectually stunted. I'm seriously offended that you even suggested it.

(Doing Therapy)

Thu Dec 2 2010 4:37 pm #
kyler
Member

obviously we can't have a friendly debate on this topic.

Thu Dec 2 2010 4:53 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Not on the topic of intellectual stunting. Need I remind you that it was MJ who suggested that in me for an equally inane reason? If I do need to, then you must be pretty intellectually stunted. We've got a moderator named MJ who wrote a thread titled "Weeding out the MJ problem" and I'm intellectually stunted because I missed a reference to Mary Jane? Is it such a stupid thing to think the moderator named MJ was referring to himself? Hardly. What? I'm not allowed to be offended, just like the rest of you?

(Doing Therapy)

Thu Dec 2 2010 5:01 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Two

And since it seems everyone so far is too intellectually stunted to notice, I'm overusing that phrase on purpose. I missed a reference in a title. That suggests I'm intellectually stunted, according to MJ. Well, if that's all it takes, then all of you must be as well. I'm overusing it to show all of you how meaningless it is. Guess you're all too intellectually stunted to notice........

Seriously MJ, I was offended by that.

(Doing Therapy)

Thu Dec 2 2010 7:54 pm #
M. J. Young
Moderator

John, he who laughs last is the slowest. I'm not saying that you missed the joke, I'm saying that you missed the joke after someone else highlighted it.

One of my favorite gags in the comedy F Troop is almost impossible to reproduce. Sergeant O'Rourke is trying to figure out something, and Corporal Agarn makes a completely unrelated comment in which Sarge sees his answer. He says, "That's it, Agarn. I don't know why people say you're so stupid." They leave, move through another scene, come to some other place, and Agarn suddenly burst out, "Who says I'm stupid?"

Took him long enough.

You knew I had a penchant for double entendres. My direct meaning of "Weeding Out" had to do with being rid of the problem by addressing it. My direct meaning of "the MJ Problem" was that it was a problem related to Marijuana, which (at least when I was in high school) is sometimes called "MJ" even without the reference to Spiderman's girlfriend. But I chose those particular expressions because Marijuana is also called "Weed" and because I am known as "MJ", and thus both parts of the title had double meanings.

And you were not included in those meanings except by paranoid inference: you inferred that I was trying to be rid of you, when all I said was that I was trying to get rid of the marijuana problem.

Brock saw the double meanings in the words, and commented without explanation. You made four more posts on the thread, and then in the fifth one finally realized that there was a potential double meaning in the title. What did you think Brock meant?

I apologize for offending you. However, one of the suspected side effects of marijuana is that it stunts intellectual process. That is, from the Mayo Clinic article James cited:

* Impairment of thinking, problem-solving skills and memory

My point was not that you are intellectually inferior; I never say that about anyone, and even though there's a good probability that I (99.8th percentile on a test taken only by people who think they're smart enough to go to law school and have managed to prove it in a few years of college) am intellectually superior to any given individual, I actually never think I am. I treat everyone as being as smart as I, and rarely notice when they are not.

My point was not that you are intellectually inferior, but that one of the alleged side effects of marijuana is that it stunts intellectual ability, and the fact that you missed the obvious double entendres even after someone highlighted them could be cited as evidence that you were suffering the effects of such intellectual stunting.

Roll that in your papers and smoke it.

--M. J. Young

Thu Dec 2 2010 9:26 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

And you were not included in those meanings except by paranoid inference: you inferred that I was trying to be rid of you, when all I said was that I was trying to get rid of the marijuana problem.

Paranoia is part of my diagnosis. Not surprising.

My point was not that you are intellectually inferior, but that one of the alleged side effects of marijuana is that it stunts intellectual ability, and the fact that you missed the obvious double entendres even after someone highlighted them could be cited as evidence that you were suffering the effects of such intellectual stunting.

At best it's unsupported anecdotal evidence. There's unsupported anecdotal evidence of intellectual stunt for everyone on the board, as I've pointed out. Proves nothing. Besides, I'll take a few "DUH" moments to be rid of the psychosis. Even if that is a side-effect, it's still much preferred to many, many of the others I got from FDA approved drugs. This is PERMANENT REDUCTION of the psychosis. The doctor-prescribed drugs gave me (at best) temporary relief. A few "DUH" moments here and there are a small price to pay.

(Doing Therapy)

Thu Dec 2 2010 9:40 pm #
Jhiaxus
Member

I think it maybe time for the group collectively to now allow this type of behavior to be acknowledged anymore. No good ever comes from these threads.

Thu Dec 2 2010 9:41 pm #
Glantri
Member

I'm with Adam on this one, and at that this is my last post on this discussion.

Thu Dec 2 2010 9:51 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Nobody even touched on this. I am not treating my psychosis, I'm CURING it!!!! FDA approved drugs don't do that, the side effects are completely unbearable, and I didn't like them. I've found an all-natural cure to my condition. Nobody seems to want to touch that. I'll take a few "DUH" moments to be rid of this. Sure as Heaven beats the Caffeine/Nicotine fit feeling I had with one that just took the edge off the psychosis.

Side effects I can live with and enjoy for the most part, for permanent reduction of the psychosis, instead of side-effects which were painful and dangerous for (at best) a temporary reduction. Why is this so hard for all of you to see?

(Doing Therapy)

Thu Dec 2 2010 9:54 pm #

RSS feed for this topic

12 3 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.