Ganja Babies do better - more suppressed marijuana research

The video actually says the one child that was mildly retarded was from the 'non-exposure to marijuana' group. The other two who were from the 'exposure' group and considered 'low performers', the video stated, were thrown out from the study due to their issues arising from below-average living standards.

there were tests done, or rather one test.
http://www.brazelton-institute.com/intro.html
The problem is that while its a good test, the test's usefulness is limited due to the fact that the babies are just so very very young. this study could have been a lot more definitive IMHO if the children were followed for even a couple years.

I'd really like to see it redone with a larger test group over a longer period of time.

Doesn't the video say they followed the children up through age 4 or 5+?

Half of America is mildly retarded going by IQ tests, I'm not sure they all had pot smoking mothers.

Fail, the point she makes is the opposite of what you were trying to say she made.

ganja babies probably score better on iq tests

yeah looked like spam the first time.

the weird thing about pot is that even though it contains carcinogens, it doesn;t seem to actually produce increased cancer risk. The current thinking afaik is that there are chemicals in it that counteract it. I personally suspect this could become a very hot front in cancer research. Once they figure out exactly what is happening who knows what they might be able to achieve.

marijuana smoke is not carcinogenic.

There are no carcinogens in marijuana smoke, the carcinogens in tobacco come from the chemicals sprayed onto it. Plus, marijuana is as much or more effective when ingested.

How?

it encourages people to smoke pot while pregnant, based on extremely limited research which it glosses over to some degree in it's enthusiasm.

Well said.

It's a fair statement, since the jury is out, and smoking anything isn't good for you. At the same time, it shows that there is medical promise for the drug. That could indeed not be dangerous.

What if smoking weed makes babies healthier?

Agreed!

you may need to broaden your news sources then.

I was kinda thinking Monkey_Films was joking.

Not at all, cannabis is one of the most important plants on the planet. It is by far the most useful and versatile and can't be beaten in quality of body lotion, medicinal qualities and is unequaled by anything made by science in relaxing a human's body and mind. All of this without any evidence of any damaging properties to humans.

I challenge anyone to find a compound, whether natural or invented by science, with the positive benefits to humans of cannabis. It can't be done, marijuana and the hemp plant, if we put away our ignorance, hold more benefits than anything even modern science can bring to the table.

Strangely enough, only one plant on the planet has the exact formula of vitamins, minerals, amino acids and protein the human body needs. Defined: it is the only substance on the planet that man could live on without anything else. A village could live very healthy on nothing but the hemp plant getting water, nutrients and even building materials from one plant.

Like dogs and people, marijuana and humans were meant for each other. I don't care if you believe in God or evolution, either way, this plant was meant to be a staple for human use. I believe a lot of our problems stem from the refusal and denial of this universal truth.

Hemp could end our use of fossil fuels, enable us to feed villagers and grow crops in otherwise desolate areas, reverse global warming and fix the economies of the U.S. and other countries.

So, no, I'm not joking or making light of the subject. We ignore this plant at our own peril. We legalize it and we can fix many of the problems we face. Why don't we do it?

Pride! Pride and ignorance!

I hate both. Can we evolve now and get past the lies and our pride in believing our lies and grow past the propaganda with education. Ignorance is not attractive even though we've been taught that American males drink beer, love cars and construction equipment and ball games. We can also love knowing facts and learn to celebrate intelligence.

I hope we return to those days when pride was taken in being smart but until then...Can the beer drinking, ball watching, corvette drooling American neanderthals please do some research before spouting off false information repeated for the past 80 years.

Says who?

what about young children on speed aka aderal aka amphetamines?

Although she may be completely biased in her conclusions, I wouldn't call marijuana a, "mind altering," drug. Acid is a mind altering drug.

Marijuana has no psychoactive ingredient (like acid, mushrooms, pcp).....*bottom line you don't hallucinate on marijuana*, its more of an inebriate more than anything else.

Scientifically speaking the only damage from this report may be because of the inhalation of the smoke, not the marijuana.

Mind altering =/= hallucinations

Alcohol doesn't cause hallucinations, but I bet we could all agree that it alters the mind.

That being said: Ares point is awfully simplistic and based on a principle that doesn't make any sense if you think about it for 5 seconds. If anything safely improves cognitive ability and promotes better well being for babies in general, then we should absolutely use use it no matter what it is.

Ares, you will be hard pressed to make the argument that any mind altering drug isn't good for you. You just aren't equipped to defend the case because there isn't enough data and information, just like I can't make the case that drugs SHOULD be used. In this case, what's best for the greatest number of people is to be straight with the facts and let people decide what the right thing is for them.

Marijuana is a hallucinogen, saying otherwise just means you are completely unfamiliar with it's pharmacological effects and incapable of performing even a simple google search before you start spouting off incorrect "facts". Marijuana is primarily a hallucinogen, secondarily a stimulant and also a depressant, don't believe me? Try smoking some.

>"what about young children on speed aka aderal aka amphetamines?"<

A perfect example. What is the warning? "do not take if pregnant" Pretty clear to me.

Wow, you should write the Ignorance Dictionary.

Yeah, ummm, but then they give it to the kids not long after they are born. Hmmm? Additionally, the vaccines given just after birth have 10 times the legal toxicity of mercury in them for adults. This is given to a new born baby. This is many times more dangerous for a baby than a mother smoking weed. However, since the doctor is doing it, we don't question it.

How did modern man get to the point where all of our logic is twisted and influenced by capitalism. Your entire life is being 'sold' to you and you are buying it hook, line and sinker.

well there is a hook alright but it's in your mouth not mine. I invite you to watch the most recent episode of "BULLSHIT! with Penn and Teller" entitled "Vaccines" in which they pretty much take your mercury claim and stuff it back into the hind end of where it came from, complete with costumes, sound effects, and usually deliberately gratuitous nudity.

You'll love it.

Also, this post is 8 MONTHS(!) old. Why are you digging that far back into things?

+^ for the googling :) thx.

I just got the replies sent to my inbox yesterday.

Anyone quoting Penn and Teller, a magician/comedy group that had their heyday in the 1970's, as scientific evidence is begging to be ignored.

Come on now, I have documents piled up on my outside desk on mercury and vaccines, all of them scientific studies and you bring Penn and Teller to the table. I've eaten with Penn and Teller in Las Vegas on about six occasions with a producer friend of mine.

Believe me, they are not scientists.

Do you read, the article states they are from Las Vegas, as I have said, it states that they do magic and illusion, as I have said, it states that they are a comedy routine, as I have said. It also states that they began in the 1970s, as I stated. Do you read your own posts? Your link to argue against my statement more than fully proves my statement.

Furthermore, I found not a single piece of evidence in this article that Penn or Teller have any scientific training. Comedy, acting, illusion, atheism and scientific skepticism are all mentioned.
None of this backs up your claim that all of the science and studies done on mercury, vaccines and autism should be disregarded due to the opinion of this obnoxious duo. One whom never hardly ever speaks, essentially, a living 'dummy'.

You got me, bombastinator, proving my points, each and every one of them, with a response and link to the information I spoke of is a grand way to argue against me, NOT!

How old are you?

BTW, I deconstructed your argument while under the influence of weed. So, proof that weed makes one smarter is right in front of you to tie this into the post.

Oh, and who really watches Penn and Teller anyway, worst Vegas entertainers ever! I fought with myself very hard during those dinners in Vegas to remain polite. They were pompous, rude to the waiter staff and just about everyone they came into contact with. It was hard to hold my tongue considering I think they don't deserve the money or attention they get for their out of date, stale, side-show routines.

ROFL you got minused by someone for putting up a link to the page. Someone is REALLY angry with reality here.

ah. voting up your own replies I see.
Well I guess this isn't a normal troll because by replying twice the whole concept of "say something self evidently ridiculous and see how many replies you can get" gets busted when you keep replying. Let's assume you're serious for the moment.

Your statement was:

A) That the highlight of their careers was in the 70's rather than the beginning.
The wiki clearly states they weren't even working nder the NAMES Penn and Teller untill the 80's. You don't start at the top and go down unless you're a stripper or something.

B) That they were most famous as a night club act. "BULLSHIT!" is not a night club act. it is a multi year running television series so popular it is translated into several languages.

C) That the purpose of the show is magic and illusion, and that they are making the claims without scientific backing.
The entire purpose of their act is the claim that it is all a con. The purpose of the show is exposing cons.
They are NEVER the primary claimants on their program. IIRC the scientific basis for their claims are all made by real scientists on their programs.

Do you read YOUR own posts!?

Well two can play at that game I suppose. i can vote my own up as you vote them down. I really don;t understand why it's allowed, but oh well.

Haha this comment of yours just got minused too. I +^'d it back up. Zero sum.

None of what you claim is in that Wikileaks post. Yes, their heyday was the 1970s, their routines in the 70s got them noticed and thus began their lackluster television career.

Again, another celebrity obsessed American taking their knowledge from television shows and comedic magicians, get real. I don't care who helps them out and if you check the IIRC out then you would know that it would be in their best interest to claim mercury does no harm in vaccines.

Tell me this. A thermometer breaks in a grade school and a little mercury falls on the floor. Just one drop the size of an M&M. What happens next is the school is evacuated and Hazmat teams must come in and completely sterilize the school. That is how hazardous the stuff is. Now, have Penn and Teller explain the 'magic' way that putting this in a vaccine and shooting it into a three day old child is somehow safe.

"None of what you claim is in that Wikileaks post."
what wikileaks post? It's wikipedia. Not even remotely the same thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, wikileaks is a recently disgraced whistlebloewrs site who completely prostituted their standards by behaving even more despicably than the organizations they fight when someone in THEIR administration blew the whistle on them.

"Yes, their heyday was the 1970s, their routines in the 70s got them noticed and thus began their lackluster television career. "
ah.... The "lackluster television career" that made them multimillionaires v.s their early work for local community theatre which probably didn;t even pay thier rent which was the supposed height.
You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of scale.

"Again, another celebrity obsessed American taking their knowledge from television shows and comedic magicians, get real."
False. Their stuff is at least in this case, well documented. You are very carefully avoiding the actual content of the program and attempting to focus entirely on a manufactured reputaiton made up of provably fraudulent claims. I reiterate THEY are not the one's making the claims. They are merely showing claims made by real scientists. They are the HOSTS of the show not the subjects.

"Tell me this. ...."
OK. Easy. This is a perfect example of how the bullshit the show complains about works.
Your attempt at a claim is based on a classic principle of magic tricks. Forcing the audience to make assumptions about a measurement based on a limited view perception rather than fact.
On one hand is a zero tolerance system that ignores actual danger and is concerned with perceived danger.
On the other hand is the concept of "just a few drops" which while sounding small is still millions upon millions of times larger than the amounts talked about in the vaccines.
A similar example is the famous case of Christopher Columbus making his case for his famous voyage by taking advantage of the fact that no one knew how big the world really was. There were many estimates so he took the world measurements from one group and the ocean size measurements from the other to create a number less than half the size that either group would have claimed. See... It's Bullshit.

I suspect most damage comes from the smoke, with the baby getting less oxygen. We need to see more research with moms who vaporize.

of course you love marijuana. It's a euphoric psychoactive drug. The question is it real love or the fact that the whole point of the thing is that it manipulates your pleasure sensors into experiencing love like sensations. Like the difference between real cherries and red KoolAid

(yes this is a ridiculoulsy old post but someone just replied to one of mine and it seems I am Pavlovianly conditioned to read down the forum column and comment. )

its not surprising to you becase you are willing to believe anything anyone says that is positive about marijuana. What i personally found surprising is that someone things they can gauge the psychological stability of a one month old infant.

bombastinator does have a point. I think they would need to follow these children up through adolescence to get a clearer picture of the effects (if any exist).

I was under the impression that thc does not effect the baby at all since mother and child do not share the same blood supply. THC is oil soluble and does not cross the fluid barrier in the womb, that's what I've heard doctors have told people I know. They smoked herb while pregnant and all their kids have turned out fine.

Women like cannabis when pregnant because it soothes nausea, relieves stress, and helps keep those hormonal swings from making them crazy. =P

yet another reason? You'd think the conspiracy theorists would make up their mind. They keep on coming up with new and different ones.

No, you're totally right Lucretia. I've just recently seen that myself. Before I had seen it though, I had already done a lot of research behind cannabis. I can't say I can confirm all of it, cuz I did hear some new things, but at least 85% is definately true.

You haven't done any book research on this subject have you? It shows.

Thanks

no its not? its ganja.

I believe the word comes from India and the River Ganges, where Shiva created it or something like that. Now the rasta's call it GanJAH.

I hear that Ganja is considered so sacred in India, the Ganges - the most sacred river in India - was named after it.

Underthebus - that's completely not true. The two words ganja and Ganga are completely different (Ganga is what "ganges" is actually called and how it is pronounced in hindi).

Ganga sounds like gun-ga (hard "g" sounds") while ganja sounds like "gah'n'jah."

Totally different.

OK, it's what I heard from someone who had studied with yogis in India, for whatever it's worth.

Ganja is another name for marijuana. The word is often times associated with the west indies, but the truth is that it originated in India.

ORIGIN: The word Ganja actually comes from the word Ganges, referring to the Ganges River, which is a river in India where Cannabis Indica grew naturally. Cannabis indica was brought to the west indies, and is therefore referred to as Ganga.

Underthebus, please provide your source. I disagree with your claim that ganja originates from ganges or vice versa.

Ganja is called what it is here because that's what it is called in India. Indians don't use the term marijuana.

My source: Being Indian and knowing the the language :)

underthebus, I never meant to say you did. I realize my sentence came out wrong. What I meant to say was that ganja is marijuana in India. As in there's not ganja - ganges relation (I'm pretty sure).

But sorry for being so fascist about this! Having reread my comments, they come off as a bit too much "no, do it MY way".. apologies :)

No worries! Thanks.