{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/13/2015 3:43:06 PM
2
Regardless of what my phone auto corrects. You still do not say anything about it being associated with it. (Psychosis )
English
-
Here's the link again, I suggest you read the abstract and conclusion, if not the whole thing. It discusses everything I've been saying, and it's from 2008. Psychological events related to cannabis use: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2424288/#!po=0.980392
-
There is increasing evidence that the association is biologically plausible, but given the complex nature of the aetiology of schizophrenia and related disorders, it is unlikely that the relationship will be due to an interaction between cannabis use and a single gene. They sure do sound sure of themselves don't they. Taken from the conclusion of the link you provided
-
Edited by Kohaku Koi: 9/13/2015 4:03:36 PM[quote]Regardless of what my phone auto corrects. You still do not say anything about it being associated with it. (Psychosis )[/quote] Ok. This is getting hilarious. You clearly didn't know the difference between the two words. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Now, if you read the article I posted about PSYCHOLOGICAL effects it very plainly states that psychosis is an effect of MJ use. (Psychosis is a psychological condition, FYI) It's only a few sentences into the abstract. It is also COMMON KNOWLEDGE among anyone in the medical field. You are so far out of your element I feel really sorry to see you floundering. Autocorrect knows the difference between physiological and psychological, by the way.
-
Lol, floundering. I have posted 8 links to back up my claims while you are still stuck on the original 4 you posted. I think you are the one floundering bub
-
You are clearly out of your element when you can't discern between simple terms pertaining to the subject at hand. If you think bulk of sources is superior to quality, there is no hope for this discussion. Let's just be done.
-
Says the guy who posted research articles from [b][u]1983[/u][/b] to back up his claims. Cute
-
Quality article from 1983 that still hold up to scrutiny 30 years later. Yes, I stand behind that
-
Even after I posted 3 articles that negate it. You standing by a study that's over 30 years old is like me standing by studies that are from the same time that says tobacco doesn't cause cancer.
-
Edited by Unicorn Goo: 9/13/2015 4:21:14 PMSo I can argue this point intelligently but I don't know the difference between 2 words in my argument? Nice deduction. Why is it you keep referring to the same article whilst I have provided numerous to back my claim? (that you're full of sh!t) Funny, you know what phone I am using and the how the auto correct works on it. Why am I not surprised? And now you're speaking for the entire medical field? Hilarious. I guess Dr. Grinspoon isn't a doctor?
