[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Peyote Not Linked To Brain Damage (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 11/4/2005 5:29:28 AM EDT
|
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/03/health/main1009951.shtml Peyote Not Linked To Brain Damage (Page 1 of 2) BOSTON, Nov. 4, 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A peyote button is displayed by an unidentified American Indian man. After a five-year study, researchers found no evidence of brain damage or psychological problems in Navajos who used peyote for religious ceremonies. (AP (file)) Quote "It's hard to know how much of it is the sense of community they get (from the religion) and how much of it is the actual experience of using the medication itself." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harrison Pope senior author of peyote study (AP) A study of the effects of peyote on American Indians found no evidence that the hallucinogenic cactus caused brain damage or psychological problems among people who used it frequently in religious ceremonies. In fact, researchers from Harvard-affiliated McLean Hospital found that members of the Native American Church performed better on some psychological tests than other Navajos who did not regularly use peyote. A 1994 federal law allows roughly 300,000 members of the Native American Church to use peyote as a religious sacrament. The five-year study set out to find scientific proof for the Navajos' belief that the substance, which contains the hallucinogen mescaline, is not hazardous to their health even when used frequently. The study was conducted among Navajos in the Southwest by McLean psychiatrist John Halpern. It compared test results for 60 church members who have used peyote at least 100 times against those for 79 Navajos who do not regularly use peyote and 36 tribe members with a history of alcohol abuse but minimal peyote use. Those who had abused alcohol fared worse on the tests than the church members, according to the study. Church members believe peyote offers them spiritual and physical healing, but the researchers could not say with any certainty that peyote's pharmacological effects were responsible for their test results. "It's hard to know how much of it is the sense of community they get (from the religion) and how much of it is the actual experience of using the medication itself," said Harrison Pope, the study's senior author and director of the biological psychology laboratory at the hospital near Boston. The researchers argue that their findings should offer "reassurance" to the 10,000 Native American Church members serving in the military who were barred from using peyote before new guidelines were adopted in 1997. "We find no evidence that a history of peyote use would compromise the psychological or cognitive abilities of these individuals," they wrote in their paper published in the Nov. 4 issue of Biological Psychiatry. The researchers note that their study draws a clear distinction between illicit and religious use of peyote. They did not rule out the possibility that other hallucinogens, such as LSD, may be harmful. "In comparison to LSD, mescaline is described as more sensual and perceptual and less altering of thought and sense of self," they wrote, adding that peyote does not seem to produce "flashbacks" the same way that LSD apparently does. The project was funded in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A NIDA spokeswoman would not comment on the study. Lester Grinspoon, a Harvard Medical School psychiatry professor who was not involved in the research, said the study lends scientific weight to a long-held belief that peyote is not harmful. "The thing that excites me most about the paper is that the study was actually done," he said. "The U.S. government and NIDA, in particular, has been rather balky about allowing studies of psychedelic drugs of any kind." |
Well, it never fails. If the subject comes up you will say something stupid. How is your reading go, by the way? Learn anything yet? I would bet not. Just FYI, it has been many, many years since I even saw some of the stuff and I have no interest in taking any. But don't let that stop you from making stupid, inane statements. I know you may find this hard to understand (as you do most things) but I think the interesting part is that the Feds allowed the research at all. If you knew anything about the subject, you might know why I said that. But you don't, so you will just sit and wonder. |
Well, it never fails. Every time you bring the subject up I can count on you to say something stupid. How are your writing skills, by the way? Learn anything yet? I would bet not. I don't care one way or the other about drugs and their users so long as they stay out of my face. However I am concerned with the garbage that surrounds the drug culture and lifestyle. And your constant spamming of pro-drug garbage here on the Forum. But don't let that stop you from making stupid, inane statements. I know it won't. You think you're so cool and hilarious with your snide remarks and your outright insults, but frankly, you miss the point more than you accuse me of doing (where the rubber meets the road, or "That so-called "research" may say that dope is good for you and stuff but I have met a lot of people in real life that drugs haven't done that to and real life trumps theory in many cases"), so I am going to have a good laugh at your expense. 
|
I should add that the real question for me is not why, but how do they manage it? For all those who aren't familiar with peyote, it is little black buttons, maybe an inch to two inches across, that are found on the top of certain kinds of cactus. They have little white hairs on them which I understand contain strychnine and have to be carefully removed before you chew the stuff. Eating the stuff is the real challenge. The buttons are usually the consistency of really tough, hard-dried leather so grinding them up to the point where you could swallow them is hard work. But their toughness isn't the real challenge. The real challenge is the taste. A friend gave me a small bit of the stuff to taste (too small to have any effect - a tiny, tiny bit) many, many years ago. This stuff should be listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the FOULEST taste on the planet. Bitter? OMG! You haven't tasted bitter until you have had a bit of peyote. The taste is so foul that it still makes me gag to even think about it more than thirty years later. Others who have tasted it say the same thing. I knew some people who managed to get their hands on some buttons years ago. After they took just a little taste they spent the next several days trying to figure out a way to swallow the stuff where it wouldn't touch their tongues on the way down. They never did manage it and, AFAIK, none of them ever showed much interest in it again. Peyote will never be a drug for the masses because 1) it is comparatively rare and 2) it sets records for foul taste. You would have to be a Native American with a devotion to the religion to consume this stuff on any regular basis. |
You were talking about alcohol users there, I bet.
Like I said before, if you thought about it you might figure something out.
No, I don't think I am cool and hilarious. If you think people are laughing at you as a result, then maybe you ought to look at your own stupid comments. Let's see, you won't believe anything from XX decade because of . . . . now what was the stupid reason again?
When did I say that? When did I recommend that anyone should take any drug, legal or illegal? I didn't, so that's another stupid comment on your part. BTW, I think I already invited you to submit any research that you think tells the story better. As I recall, you didn't have any -- and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell you ever will.
That drugs haven't done what to? I think you are confused again. You certainly aren't responding to anything I said. |
Screw eating it, anyone that knows anything about peyote knows that "smoking it" is the real ticket. (and most folks always thought those Indians were passing the pipe around loaded w/ buffalo dung) FWIW, it grows all over south Texas and at certain times of the year it's easily obtained. Mike |
Actually no, they were dope users. The same drugs you want to be freely available and legal.
You assume that your research is sufficient to erase the years upon years of violence, theft and other crimes that we in the real world deal with. (Mainly I read about it in the newspapers or on TV, I'm not an LEO)... You don't seem to have the ability to reconcile those two MAJOR points, and think that your petabytes of "research" will sway anyone's opinion. Well Wolfie, it doesn't work that way. You're dealing with a thought experiment and - once again, like Libertarianism and Communism, when put in to action in the real world, the wheels come off. Each and every time.
Oh yeah, the stupid reason was "Some of your "research" was done in the 1800s and some of the rest was done in the Timothy Leary era" (yeah, no agenda there from liberal researchers in the '60s)... You're cracked if you think that anything beyond sociological research (and even that is debatable, people are different now than they were back then) is even remotely considered valid from the 1800s... Research done 50 to 100 years ago should probably be removed from your cache there... If I were to give you anti-drug research from then you'd say the same thing, only more mockingly. It's just your way.
You were all over the Arfcom thread a couple weeks ago that said that marijuana stimulates brain cells. Technically I believe it was an extract from the marijuana plant but that didn't stop the pot lovers from saying it should be legalized. D Has your short term memory failed you...? Toke a bit too much?
My research is from real life, I've provided anecdotes which you simply discarded because they weren't your beloved "facts". This is yet another of your many problems: You think that because a Dr. from some college posts "research" in your favor, that it should automatically sway everybody to your way of thinking. It's not like that. I could post "research" from a doctor that said that all people over a certain body size and weight should be "phased out" because we supposedly consume far more than an "average" sized person... Does that make the research valid? I don't think so.
What's to be confused about? I know people that have done drugs. I knew them before they started doing drugs. They were not the same AFTER they started doing drugs. THIS is my research. Call it what you want: Real life, meatspace, "School of hard knocks" or whatever... I'm against the legalization of drugs based on what I've seen drugs do to people I know. If it becomes legal, it becomes even easier for them to mess up their lives... Good day. |
Just FYI, alcohol wins all the prizes for damage.
When did I say that? More like, if you read the research you would understand why that occurs.
"I read the newspapers!" Now there is a well-educated man. Hell, the newspapers always tell the complete 100% truth, don't they? Nothing else to learn if you read the newspaper.
We have covered this before. It only works for those who actually read it. You make it clear that your entire knowledge comes from the newspaper.
How would you know what they are if you never read any of them?
How would you know if you don't even know what it says? For all you know, it could agree with you completely. But you only read the newspapers, so . . . . (You are talking out your ass, again.)
I just posted an article. I didn't recommend that anyone use the stuff. Get the difference? As for legalization -- there were lots of reasons for that, whatever you believe about the brain cells. You know, like the fact that the marijuana laws were absolute lunacy from the very beginning -- even before they knew anything about brain cells.
Nope. It looks like your reading skills are the real problem.
Yeah, stuff you got from the newspaper, I will bet.
Well, I wouldn't know about that until I actually read it. And I would be smart enough not to comment too much on it until I had read it. Maybe that's something you ought to think about -- because you clearly don't know much about the available research as it is.
What I said. You seem to be terribly, terribly confused about that.
Yeah, I know people who had the same experience with alcohol. I also know people who have had tragedies with firearms. So what does this tell us about the best way to control those problems? What? You really don't have a clue? What a surprise.
I have seen the same thing with alcohol. Does that make alcohol prohibition a good idea? Why not? |
I don't know about that. They seem to LOVE that firewater.  Enough already - you love dope. We get it. |
No, if that's what you thought, you obviously don't. Did you read my comments above about peyote? Try it again. Just FYI, you don't have to like alcohol to recognize that alcohol prohibition was a disaster. Do you think that everyone who opposes alcohol prohibition is an alcoholic -- or even a drinker? |
|
Wolfman I am not interested in doing the same song and dance I've done before. You have your precious research and I have my real world learnings. The two will never reconcile. I read enough of your "research" to realize that much of it was outdated. Some was still relevant. Now- I've read some of the stuff you've posted. Why do you continue to deny my real life experiences? Hmmm? FWIW I read more than the newspapers and see more than the nightly TV news, but I didn't think I had to cite every book, magazine article, online publication, or conversation I had with someone in the know. So you can take comments like this:
And shove them. Your insulting manner doesn't help your cause whatsoever. In fact if I were in charge of a pro-anything movement, I would ensure you were nowhere near my group. Can't you get it through your head that there are other valid viewpoints than yours? |
Yeah, you have proven that you really don't have anything intelligent to say on the subject. You should have decided this long ago. Oh, wait, you did, and yet you keep coming back to it.
Not until you actually read something besides newspapers, anyway.
Correction, you didn't read shit so you wouldn't have a clue whether it matched up with my statements or your "real life experiences". Not that you could answer simple questions on the subject, no matter what stock someone puts in your real life experiences.
Let me be more clear -- it is obvious that you haven't read shit on any related subject and your knowledge of the subject is about at the level of urban legend.
Certainly. But, in every such case, the person actually knows something about the subject and can answer simple, logical questions. Those criteria don't apply to you. |
I do. You just have a one track mind. It gets old fast. BTW, I am for legalizing drugs. I just hate your whole arrogant attitude about how great they are. I have seen enough people ruin their lives that I am far less sanguine than you about what drugs do. I am also well studied in statistics and find most studies on the topic laughable. |
I am sorry that someone is forcing you to read these threads at gunpoint. You should report that to the police.
When did I say that any drugs were "great"? Just FYI, you might want to read my own comments on peyote above. If you think I said peyote is "great" then you have taken too much of that stuff yourself.
What do statistics have to do with any of the studies I have mentioned? Your response tells me that you haven't read them, so you wouldn't know. |
 Yeah, I've NEVER seen a drunk Indian. That crazy white eye and his booze. They use Peyote for a religious experience and a sense of community huh? From the article:
Did you even read your own article? |
I'ver read the studies you link in you website. The statistical methods in most are beyond laughable. In the past, you have posted a "study" that found pot smoking improved driving skills. If that was not promoting the positive aspects of drug use... |
Well, I have about 10,000 documents on the web site, so surely you will be able to give me several good examples -- and you will be able to explain how those statistical problems invalidate the conclusions of the report. Before you do, though, did you happen to notice that I posted a wide variety of studies by different authors, done at different times, whether those studies agreed with my point of view or not?
Show me where I posted that study. Did I ever say that driving while intoxicated on anything was a good idea, no matter what the studies said? Just FYI -- in case your statistics classes didn't cover critical reading -- there is a difference between posting things for open discussion and promoting drug use. In case you want to check it out you will find that I have never recommended that anyone use any recreational drug, legal or illegal. Given your failure to read what I said, I don't think I put a lot of faith in your comments on statistics in reports that don't really mention much about statistics at all. |
Yeah.................... If you factor in the amount of people that use alcohol, and the YEARS of chronic use it takes to see damaging effects alcohol isn't good, but it isn't near as bad as you want to make it out to be. I know it's easier to rationalize that other drugs aren't as bad if you down play their dangerous side effects, and exagerate alcohol's effect. Meth, cocaine, LSD, extacy, heroin, huffing, etc. do damage every time they are used. Extacy and huffing can KILL suddenly. Extacy use damages the brain with EVERY use, and leads to clinical, life long depression with continued use. Meth, cocaine, LSD, Heroin, can all kill if too much is taken. Most people will pass out and stop drinking, before they can ingest a letahl dose of alcohol. The drugs damage the body with every use. The drug induced slide from healthy to near death, permanantly effected can be measured in weeks or months. Alcohol, epsecially wine, in moderation, has been shown to have POSITIVE health effects. Which one of your other drugs has been shown to do that? |
|
I don't think I am the only one around here that is getting very tired of seeing posts supporting and glorifying the use of illegal drugs on a gun website. Guns and Drugs (even alcohol) do not mix, period....end of story. wolfman97, please take your liberal, pro-drug agenda somewhere else. In fact, a case could be made that such posts violate the ARFCOM Code of Conduct: 4. Posting comments or links in support of illegal activities... I know, you'll say - don't click into the thread but it's kind of hard not to. I always like seeing what sort of pro-drug bullshit you are spewing around here. |
No, that's wrong. Alcohol users have a higher per capita death rate from alcohol use than users of almost any illegal drug.
No need to exaggerate anything. Just look at the stats on deaths, crime, etc.
No, they really don't. The Air Force gives meth to their pilots, for one. Do you even know what heroin is?
So how many people are killed by drugs in the US each year? Got any idea at all? I am betting you don't.
Actually, the guy who did that research discovered later that he had been given the test animals a different drug (he said the containers were mislabeled) and that the doses he had given them were far in excess of a reasonable dose for the drug. Therefore, the drug did a lot of damage. He eventually lost his job over the bad research.
So can water, and people die of water overdoses on a regular basis. In fact, more people die of water overdoses than die from some of the illegal drugs. Once again, do you have any idea how many people are killed by drugs in the US each year?
Now there is a good recommendation for a drug. If that's the case, then why do alcohol drinkers have a higher per capita death rate than the users of most illegal drugs?
Show me something besides your own uninformed opinion to back that up, OK?
Yeah, I am sure that Anheuser-Busch makes a lot of money from people who are drinking beer as a health food. Actually, damn near every drug has positive effects for some people under some circumstances. That's why the Air Force gives meth to pilots. But before we get into that in any depth (and everyone gets seriously confused and thinks I am promoting drug use) why don't we see if you can answer basic factual questions about what you said yourself? See above. Let's start with something really, really simple -- like the number of people killed by drugs in the US each year. I am betting you don't have a clue. |
You are seriously confused. Show me where I supported or glorified the use of any drug.
I am sorry that someone is also forcing you to read these threads at gunpoint.
When did I ever do that? I just said that making those activities illegal is counterproductive. You know, the same way someone would argue that the ban on machine guns is counterproductive. There is a difference between arguing that the law on machine guns is wrong and encouraging people to go break the law with them. Are you able to understand that simple concept? The reason I ask is that I have run into a lot of people who seriously can't. It is like asking some people to do algebra. They just can't make good logical distinctions.
If you like it, then why are you complaining? |
Another person with poor reading skills. |
Nope, Just another person. (Of many, I see) who knows every time you post, it the same shit. "Not enough Hope? Smoke on some Dope!" Toke away dude. One things for sure, you're always good foa a laugh. |
The "study" from Jamaica you posted that showed pregnant mothers smoking pot had POSITIVE effects on babies is a good example. The sample size was far too small, there was almost certainly bias in the sample selection used, there was no attempt made to break the most obvious confounding effects, the type of statistical test was inappropriate for the type of data, and even the study authors noted that the effects they found were not statistically significant. If you go to this thread you went out of your way to point out another idiotic "study" that found smokers high on pot "may be actually safer on the road than sober drivers." Your quote, not mine. I know, you always preface such examples with "not that I am recommending it..." etc. I find your dsiclaimer about as unconvincing as I find those who post information about converting weapons to full auto, "not that I am saying your should go out and do it." Wink-wink, nudge-nudge. |
When did I say that? Just FYI, I am fairly used to this shit. There are certain people in the world who can't distinguish between bare facts and promotion of something. You will get the same kind of response from libtards if you try to acquaint them with any of the basic facts on guns. They aren't any more interested in learning something than you are. |
While I go back and forth on the decriminalization of pot, I am firmly against ever making any of the hard drugs legal. Also, thinking that legalizing drugs will cause gang bangers and other criminals to stop being criminals is simplistic. They aren't about to turn in their street corners for a minimum wage job at McDonalds, nor are they about to take responsibility for their lives and pay attention in school. Also, as far as taxing the shit out of drugs goes...ever heard of moonshine? Here in MD, people routinely go to VA to buy cigarettes at much lower prices, because the tax is lower. Taxing drugs will only keep the drug dealers in buisness. |
I think the question above was about driving, but never mind. Your criticisms of that study are perfectly valid but that is by far one of the more minor studies on the site. Did you see anywhere where I recommended that anyone should use marijuana because of that study? Or do you just think that someone is promoting something any time they post something for discussion?
Yeah, simply a statement that fears about marijuana use on the road are overblown. You know, the same as you might post something say that gun problems aren't as bad as someone claimed them to be. Did you see anywhere where I recommended that people use pot for any reason at all? Or was I just stating something that some research had indicated?
Well, you make stupid, erroneous assumptions, I can assure you. If someone said that machine guns weren't the major hazard to society that they are claimed would you think that they were recommending that everyone should go buy and use machine guns? If someone said that alcohol prohibition was a failure and based on fundamentally wrong ideas, would you think that they are encouraging everyone to drink beer? Or would those assumptions be just as stupid as your assumption above? Is there any place in your world for rational argument and discussion -- you know, like pointing out that there isn't much basis for the latest popular hysteria? Or is that always promoting something? |
Jesus Christ - the guy just posted a fucking news article - there's really no need to pin him up on a cross is there? I remember how upset I was when I found out the following things about coke weren't true:
But somehow I was able to get over it and move on. |
|
I think wolfman is an alcoholic that can't handle his booze so he turned to dope because he can't handle reality either. I used to think that perhaps pot should not be illegal but between wolfmans views and my real life experience with dopers I've changed my mind. The issue isn't about "occasional pot usage at home where nobody is hurting anybody else" it's "stay stoned 24/7, it's "medicinal" and no dope should be illegal". He even sites statistics on how it helps driving and pregant women for Christ's sake!!!! I've only rarely seen firsthand a case where someone cannot get through the workday without a drink and the situation is soon corrected. I can't say the same for the dopers. At least the drunks know they are doing something wrong! Hey wolfman, do you even own any guns? All you post about is dope, maybe your time would be better spent at the NORML website. |
Just for gins, defiine "hard drug". That is, just don't give a list of drugs that you think are "hard" -- tell us what distinguishes a "hard" drug from a "soft" drug.
Yeah, that's why the Mafia still makes most of their money from illegal booze. It won't stop criminals from being criminals. It will just take away their biggest and easiest source of funding.
If you care to read the history of alcohol prohibition, you will find that there were vast numbers of otherwise ordinary people whose only real crime was making hooch in their bathtub -- often in neighborhood groups. The real criminals lost their major source of funding, the homicide rate dropped dramatically, and all those "ordinary" folk stopped making illegal hooch when prohibition was repealed. There was quite an impact on the crime rate in the process.
The original drug prohibition laws were "tax acts" --- based on the theory that, if the tax is high enough, then it becomes prohibition, anyway, because people won't pay the tax. Canada had this experience some years back. They raised their tobacco taxes high enough that it encouraged the criminal trade and they almost wound up in open war with some of their Indian tribes. The moral of the story is that you can achieve the bad effects of prohibition as long as the tax rates are high enough.
Like the taxes on beer kept Al Capone and his friends still in the liquor business, I suppose. |
See this is what proves to me you're nothing but a two bit, high-on troll. No, that's not correct. I've seen trolls with better debate skills. I told you I've read some of the articles. You resort to insults because, to you, those articles should change anybody's mind... Well it doesn't work that way. You've told me my real world experience with people who have done illegal drugs is equivalent to "urban legends"... Guess what pal? You just discredited every source you have. I have real world knowledge of this and you - ad hominem - called it urban legend. I don't agree with you so you insult me. Are we back in the sixth grade now? |
So, obviously you don't have a clue about me. But thanks for the ignorant, stupid piece of bigotry, anyway.
Let's see. Could you pass a basic factual quiz about any part of the subject -- whether you agree with what I said or not? I doubt it.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but alcohol wins all the prizes for problems in society -- by a margin of about ten to one over all the illegal drugs combined. If you don't know that, then you don't know the first thing about the subject.
Well, you obviously missed a hell of a lot of my other posts and threads I have started, but hey, that's what bigotry is all about, isn't it? Just FYI, I never answer such questions. For one, my personal habits, or lack of them, are irrelevant to any real social issue. You can put my personal preferences last on the list of priorities when you are passing any of these laws, thanks. For another, these questions are always asked with the idea in mind that, no matter what the answer may be, the person asking will attempt to use it against you. If you have smoked dope, then you are just trying to justify your filthy habit. If you haven't then you don't know anything about the subject. It is stupid bigotry on the part of the person asking, and nothing more. |
So, if you aren't just a complete bald-faced liar, then tell me what you read, what it said, and what you agreed with, or didn't agree with. But I think I asked that before, and it turned out that you were just trying to bullshit, hoping that no one would pick up on the obvious. |