MolotovCocktail

Depends on what you mean by "appears to contain anti-depressant properties". If you are referring to the high that people get by taking it, then yes it produces a temporary sensation of pleasure and joy. However, it does nothing to actually treat the symptoms in the long run. yes, and I know of this. It has been considered for use as a pain-killer and to help alleviate some of the side effects of chemotherapy, for example, and which I stated before. However, the link you provided did not talk about that, rather it was a debate over what role marijuana had on depression. Well, its important to note that serotonin plays a role for a large number of functions, not just behavior. The source I put shows that there is a link between abnormal serotonin levels and depression. What role this plays is not entirely known. But this is why conventional anti-depressants, such as Fluoxetine, focus on serotonin. this is true. Yes, depression will occur when the body is trying to withdraw from the drug as it develops a physical addiction to it. Your source indicates that long term use will induce symptoms similar to schizophrenia, which can easily lead to depression. Of course, long term use will really screw up the brain chemistry and make the person highly suspectible to depression. While meth creates a chemical imbalance, it is not its sole, single, cause. Sorry if I misunderstood you but that was what I thought you were implying. Of course you know that there are other things that cause depression than just drugs. I hope we have an understanding here, I was attacking the claim that marijuana could be used as a treatment, and you went as far as claiming it could cure, depression. Marijuana has the same long term effect on the brain chemistry and makes the person much more prone to fall into depression. Of course, depression itself could be triggered by some stressful event, loss of a loved one, etc. What I was getting at was that depression involves both brain chemistry and emotional or psychological issues/distress, the latter of which could be caused by any number of factors.

Here is an article about the suspected causes of autism, and it talks a little about mercury poisoning, which has long since been discredited. http://www.emedicinehealth.com/autism/page2_em.htm#Autism%20Causes Also, this is the list of symptoms of mercury poisoning compared with Autism, which one reason why its regarded as a myth: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002476.htm and http://www.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/autism/autism.html and a list of disorders that mimic it: http://www.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/autism/pddinfo.html#mimic I understand that my previous link may have been a bit ambiguous or confusing. Hope this clears up. In the vast majority of studies, there has been no link established between Thimerosal (Which contains mercury), and autism.

He was talking about his experience with it, and the reason I chose that article because his actions were based on the mistaken belief that Mercury Poisoning was the cause. He then goes on to tell you in the end that it is total crap. He calls them "alternative" because these treatments aren't, as you said, mainstream or proven.

Oh, and one more thing. I have every reason to believe that this Ethan Russo is a total quack. For example, the only reference to his "Cannabis Health 2002 Vol1" anywhere can only be found on that site you put up. Here is the list of his books that he wrote on the subject: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=Ethan+Russo&z=y&cds2Pid=9481 Some of the titles on there do merit skepticism, because they sound a lot more like they are pushing an agenda rather than focusing on the science.

Just because Meth causes the user to lose interest in activities they once enjoyed does not mean that it causes depression. This is a correlation=causation fallacy. Also, there is far more to depression than merely losing interest. This is the official list for the symptoms of depression: "Depression Persistent sad, anxious, or "empty" mood Feelings of hopelessness, pessimism Feelings of guilt, worthlessness, helplessness Loss of interest or pleasure in hobbies and activities that were once enjoyed, including sex Decreased energy, fatigue, being "slowed down" Difficulty concentrating, remembering, making decisions Insomnia, early-morning awakening, or oversleeping Appetite and/or weight loss or overeating and weight gain Thoughts of death or suicide; suicide attempts Restlessness, irritability Persistent physical symptoms that do not respond to treatment, such as headaches, digestive disorders, and chronic pain Very often, a combination of genetic, psychological, and environmental factors is involved in the onset of a depressive disorder. Later episodes of illness typically are precipitated by only mild stresses, or none at all." source: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/depression.cfm meth causes the user to develop a strong addiction until it is the only thing that occupies their mind, as you said, but there are a lot of other factors at work (usually social) that will actually cause the depression. This is why I said that it increases the risk of it. Also, some people who are really stressed or are feeling hopeless will do drugs because of the high it gives them, but since this is temporary depression occurs anyway.

Neither am I' date=' but I'll calm down. What are you talking about? I never said that marijuana causes depression, or implied that it caused it chemically. What I originally said was: No' date=' not exactly. My comment was based on my knowledge of how depression is treated. Along with medicines that stimulate Serotonin, there are also psychotherapies that are used to treat it as well. Marijuana on the other hand introduces THC into the brain which stimulates areas that aren't necessarily related to depressive symptoms. There is direct evidence that abnormal Serotonin levels in the brain help cause depression (Though its exact role has yet to be revealed in later studies and experiments), you would have caught that if you paid attention to post 10. I'm criticizing your source because the argument isn't solid and the facts aren't straight. For example, one of them said: "a number of sufferers were discovered who believed marijuana to be more effective than conventional anti-manic drugs, or who used it to relieve the side effects of lithium". That report is sketchy because it is relying on anecdotal reports and is quite ambiguous. They don't offer any real data, unlike [some] of the guys on the so-called "pro" side. This site, by the way, is not a medical journal. What this site is is a debate between whether or not marijuana should be used as any form of treatment, psychological or otherwise. Beliefs and anecdotes are not evidence. Again, read the above. And also, you did make that claim, over here:

Oh really now. Well, let me see this so-called source. While my sources (e.g. British Medical Journal, NIH, RC Psych, etc.) do cite the use of cannabis, or more specifically THC, as a chemical that could potentially deal with side effects of chemotherapy or even AIDS (weight-loss that is), they never state that it can deal with symptoms of depression. Rather, their findings contradict your source and state that such drugs can be detrimental to both physical and mental health. Here is one of many sources: So far, nothing that would indicate its usefulness in treating clinical depression. Anti-depressants focus on Serotonin in any case, not the THC receptors, or Dopamine for that matter. By the way, I looked up this Ethan Russo and I find his material very sketchy. He doesn't seem to be important enough to be on Wikipedia, and I googled his books and he is cited by various liberal and conspiracy sites. He seems to be promising that marijuana can do a whole bunch of things ranging from depression to curing headaches and migraines and even chronic illnesses such as Arthritis but doesn't seem to have any real experimental evidence in his favor. Also, in your quote he doesn't even say what those transmitters are. Source? As far as I know' date=' Methamphetamine does not cause depression. Rather, "Methamphetamine [b']increases the release of very high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine, which stimulates brain cells, enhancing mood and body movement[/b]. Chronic methamphetamine abuse significantly changes how the brain functions. Animal research going back more than 30 years shows that high doses of methamphetamine damage neuron cell endings. Dopamine- and serotonin-containing neurons do not die after methamphetamine use, but their nerve endings (“terminals”) are cut back, and regrowth appears to be limited. Noninvasive human brain imaging studies have shown alterations in the activity of the dopamine system. These alterations are associated with reduced motor speed and impaired verbal learning. Recent studies in chronic methamphetamine abusers have also revealed severe structural and functional changes in areas of the brain associated with emotion and memory, which may account for many of the emotional and cognitive problems observed in chronic methamphetamine abusers." (NIDA Infofacts: Methamphetamine. Revised 3/07. http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/methamphetamine.html). Methamphetamine may cause people to display some symptoms associated with depression in the long run, but it does not cause it per se. But I can see how it leads to an increased risk of depression. Come on! Did you actually think that a silly little book written by some no-name doctor was going to discredit me? You can do better than that... Otherwise, leave this to someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Its presumed impact on autism. Sorry, I should have been more clear . The symptoms of Mercury Poisoning are distinct from those of autism in any case.

Yeah this is true. I googled it. In fact, marijuana use can increase the risk of depression because of the adverse affects on social, academic, and personal life. Again read my earlier statement. There is research, even controlled experiments, revolving around medical uses of marijuana as treatment to ease side-effects of chemotherapy, a pain killer, to help relieve symptoms of epilepsy, and treatment of cancer. Conventional medications are preferred though since they are more effective. Most of the time, they use the active drug THC in their experiments so technically it is legal. Also, studies about adverse affects come directly from the drug abusers themselves. On a similar note, I read somewhere that there is a public school in New York in which their students openly smoke pot and they don't do a thing about it. Its listed in the second paragraph, but just remember this is a student account so its factuality may be questionable. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was true . This is true. It is all political. We would probably be much better off if Marijuana was legal, since we wouldn't have to spend tens of billions of dollars on drug trafficking, jails, random searches, and there wouldn't be so much social stigma, or acceptance should I say, of the drug. Also, it would be easier to actually help people addicted to it since they wouldn't be afraid to tell anybody. No, this is wrong. While these drugs may increase the risk of depression because of the adverse affects on their body and life, it doesn't cause depression. Likewise, euphoric affects are not to be confused as treatment. Marijuana doesn't cure depression, or treat any of its symptoms.

Not sure if this is going to put an end to it, because the global warming deniers seem to be very, very persistent as was witnessed in the other threads. Even to the point where they would just conveniently "misinterpret" your sources :rolleyes:. Same thing happens when there is any discussion about environmental problems in general for that matter (the "A Matter of Time" thread for example). I don't know a lot about climate changes but I'll help you out when the GW deniers start posting, because I'm sick of it as well. But anyways back on topic. From my limited knowledge of climate, this data would make sense, because the atmosphere is responsible for keeping the Earth warm in the first place, and also the level of greenhouse gases that are being dumped into the atmosphere at the present rate. How often do they update their predictions, because I'm sure that the rates will change as we put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and I read somewhere that the melting ice will have a huge impact on ocean current and ocean levels, which will translate to weather and climate changes.

Pretty much, I find that the only reason people think some words are "bad" is simply because "mommy/some other authority figure/society said so". People can't think for themselves! Not only that, but people give these words multiple meanings. For example, the word "ass" can refer to a donkey, buttocks, a fool, or a jerk. It is somehow made more acceptable if used in conjunction or combination of another word or known phrase, such as in jackass.

I've been keeping up on all of this. What scares me about all of this is the fact that the government and the media is willing to listen more to paranoia than to reason, especially since Mercury Poisoning is a myth. Here is a link to the parent site which includes medical or psychological conditions that people exploit. I checked the sources and I'm telling you some of the medical quackery being spread is very creepy. http://www.quackwatch.org/ Yeah, pretty much this whole "autism epidemic" (fine choice of words by the media) is all paranoia, and many organizations and groups have jumped on to exploit it, such as CAN, DAN, and all the rest (How I hate these groups so much). Sorry if the post has some emotion attached to it, its just that I have autism and I'm really annoyed and angry at the fact that there are irresponsible people out there who would spread, or buy into, this nonsense. The same goes for people who promote an image of autism that isn't necessarily true, and this includes Temple Grandin (However positively she portrays autism, she also tends to stereotype it, and made some very questionable claims about Albert Einstein).

You know, it is so obvious that this guy is some sort of spammer.

I chose gardener mostly because my yard is 700+ sq yards. Plus, over half of my back yard is filled with thorny weeds that are difficult to remove. And just recently I had to de-root a tree growing on the side of my house.

Yeah, no kidding, but it is not answering my question.

Not sure where to put this, so I'd thought I would put this here. In about 10 days I'm going to present to a Teacher's Workshop about Asperger's Syndrome and Autism. I'm organizing this with my case manager at the school, but I am largely hosting it. Since this is a science site, I was wondering if you could help me out by giving me any up to date research or suggestions, etc. Thanks!

Can't say I agree with you here. I happen to be a little bit of an optimist. For example, we did not have to wage nuclear war to know to avoid doing so. Based on that, I don't think we will let things get that bad, well at least in other parts of the world that is .

:eyebrow::eyebrow:

Take a look at the article I just read recently: link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070602/ap_on_sc/global_warming_states_1 Apparently there are some states that spew out more CO2 than states with much larger populations, and even spew out more than entire nations around the world! Coal, obviously, is to blame for this and this article shows that the states that pollute the most are the ones that are powered primarily by coal. Texas, the worst one, is still planning on building new coal power plants and is not making any effort to lower emissions. Here is another site that shows how much each state is putting up each year: http://www.eia.doe.gov/environment.html This site also shows that emissions by the United States have increased over the past 13 or so years. This could be problematic towards reducing global emissions and for the development of clean, sustainable energy sources because for this to work every state has to cooperate and some states refuse to change their energy sources.

I would choose the Gardener. I really don't like to do any yard chores because they tend to be a lot of work. Laundry is fairly easy to do, and I don't mind menial house chores.

Yes, but those opinions are based somewhat on declassified documents directly from the CIA and on facts. Look particularly at the one in which they talk about relationship between the Soviet Union and the Middle East. Some other ones are heavily blocked out. Your right, I may not be able to claim it as a fact, but they were still directly involved in the Baath Party's rise to power. These and other documents lead me to believe that there is a good chance that they did put Saddam in power. Its important to note that the CIA still has documents that are still classified around this period of time, so its impossible to know for sure what happened. But rest assured there is strong evidence that the US did put Saddam in power.

Alright, I'll admit that I didn't check the "Representative Press" throughly. But here is an article, by New York Times, that gives support for my claim.

Well, then maybe you should read this then. The CIA was directly involved in the coup. This set of articles also has some information on the CIA's connection with Saddam from the time of his coup to the Persian Gulf. You'll find that in every case we were directly involved. We did more than just support his regime, we helped it come into existence and gave them everything from arms to helping him suppress dissidents within Iraq. Here are some other documents regarding what the US did to support him, though it does not cover what they did to put him in power: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB21/index.html <edit> Well, technically, we put the Baath Party in power, but Saddam became dictator later on with the help of the CIA. Also, the CIA helped to maintain his rule all the way until the Gulf War.

One question I have about Superstrings is this: What, exactly, would one look like? Or more specifically, what would be considered as evidence that they actually exist? I've been searching in the books that I have, such as a Brief History of Time and Elegant Universe, and they never really talk in great detail about what would be considered as evidence of their physical existence. Its the same with multiple dimensions that they are supposed to exist in (both 11 and 26 dimensions) I would imagine that if we did actually find solid evidence, I'd imagine that we would measure effects associated with gravity, and it would probably crank out some exotic particles that we have never seen (maybe even turn particles of one class into another since all particles are presumed to be vibrations of a string).

How far does it magnify?