Please stop using blog posts pretending to be scientific research.

Please stop posting comments offering nothing of value.

I’d rather add meta-comment in an effort to preserve quality of discussion. I’m seeing this everywhere - making a point by linking to a blog pretending to be a scientific paper. It has about as much value as a comment by anyone here. If I understand correctly it’s an attempt to add some kind of authority to your opinion but it’s just harmful to the way establishing truth works.

We’re talking on a casual forum. This isn’t an academic discussion. Blog posts are a lot more approachable than most journal articles. And blogs often contain references.

Not everything is a formal academic debate. Most things aren’t. Note, you didn’t reply to the parent commenter demanding that they provide journal articles for their point. You just saw something you didn’t like about my comment and decided to demand a journal article as a citation. Usually when people who aren’t participating come into a discussion to demand peer-reviewed sources, it’s done in bad faith. They demand high quality sources from one side while not extending the same requirement to the other.

Here’s another blog posts that address the original topic. You can look up the primary sources if you are so inclined.

So Your Brain Actually Isn’t “Fully Formed” at 25

Your brain keeps developing beyond 25! Neuroplasticity in your late 20s to 30s makes you adaptable, resilient, and primed for growth.

New Hope CG (www.newhopecg.net)

Or if you want to improve the quality of discussion, perhaps add your own sources instead of demanding others provide them.

And note, even you don’t provide academic sources for your claims. You claim you’re seeing blog posts linked everywhere, but where is your journal article defending this claim? Where is your paper performing a statistical analysis to prove that people are citing blog posts more frequently than in the past?

And I would argue that linking to a blog post is far from pointless. Blogs are less rigorous but far more approachable and digestible than journal articles. The real purpose of linking to them is so that a commenter doesn’t need to spend the time greatly elaborating a point that could be made simply by linking to a larger outside discussion. That has value. And a blog post certainly has more value than a random short Lemmy comment. At least if someone is taking the time to write a blog post dedicated to a single topic, it shows that they’ve put the time in to consider the subject.

Willie Nelson looks great and sounds great for his age, with a case study like that I’m not putting down the cannabis

Try salvia

Truth isn’t different between serious and casual discussion and this is a serious topic.

If you want to cite a scientific paper then do it yourself and don’t ask others to fish them out of blogs you link to because too many times I’ve seen none included and nobody got time for that on a casual forum.

As to actual sources, I assumed I wouldn’t have to make as much of a strong point when talking about something that’s pretty much a scientific consensus. Where I live doctors won’t prescribe you medicinal weed if you’re under 25 usually too.

Going by casual wisdom, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so I would expect the burden to be on the ones claiming that what I’m saying is bs but I guess it’s on me to bring back some reason here.

• Effects of Cannabis Use on Human Behavior, Including Cognition, Motivation, and Psychosis: A Review (closed access, SciDB mirror)
• Age-related differences in the impact of cannabis use on the brain and cognition: a systematic review
• Longitudinal study of risk factors predicting cannabis use disorder in UK young adults and adolescents
• The Effect of Age of Initiation of Cannabis Use on Psychosis, Depression, and Anxiety among Youth under 25 Years

I did. That shit was wild. Didn’t get too much anxiety though. Weird shit started to happen.

After 2 separate people started talking about sugar. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills

Dissociatives phenomenally well translate all the weirdness of Salvia D. Especially DXM.

This article brought to you by Budweiser

I get that this is fear mongering propaganda but also, I kinda hate that you can’t buy any old school pot anymore.

28% THC with no CBD just isn’t very enjoyable to me tbh.

I miss that stuff that was like 18% THC and at least 0.5% CBD.

You can also just buy straight up CBD and mix until your hearts content.

You don’t have to fill it to the brim with high grade pot if you don’t want to.

I mean, outliers always exist. Don’t think those are the norm.

You’re right, don’t mind the other commenters.

With edibles or just strong weed, you can have heart palpitations that make you think you are dying. You aren’t actually going to, but it can feel that way when you are mega stoned.

1.) It’s stupid easy to grow your own for next to nothing, in “stealth” containers ranging from 5gal buckets to full-on multi-plant gargants. (See: “space buckets” — and check your local laws)

2.) It’s called weed for a reason. Set a reminder on your phone to water, prune, tend to your buddy. Spend as little or as much as you feel like, depending on how into the new, meditative hobby you’ve embarked on.

3.) Realize you’ve been spending far too much on something you can set & (mostly) forget.

4.) Enjoy!

Yep. I had a close friend that accepted a grip of shrooms from some random chicks at a house party, only to find out the hard way that night that his estranged (since ~birth) father’s side of the family had a high risk for schizophrenia… Be careful, friends. Knowledge is power. Use your damn brains, please.

I work in medicine (mostly emergency medicine), and I have seen a lot of people end up with their lives completely torn apart because of permanent effects of psychotropic drugs. CBD has a lot of benefits and some real clinical evidence backing it up, but there really aren’t any non-recreational uses for THC and the people who want to use marijuana for calming effects can get CBD on its own these days.

The earlier its diagnosed, the more severe it tends to be. If someone has schizophrenia triggered under the age of 25, the massive shift in the balance of neurotransmitters has a significant effect on the continuing development of the brain. The frontal cortex (the executive function, intelligence/wisdom, and common sense part of the brain) is the last part to finish developing. That’s why you can have teenagers and college-aged kids that are extremely smart academically, but absolute morons when it comes to decision making and self-restraint.

Schizophrenia is characterized by massive overloading of dopamine to the point that the brain malfunctions, and the medications used to treat it (anti-psychotics) mostly work by dulling the effects of dopamine and limiting its production. Finding the right anti-psychotic and right dose of that drug can take a lot of trial and error, and that’s all time lost for ongoing development of that person’s brain. Dopamine is a very important neurotransmitter, so if someone has severe schizophrenia requiring strong dopamine inhibition, they can end up with a lot of nasty side effects.

The medications have long term effects too and there’s kind of a maximum amount of time you can be on an anti-psychotic before you start having a form of medication-induced Parkinsonism. If someone’s schizophrenia gets triggered then diagnosed and treated earlier, it means they are going to start having those Parkinson’s symptoms that much earlier.

This is a misrepresentation. Development or maturation of the brain finishes around 25 years old. In this context, “development” refers to the completion of the adult form of the organ. The ongoing “development” that this blog post refers to is more accurately described as neuroplasticity. There is an ongoing potential for the brain to create new connections and reinforce existing ones throughout life, but the actual mature form of the frontal cortex is not complete until your mid-twenties.

Another way to explain this would be to use breasts as an example. As a biologically female girl goes through puberty, her breasts grow as her body develops mammary tissue and the surrounding/supporting structures. This is called secondary sexual development. If you used the word “development” the same way that blog post does, then the changes to the breast throughout adulthood (such as milk production, skin sagging, loss of adipose) would also be called “development”, but that doesn’t make sense when we’re talking about development of sexual characteristics. Those are ongoing changes to the breast, but it is not the same thing as the initial development stage that is equivalent to the initial development and maturation of the brain that finishes in a person’s mid-twenties.