-
Om det inte händer något börja jobba med att översätta
-
Som alltid hittar jag smärre fel och saker som kunde formuleras bättre men jag tror att översättningen speglar originaltexten på ett hyfsat sätt.
Tack Kattspya för inputen, jag skulle egentligen lagt in dina rättningar i texten själv men inte kommit mig för.
Hoppas nu att vi kan sprida den här texten till sÃ¥ mÃ¥nga som möjligt och att vi pÃ¥ detta sätt kan fÃ¥ lite reaktioner frÃ¥n seriösa personer som med lätthet borde ha fog för att kritisera “Sveriges främst narkotika rÃ¥dgivare”.
Borde vi inte sända iväg hela rasket till herr Lundqvist först och främst, för att se vilken reaktionen blir
-
kinky: He he..
Borde inte nån på http://www.norml.org kunna syna sömmarna på denna text?
-
@underdog wrote:
kinky: He he..
Borde inte nån på http://www.norml.org kunna syna sömmarna på denna text?
Jag har skickat brevet till NORML för korrekturläsning
-
@Dragonfly wrote:
😆 Namnet Skunk kommer frÃ¥n danskans “Skunkenâ€, dvs. det utrymmet mellan inner och yttertaket som till en början var det mest lämpliga stället att odla denna planta.
😆 Snälla, översätt.! Å skäm ut han rejält..!
Jag som trodde att “skunk” Ã¥syftade den starka lukten hos växten
:Kinky Afro Jävligt bra jobbat! Power to Kinky Afro
-
Nu är ju jag rätt så ny på det här, så har jag fel får ni rätta mig.
Sinsemilla, Sin semilla, är spanska för “utan frö”. Den här lundquist nämner “den västindiska sinsemillan”. Kan han verkligen veta vad han menar??
nu är det för sent. jag bara svamlar. godnatt.
-
@AmI3rdClass wrote:
Nu är ju jag rätt så ny på det här, så har jag fel får ni rätta mig.
Sinsemilla, Sin semilla, är spanska för “utan frö”. Den här lundquist nämner “den västindiska sinsemillan”. Kan han verkligen veta vad han menar??
nu är det för sent. jag bara svamlar. godnatt.
Klart han inte vet vad han menar. 😆
-
Här är ett svar jag fick på OG:
@Patrick418 wrote:
In one examination Tunving and colleagues (1985) an 11% decrease of the brains global medium [average] bloodflow (rCBF) for chronic cannabis abusers shortly after abuse was discontinued compared to a matching control group.
Hes got his terminology confused. rCBF stands for regional cerebral blood flow, not “global average” as the author wrongly states. And it is hardly the case that the control group was matched in the paper he refers to. They were only age and sex matched, which means that none of the other variables that could affect CBF were controlled (e.g. psychiatric problems, medication). The study would be much more meaningful if it included a CBF assessment before discontinuation, and after, so that each subject acted as their own control.
Risberg (1983) used the same method of examination for 50 workers, that had been exposed to a mix of organic solvents, which are supposed to be comparable to the terpens Skunk smokers that inhale. They found that these workers compared to a matching control group: to a higher degree experienced have problems with learning and memory, be more prone to becoming tired and having disturbances relating to concentrating and having more anxiety, being more alarmed and irritable. The measurements of the brains global medium blood flow showed a somewhat lower (4%) level for the exposed group.
It does not say why these workers terpene exposure is “supposed to be comparable to the terpens Skunk smokers. . . inhale,” or what other chemicals (if any) they were exposed to. Nor is the control group specified. Were they matched for age and sex only, or for other confounding variables as well? Also, it is not stated how large the ‘effect sizes’ were, and whether they are considered statistically significant.
At any rate, the evidence to date of long-term cognitive impairment following cessation of cannabis use is weak at best. Fried et al (2002) reported on a rare longitudinal study of the effects of cannabis use on IQ, which showed IQ gains in light users (less than 5 joints/week), and a small decline in users using more than 5 joints/week. They concluded that “marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence”. Lyketsos et al (1999) looked for evidence of accelerated age-related cognitive deterioration in no-, light-, and heavy-cannabis users over under age 65 over a 12 year period. No significant differences in rate of cognitive decline were found, between any of the groups. For former heavy users who were no longer using at the last test, there was no evidence for a decline in IQ. In studies that test users at intervals following cessation of use, deficits that exist with chronic use typically disappear between 1 and 3 weeks. Recent reviews and studies of residual cognitive impairment in former cannabis users have found little or no evidence for such impairment (e.g. Pope, 2001; Gonzalez et al, 2002; Harrison et al, 2002). A recent meta-analysis of 15 prior studies by Grant et al (2003) looked at 8 different cognitive ability domains, and found evidence for only “very small” impairments in learning long-term heavy users compared to controls, and no significant impairments in other cognitive domains, including attention/concentration, which supposedly were found to be deficient in the workers mentioned above. Grant et al (pp. 686-687) write:
These results can be interpreted in several ways. A statistically reliable negative effect was observed in the domain of learning and forgetting, suggesting that chronic long-term cannabis use results in a selective memory defect. While the results are compatible with this conclusion, the effect size for both domains was of a very small magnitude. The “real life” impact of such a small and selective effect is questionable. In addition, it is important to note that most users across studies had histories of heavy longterm cannabis consumption. Therefore, these findings are not likely to generalize to more limited administration of cannabis compounds, as would be seen in a medical setting.
Some of the studies included in our analyses tested cannabis users with less than 24 hr of abstinence, and others reported no information on abstinence at all. As a result, another factor that may have contributed to the small tendency towards worse performance in the cannabis-using group might be attributable to what Pope et al. have called “residual effects.” In a recent study by Pope et al. (2001), three groups of subjects were re~tedly examined over a period of 28 days. They included agroup of current heavy cannabis users, a group of persons’ who had heavy histories of past cannabis use but had not used in the recent past, and a group of controls who had very limited experience with cannabis. The active cannabis users were tested on Days zero, I, 7, and 28 after ceasing active cannabis use. Abstinence was confinned through regular urinalysis, which detected declining concentrations of THC in the urines of the active users, and demonstrated that all had undetectable THC levels by 28 days. Pope and colleagues noted subtle impairments on several neurocognitive tests in the active cannabis users who had just become abstinent. However, by 28 days, the active cannabis users who had abstained for almost a month were indistinguishable from former heavy users or non-using controls. Pope et al. suggested that the subtle cognitive impairments observed in the active users during the first week of cessation might represent residual effects (i.e., effects of persisting low levels of THC in the system), abstinence phenomena, or both. The Pope et al. data have direct relevance on the interpretation of results obtained in this study. In nearly all instances, heavier cannabis users were asked to abstain for a period of hours or days before testing. Therefore, many of them could have been at risk for “residual effects” or “abstinence phenomena, ” which might have contributed to slight decrements in their performance. Given this likelihood, it is even more surprising that our meta-analytic study revealed so few effects.
. . .It was surprising to find such few and small effects given that most of the potential biases inherent in our analyses actually increased the likelihood of finding a cannabis effect. Specifically, our use of a fixed effects model resulted in smaller confidence intervals for the effect sizes we computed, thus facilitating the discovery of statistically significant between-group differences. Moreover, many of the confounds inherent in the studies included in our analyses made it more likely for the cannabis using group to demonstrate poorer performance on neuropsychological tests than controls, irrespective of cannabis consumption. Finally, metaanalytic studies are generally criticized for including only investigations that have been published in peer-reviewed journals, because studies that report statistically significant fmdings are more likely to be published. This “file-drawer” bias can result in an under-representation of studies that did not find statistically significant results, therefore also increasing the likelihood of generating statistically significant effect sizes . . . The small magnitude of effect sizes from observations of chronic users of cannabis suggests that cannabis compounds, if found to have therapeutic value, should have a good margin of safety from a neurocognitive standpoint under the more limited conditions of exposure that would likely obtain in a medical setting.
To be fair to the author, though, he is specifically speaking about ‘skunk,’ and there is no study to my knowledge that looks strictly at individuals smoking only or dominantly skunk.
Fried et al, 2002. Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults. Canadian Medical Association Journal 166, 887-891.
Gonzalez et al, 2002. Nonacute (residual) neuropsychological effects of cannabis use: a qualitative analysis and systematic review. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 42(11 Suppl):48S-57S.
Gonzalez et al, 2003. Non-acute effects of cannabis on cognitive abilities: Comparing methods of research synthesis. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9 (2), 200-201.
Grant et al, 2003. Non-acute (residual) neurocognitive effects of cannabis use: A meta-analysis study. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9, 679-689.
Harrison et al, 2002. Cognitive measures in long-term cannabis users. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 42(11 Suppl):41S-47S.
Lyketsos et al, 1999. Cannabis use and cognitive decline in persons under 65 years of age. American Journal of Epidemiology 149, 794-800.
Pope et al, 2001. Neuropsychological performance in long-term cannabis users. Archives of General Psychiatry 58(10):909-15.
-
@igro wrote:
@Dragonfly wrote:
😆 Namnet Skunk kommer frÃ¥n danskans “Skunkenâ€, dvs. det utrymmet mellan inner och yttertaket som till en början var det mest lämpliga stället att odla denna planta.
😆 Snälla, översätt.! Å skäm ut han rejält..!
Jag som trodde att “skunk” Ã¥syftade den starka lukten hos växten
:Kinky Afro Jävligt bra jobbat! Power to Kinky Afro
@AmI3rdClass wrote:
Nu är ju jag rätt så ny på det här, så har jag fel får ni rätta mig.
Sinsemilla, Sin semilla, är spanska för “utan frö”. Den här lundquist nämner “den västindiska sinsemillan”. Kan han verkligen veta vad han menar??
nu är det för sent. jag bara svamlar. godnatt.
Ni har så rätt, båda två. Båda dessa faktafel visar att han inte vet vad han talar om. Det är inget nytt, det finns en lång svensk text som kritiskt granskar det här del för del.
Denna översättning är gjord, dels för att man i utlandet ska få veta vad vi har att tampas med, dels för att vi ska få reda på ännu ej upptäckta fel, samt i någon mån för att smutskasta dr. Lundqvist. (inte medicine dr.) -
ursäkta min barnslighet nu, men jag vill bara smutskasta den jäveln! Inte så mycket för att han tycker att man inte ska få röka cannabis (det kan man ju göra ändå, oavsett vad han tycker), utan för att han inte sätter sig in i ämnet som han ska behandla.
Inte fan ljuger jag bara ihop något om jag ska skriva ett arbete om doping t.ex.! Jag tar reda på fakta. Från TVÅ håll!
Visste ni förresten att:
“Ett högt intag av Bob’s blandsaft dagen innan tävling är en av mÃ¥nga metoder som Pingvinesiska proffsbrottare använder sig av för att öka frustrationsförmÃ¥gan. Namnet Bob’s blandsaft kommer frÃ¥n den speciella blandning av Bob och saft som, innan den kunde göra pÃ¥ kemisk väg genom tillsats av lösningsmedel, framställdes genom att man offrade fyra nakna jungfruar till cementfabrikens arbetare…” blahblahblah… -
Visste ni förresten att:
“Ett högt intag av Bob’s blandsaft dagen innan tävling är en av mÃ¥nga metoder som Pingvinesiska proffsbrottare använder sig av för att öka frustrationsförmÃ¥gan. Namnet Bob’s blandsaft kommer frÃ¥n den speciella blandning av Bob och saft som, innan den kunde göra pÃ¥ kemisk väg genom tillsats av lösningsmedel, framställdes genom att man offrade fyra nakna jungfruar till cementfabrikens arbetare…” blahblahblah…Hahaha 😆 Det mÃ¥ jag säga…jag fÃ¥r passa mig för den där dödsdrickan 😆
