Prompted by “Why Pot Affects Everyone Differently”: http://www.hightimes.com/read/why-pot-affects-everyone-differently
“Executive function, also known as cognitive control, basically describes your ability to function on a day-to-day basis as a regular person. So, as most pot smokers suspected, there’s no big problem with smoking weed – it won’t stop anyone from being a functional member of society.”
I call it the wisdom part of the brain, and unlike excessive consumption of that popular and arbitrarily legal drug called alcohol (i.e. unlike the overwhelming reduction of soberly-strong inhibitions sometimes leading to wild anecdotes, including seriously stupid decisions from drinking too much liquor), cannabis use does not adversely affect that part. In other words, high levels of cannabis intake may compel that user to remain firmly established on the couch during the “psyride”, but that result comes from intelligent decision-making that remains thankfully established during that experience (assuming that user is not stupid upon sobriety) — i.e. soberly smart people remain smart on cannabis.
That remains significant for obvious reasons, and cannabis is not the only psychedelic carrying that key (and civilized) distinction from alcohol.
Second (but equally important)…
“A study from 2013, conducted by researchers from Melbourne to Barcelona, figured that different genes affect the influence of cannabis on the brain, and while performing all those cognitive tests on smokers vs. non-tokers, they also found that ‘daily cannabis use is not associated with executive function deficits.’
The study took 86 weed smokers and 58 non-drug users, genotyped them, then put them through a battery of different cognitive tests: sustained attention, working memory, monitoring/shifting, planning and decision making.”
86 weed smokers? The scientific method is extremely rigid (no room for any waste coming out of a bull’s rear), as defined by possibilities leveraged against published results. If your experiment/study/etc. is not “air tight” (i.e. “leaking” due to countering possibilities debunking your conclusion), then your results are unscientific, factually speaking.
Anyone familiar with strain diversity understands that Blue Dream and Pineapple Train Wreck (to name a couple offhand) produce substantially different mental effects (at least for some people). To say (e.g. by mere exclusion) that strain discipline has no impact on mental functioning is at least questionable. Moreover, negating “psyamplification” (precise amount of psychedelic pressure during a psychedelic experience) also negates science, logically speaking.
Certain Drug Prohibition does not help the advancement of humanity’s scientific understanding of this plant (actually, this prohibition has done nothing positive for society by any credible measure), because street-obtained cannabis is notoriously unreliable in terms of strain consistency. However, with increased legality recognition, any prohibition excuse falls flat these days.
I find all cannabis studies to simply remain interesting (better than nothing, I suppose), but unscientific (scientifically speaking).
So many factors go into any psychedelic experience. They are typically consolidated into “set and setting” (basically the mindset of the user and the environment where such use occurs), and while set and setting remain critically important towards ensuring positive psychedelic results, scientifically speaking, the amount of variables (e.g. the many from the complexly defined psychological profile of the user, the many from the psychological pressure points of the consumed psychedelic, and the many from environmental stressors) effectively insist upon a far more granular approach to ensure scientific credibility.
Obviously scientific (or “psyentific”) pursuits must continue, but that includes recognizing serious limitations in current study logistics with a serious press to promptly remedy those limits. For example, some studies must sharply focus on strain amplification and psychological styling by having two similar cannabis users (i.e. two people as close to similar as possible, both while sober and upon cannabis consumption) scientifically forced to consume precisely the same amount of a specific strain (grown by the same professional grower). Both of those study participants use the same model of electronic vaporizer set at the same temperature with the same amount of the aforementioned scientifically chosen cannabis strain contained therein at the same time in the same environment in the same mood. If there are basically no differences in mental performance, then switch strains for one user (preferably switch to one with radically different effects styling) and retest. As a wide and colorful diversity of strain effects exists in the ‘cannabis universe’ (not to mention the ‘psychedelic universe’ at large), and so too does a wide and colorful diversity of human personality types exists within this universe, this proper avenue of scientific exploration is a long road to follow to achieve a level of ‘interesting without the scientific but’.