Where do I sign up?

Seriously though, this would be really painful.

Yeah,
no thanks.

they never ask the actual experts on this type of thing.
wich is another example of how science has been corrupted to stupid for political gain.

Sign me up. This would literally be a dream come true considering my blood is probably almost pure THC at this point. Blood type THC

But really, this is like a call from God. As long as I have cannabis in some form, I can withstand any torture whether physical or psychological. I've kept my head and stayed happy and full of love in solitary confinement for two weeks without cannabis, so with cannabis I bet I could last 100 days. All I did in the shoe was sleep and read the same book over and over, so I don't really see a difference.

I don't think there is a linear progression from 14-100 days of solitude, but I dig your positivity

If only NASA was doing these experiments with weed in the 50s

I'm wondering what the purpose of this study is. Are they going to send astronauts on extended space missions while loaded up on THC?

I mean, I'm as pro-cannabis as the next guy, but maybe not for an astronaut on a space mission.

Well life isn't linear anyhow



Idk, I think it makes sense. Cannabis is the ultimate medicine for humans, so why wouldn't we bring it to space? Why bring hundreds of different meds just in case when you could slim it down by replacing many of them with bud? That's my train of thought at least, and the one I'd suspect NASA is on.

part of the reason i developed the XHTTL teks , was so cactus can go to mars.......

i absolutely demand we grow drugs in space and on other planets.
anything less is anticlimactic.

I can imagine that trying to start exercising again after 2 months in bed would be a difficult experience. I think I'll pass.

When I smoke pot, I sometimes have a difficult time working my way upstairs to get a glass of water. I wouldn't feel comfortable being in charge of a tin can hurtling through space in that condition.

That's absurd - sure, there are probably people who do nothing but smoke weed and lie in bed, but they're not producing any of the data that the researchers are interested in. Vitals, metabolic data, controlled psychological evaluations, all of those things are really useful data, and you're not going to get that asking a stoner "hey, how do you feel after smoking?"

As for the second point, what planet are you living on that this research has been 'corrupted for political gain.' The politicians who are deciding things like funding for NASA have repeatedly cut it's budget and funding for science across the entire US is being massacred.

Blessings
~ND

Thus driving it into the arms of corporate backers, which in turn gives rise to:



Q.E.D.

I think they want to set foot on a recently discovered planet:

^^^ lol

I don't like weed, and the thought of being unable to move around and or leave makes me feel claustrophobic. But for 18 k in 3 months, as a dude, I'd be perfectly willing to change bed pans and refresh dmt I mean thc bags. ( hah, really could you imagine 90 days of dmt?? )

That has no relation to the quality of this particular research project, nor can I think up a justification for declaring that this research is somehow 'corrupt' or politicized.

It seems more likely that a bunch of folks over at NASA thought: hey, we'd like this data, based on existing knowledge, we think things X, Y, and Z will happen. Let's scrape together our meager funding and try it out."

In other news, it's just scientists doing science. Nothing big and sinister. No conspiracy theories.

Blessings
~ND

Unfortunately, Nathanial, I'm old enough to remember the BSE/CJD scandal, when it turned out scientists employed by the government had approved the feeding of herbivore carcasses to other herbivores, because "it's just more protein, right?" Interestingly, while most lay-people instinctively found the idea repugnant, this particular clique of scientists simply saw it as progress in action, and an excellent route to greater efficiency.

More circumspection is all that is required. People without doubts are scary people to be around. And a lot of sound science is essentially molested by other parties (commercial, legal, political) on its journey towards the public domain. And a lot of dubious results which should never have seen the light of day are presented as "a new paradigm". This is where a lot of people's concerns lie, NOT with the science itself, or indeed, the scientists.

More transparency on publishing unflattering results would be a start, as many scientists are already calling for, but the other parties don't seem too cool with that idea, for some reason...

Is that what you meant by "conspiracy"?

Right, but what he's saying is that that isn't applicable here, which you'd realize if you looked into the matter more closely/with more scrutiny. NASA is scrounging for funding as it is, and is government funded not corporate funded. Can you point to any specific facts that suggest, or better yet prove, the claims you are making with relation to this particular study? Otherwise, you give the impression of someone who just goes around calling everyone else's work "corrupt and molested" without doing any research yourself. In other words, a hypocrite.

Bold face: check. Name-calling: check...flustered, much? I didn't even use the word "corrupt" or bring "conspiracy theories" into it either, but even if I had, that would still be no justification for calling me a hypocrite. To fit the accepted definition, I would have to be a scientist producing fraudulent results, whilst calling out others for the same. Not simply voicing a critical opinion.

Things are quite tangled here. Suffice to say, it is allowed (the last time I checked, anyway) to tease general inferences from specific instances. Anne did it, I did it, lots of people do it. It can be an informative thing to do, maybe you should try it sometime?

HINT: the cuts to government budgets are often signals to potential "commercial partners" that some action is up for grabs. Did somebody from NASA tell me this in a breathy phone call late last night? Of course not, but from certain perspectives, connections can be seen to exist between the various facets of the situation as presented here.

It's not directly related, but my wariness was recently refreshed by this:

https://www.theguardian....te-funded-cabinet-office

They got the idea from Canada, apparently, but I have no idea where the Canadians got it from... /s

So no facts then? If I seem frustrated it is not with you specifically, but rather the fact that members have been relentlessly interjecting this notion of corruption in threads about studies to which this does not apply, and without proof. It distracts from the discussion of the actual science and serves no real purpose unless you actually have something of substance to bring to the table.

EDIT: strays near CT territory