Picture
Add Comment
 
 
Picture
DO INTELLIGENT PEOPLE DRINK MORE ALCOHOL?Analysis by Liz Day
Wed Oct 20, 2010 03:17 PM ET


The next time you're inclined to enjoy an extra glass of wine, consider that it may be a reflection of your intelligence.

That is one of the findings from data from the National Child Development Study in the United Kingdom and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in the United States.

Childhood intelligence, measured before the age of 16, was categorized in five cognitive classes, ranging from "very dull," "dull," "normal," "bright" and "very bright."

The Americans were revisited seven years later. The British youths, on the other hand, were followed in their 20s, 30s and 40s. Researchers measured their drinking habits as the participants became older.

More intelligent children in both studies grew up to drink alcohol more frequently and in greater quantities than less intelligent children. In the Brits' case, "very bright" children grew up to consume nearly eight-tenths of a standard deviation more alcohol than their "very dull" cohorts.

Researchers controlled for demographic variables -- such as marital status, parents' education, earnings, childhood social class and more -- that may have also affected adult drinking. Still, the findings held true: Smarter kids were drinking more as adults.

So why do smarter kids end up drinking more? Hypotheses abound.

Psychology Today takes an evolutionary approach. They argue that drinkable alcohol is a relatively novel invention of 10,000 years ago. Our ancestors had previously gotten their alcohol kick through eating rotten fruits, so more intelligent humans may be more likely to choose modern alcoholic beverages.

Although increased alcohol consumption could be a reflection of exceptional brainpower, drinking more will certainly not make you any more intelligent than you already are.


READ MORE
Add Comment
 
 
From Las Vegas Now News 

A Nevada group that wants to legalize marijuana is offering a unique challenge that could make someone $10,000 richer.

The group says it will write a check to anyone who can prove drinking alcohol is safer than smoking marijuana. Marijuana advocates say their goal is to legalize and regulate marijuana.

With this $10,000 challenge, the group says it hopes to educate the public and show that drinking alcohol is more dangerous than smoking pot.

"We are confident that will not need to pay out this $10,000," said David Schwartz, Marijuana Policy Project of Nevada.

At a news conference Wednesday, the group said using marijuana is safer than drinking alcohol and hopes their challenge will prove it.

"Alcohol is more toxic than marijuana, more likely to be lethal either by overdose or chronic use and more likely to contribute to violence," Schwartz said. And if you think that's not true, the group wants you to prove it. In order to win the cash they say you must disprove three points. First, that alcohol is significantly more toxic than marijuana. Second, that the health effects from long term alcohol cause more deaths each year than from long term marijuana use. And finally, that violent crime committed by people under the influence of alcohol is more prevalent than violent crime committed by people under the influence of marijuana.

Take the Challenge

"It's been on the ballot twice before and in the last round -- in 2006 -- it garnered 44 percent of the vote which is a record vote. And in the future if we go through the initiative process, we think it will do quite well," Schwartz said.

But while the group might believe smoking marijuana is safer than drinking alcohol, a local drug and alcohol counselor says the dangers and consequences are actually very similar. Erin Kinard says both lead to addiction, both are a gateway to more serious drugs and both can cause people to become violent.

"Both can destroy life. Both have the potential to cause you to lose your job, lose your family, have legal repercussions. Both have the potential to have a severe impact on a person's life," said Erin Kinard, Westcare Nevada.

Add Comment
 
 
CONSUMER HEALTH
1) Regular cell phone use found to be as damaging as cigarettes in terms of cancer risks, teenage girls and Bluetooth douchbags unwilling to give up an essential element to their superficial lifestyle respond with a vehemently programmed… “Like whatever!”


2) Vancouver man part of a new program that provides free heroine to addicts in an effort to promote recovery ???? (Similar to CIA’s role in America only this is free and overtly funded by a legitimate government agency). Meanwhile responsible tax paying students (in control of their lives) still forced to pay for a useless post-secondary brainwashing, and collect student loans at interest that the government borrows from private banks. Meanwhile, their tax dollars are used to pay down interest owed to debts borrowed by their governments from these private banks propagating the luxurious lifestyles of monetary slave drivers.

3) More sleep said to reduce obesity in children, as well as playing more Nintendo Wi. In addition A new pill is available that is said to trick body into burning fat faster SRT1720, so people can consume EVEN MORE of the earths depleting resources without physical consequence.


4) Numerous studies now link Dementia (brain degeneration) to excessive use of alcohol, in addition to its being related to millions of deaths and legal issues each year. Marijuana still illegal because people would have the means to grow that and not rely on a brewery (Just lights and fertilizer), nor a fake market to get it, nor would it make them stupid and complacent as fk.


5) Fox ‘news’ appeals to now depressed McCain supporting viewer base, criticizing Obama’s wife’s manner of dress. They would much rather she spend over 100, 000$ to further the Obama’s illusive perfection. Fox anticipating 4 years of narrow minded racially charged criticisms to infuriate Obamians (while actually having the effect of making him look more legitimate; as intended) persisting in its reception of liberal discontent.


6) Fake liberal media ensure viewers that gap left in completion of wholly fabricated election distraction will be filled by an endless supply of even more intellectually degenerating material to distract them from their children, and turn their children against them.



January 2nd, 2008
Corporate media claims anyone who doesn't believe corporate media is insane...

ABC News (if you can call it that) has published an article called “Whats behind conspiracy theories (changed to 'empires' recently), As Conspiracy communities grow, Mental health Docs are left with big questions”

You can view this piece of shit here.

The article focuses on a former sports anchor turned conspiracy marketing guru named David Icke, who purports that inter-dimensional shape-shifting reptilians rule the world… right. In addition to this he also in opposition to things like globalization, the capitalist consolidation of wealth and power, the notion that governments actively sustain shock capitalism with false flag attacks (I.e, empirically substantiated ideas) to push forth their agendas. But low and behold he corrupts this all by insisting that at the top of this pyramid sit these reptiles from one of Neptune’s moons… Some have thought that he is making a reference to the Jews. Which has led to his censorship in Canadian bookstores. However it is quite likely that he does in fact believe in this possibility as evidenced in the detail in which he describes the idea. Nonetheless, the notion that lizard people are handing down orders from the ziosphere is like throwing a bloody piece of meat to the media dogs. Anyone with an ounce of criticism that has been already squandered in participating in pretentiously rhetorical, go nowhere political debates, can see that Icke conveniently allows Ziovision to stifle any criticism of the make believe fairy tale reality they fabricate. It is called death by association or poisoning the waters. ABC goes on to over-generalize their criticism of Icke’s reptile theory to anyone who challenges what they describe as reality to be in saying:

“Such is the story of several extraordinarily popular conspiracy theorists and theories online today”.

ABC, as well and the other 5 global news agencies who work in concert with one another, puts faith in the fact that most people are stupid enough to agree with what they say simply because its dressed up to appear professional, promoting the stigmatization of being critical and challenging mainstream portrayals of reality. In social psychology it has been demonstrated that when in a group scenario people are more likely to agree with something that is blatantly false just from the fear and pressure of being ridiculed for not doing so. In addition things are more likely to be believed if the are provided by someone who appears to be an authority. ABC simply picked out the most radical perspective and went on to lump everything between that, and the delusive reality they propose, into the ‘bat fucking crazy, tinfoil hat brigade’ category. Knowing that if the majority (which is not that bent on being critical) agrees their will be an overwhelming pressure for the remaining to agree. The fear of being termed crazy by people who ironically are crazy will facilitate this.

The article goes on to ask “who are such people who believe these theories?”…Angus Macdonald (who is an associate professor at U of Minnesota) made his credentials readily available to ziowhores and reassured people who don’t give a shit that, in saying that we don’t have to worry “because not everyone who believes a conspiracy plot is necessarily mentally ill” Thank goodness, golly gee, we are ok after all!!! We were almost worried we were the crazy ones, having not succumb to the ad populum fallacy that dictates that the more people who believe something the more true it is and all! Whew! But a corporate psycho-pharmaceutical media whore says we are sane enough to be cured by thought suppressing drugs, and electroshock therapy! Yippie! Thank goodness we didn’t realize the circular reasoning inherent in the mainstream media validating itself, by members of the academic industrial complex yet!

He is basically saying that any conspiracy theory (most of which are empirical deductions made by people who have the ability to contextualize events) is invalid, and that the majority of these people are mentally ill… He goes onto say that:

“they may just be suggestible or suspicious of authority”

But not suggestible in the sense that they blindly believe the anything ABC says which is owned and operated by a handful of corporations who have their information put through 5-10 media filters (after having recorded in a biased way) before it is presented to the viewer. One is quite sane to believe anything if not everything these agencies have to say without question; in fact its best to use anything they say as the default or official account of anything that happens, because clearly they have no special interests to protect whatsoever! And why be suspicious of authority anyway hmmm? Why not just get really drunk instead! No reasons whatsoever to question something as infringing as authority! The drug dealer goes on to say that:

“unexplained feelings of discontent that are caused by a problem with the brain”

Not only is he presuming that discontent is a bad thing, (as we have been conditioned to think through secular humanist indoctrination that if you are unhappy something is wrong with you and that you must need drugs or more stuff), but also winning one for the biological determinist crowd, in suggesting that if you don’t blindly adhere to aristocratic propaganda something is inherently and irreconcilably wrong with your being. Here’s a scanty clad person with a pretty face to give you your fix of thought suppressing drugs and deliver the news! Now shut the fuck up and DO WHAT THE NICE LADY TELLS YOU!

Add Comment