Clinical trials prior to two years ago have shown little to no significant effects of cannabis in reducing seizures. These trials seem to be underpowered, with a sample size less than 15. In contrast, more recent studies that have included over 100 participants showed that CBD use resulted in a significant reduction in seizure frequency. Adverse effects of CBD overall appear to be benign, while more concerning adverse effects (e.g., elevated liver enzymes) improve with continued CBD use or dose reduction.

In most of the trials, CBD is used in adjunct with epilepsy medication, therefore it remains to be determined whether CBD is itself antiepileptic or a potentiator of traditional antiepileptic medications. Future trials may evaluate the efficacy of CBD in treating seizures due to specific etiologies (e.g., post-traumatic, post-stroke, idiopathic).

==========

in other words, they weren't able to find any evidence of this claim until they started using cbd together with the epilepsy medication.

right.

great trials, guys. really convincing. good job with that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6235654/

even with the kids, it's like...

does it really cure epilepsy in kids? or does it cure the idea of epilepsy in the minds of their parents?

the claim is the efficacy fell over time, but i wonder if the efficacy wasn't exaggerated in the first place.

i don't have my blocklist on the chromebook, so i'd have to sort through thousands of pop science sites and piles of hippie bullshit to get to some actual, decent research. i'm not going to do that.

but, i would not endorse the claim that cbd reduces seizures in anybody, regardless of their age. sorry.

https://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/pediatrics/cbd-oils-effect-may-wane-managing-seizures

i am overwhelmingly skeptical, myself.

but, i support recreational legalization, anyways - i'd just like to see some bylaws around residential use.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cbd-product-boom-science-research-hemp-marijuana

"The relation between marijuana use and epileptic seizures is still controversial. "

that's a polite way to put it. 

i don't think i have late onset epilepsy, and i don't think it's being cause by marijuana abuse, which i've never had an issue with.

but, could pot cause seizures? the answer is that it does actually make sense, unlike the opposite argument, which really doesn't.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4121386/

but, i mean, the place could have also been empty because everybody left because the manager called the fucking cops, too.

i keep saying i'm getting up to eat.

so, it's one thing to call the cops on a green out at 11:00, when you're there until close to 3:00, that would be unnecessary, probably, and another to call them at 2:30, when you're trying to close the bar and go home.

the place was empty when i was talking to the cops....

...but that would mean i got drugged....

data. i need data.

and i need linguine.

when i called the pot smoker below me in a couple of years ago, it wasn't being done with the intent to have her arrested, or with the intent to serve or protect anybody. i was very intentionally attempting to create an occurrence for the purpose of a court process, and i actually told them that when they got there.

if there was some other way i could have proven in court that the person below me was smoking inside, i would have walked down that path, instead. but, the legal precedent is getting a police report, so i did that in order to win the court case.

as i had asked her to smoke somewhere else repeatedly, and she didn't care about my lungs or my sobriety, i decided i didn't care much about what happened to her, either. but i wasn't calling the cops for the sake of calling the cops, i was just doing what was required to get out of the lease. there wasn't another answer - that's what the court wants as proof, in that scenario. that's the sitting precedent....

it's a different kind of argument, and one i can maybe draw a parallel to on the issue of "i just want to go home". and, i guess that's where the generational gap is likely to assert itself - i would actually find it less upsetting to have a call in a situation where she's trying to close the bar and go home than i would in an overbearing situation where she's trying to, like, mother me and make sure i'm safe. i thought i was home at like 11:00, but i'm questioning that, now. is that actually true? it's kind of important.

ok, i'm going to eat.

i'm an anarchist - i don't buy into this idea of the police existing to serve or protect, unless you own property. so, i'm going to kneejerk pretty brutally against anybody calling the police.

but, the bartender drove me home.

and, even if i don't agree with what happened, i can maybe make a better attempt to understand the generational or income gap underlying it, if they really did find themselves with somebody unable to move, at or close to closing time, especially considering that i would have had to have been drugged - if i picked up that deduction right, it was correct, and the same one i'm presenting.

i may remain a little uneasy about it, i may continue to be apprehensive about the safety of entering the space for a while, but i can sort of adjust a little to it. it's like the introduction of a difference of scale, a kind of hierarchy of "noooooo".

the fact is that this is very blurry.

- i finished my second beer
- i went out for a smoke

- somebody handed me a joint and said "this is strong. careful.", and i smoked it anyways. i even said i was done and changed my mind and took more. i take some responsibility here, i'm just insisting on clarifying the agent.

- i asked for another beer, and was told i looked a little rough and to come back in an hour or two. i didn't totally agree, but i shrugged this off. note that i actually would have left at this point if i hadn't been given a free beer, because i had budgeted for two; i wasn't planning on staying much longer. so, the refusal didn't really bug me. as the karaoke was starting, i was thinking about going to the jazz bar down the street instead, anyways. but, i decided to sit down for a few minutes and think about what the best thing to do actually was.
- and, the next thing i remember is sitting a few feet away with somebody hovering over me, giving me juice.

i initially assumed that there was just a few moments in between these two events - that i had a seizure, and then i had people hovering over me right after. this is because this is how this happened before.

but, with the exceeding amounts of tiredness that have followed, and the recollection that i was having such a hard time getting up, i'm increasingly wondering:

1) how much time occurred between when i sat down and when people were giving me juice?
2) just how long was i sitting there struggling to get up for?

it's the time dilation that is messing with me, and, because i didn't check the time when i got in, i don't have the frame of reference. i'm going to need somebody to answer that question for me.

if i was just passed out for a few seconds like i initially thought, it would seem as though i had a very, very bad reaction to the pot.

but, if this process was actually more drawn out than i initially thought it was, if i was struggling with awakeness for a long while, then i basically had to have been drugged.

so, i guess i was up at close to 17:00 and i haven't been sure how awake i actually am. i got some fruit, warmed back up and spent some time ranting, to make sure i was actually awake. and, i think that i am.

my neck is unusually stiff, and i had some kind of migraine on monday morning. no significant bruising has developed. i never developed any sort of nausea. i've just been oppressively, overwhelmingly tired.

i haven't had any kind of hallucinations, if you're wondering about the stiff neck.

so, i don't know. i actually posted at the bar's facebook page, and i'm hoping to get some information about some time frames. i didn't actually check a clock. and, the more i kind of feel it through in my head, the more i'm wondering how long i was passed out for. was the bar even closed when i left? i don't have any recollection of the karaoke.

so, what if i was passed out in the bar for like 4 hours? at that point i guess maybe you either need to call the cops, or an ambulance, if the person can't move - you want to go home. but, in context, i would think that would make a roofie almost certain. i just didn't drink that much...

so, i think that, to an extent, my initial reaction, in a continued slightly confused state, should be taken with a grain of salt. i'm realizing that i maybe don't have a clear enough understanding of what happened to be able to make a choice.

it wasn't the alcohol; i either had a pot-related seizure, or i got drugged. let's hope i can get enough information by the end of the night to figure that out. and, i might undo the nasty review, if i was actually passed out for hours. because what do you do? and, there was some realization of the possibility of a drugging - she did tell me she was calling the cops because she didn't want me to get raped.

maybe, with a little better reflection, with better data, with better clarity, i can put these pieces together differently.

right now, i'm awake enough that i'm going to stop to eat.

that's not the messaging i'm getting, here.

the messaging i'm getting is that he thinks he has a higher purpose, and a special role to fulfill, and it's this special purpose and role that gives him the entitlement to act like a spoiled child.

and, that's scaring the hell out of me - that's how we walk down the path to dictatorship.

justin trudeau may think he's special.

he's not.

and, justin trudeau may think he's been chosen. he hasn't been.

what justin trudeau is is lucky. very, very, very lucky. 

and, his one opportunity to prove he has some intelligence is to demonstrate that he recognizes the importance of chance over destiny in how he got to the role that he's in.

if the rule of law in this country is to start anywhere, it must start in holding the prime minister accountable for his outrageous and unacceptable behaviour, today.

scheer may be saying crazy things that you cannot really take seriously in order to rouse up his base. that's what politicians do.

but, trudeau's behaviour is beyond the pale, and cannot be tolerated by the members of the house. he should be censured, in no uncertain terms.

i don't know if justin trudeau actually believes what he says when he stands up and presents all of this flowery language about democracy and the rule of law, or if he's just pulling your crank on purpose.

but, whether he's entirely delusional or completely dishonest, he's thoroughly full of shit, either way.

he's an authoritarian to the core, and a fascist dictator waiting to happen.

this guy is a dictator and he needs to be thrown out of power.

it's a historical constant - it's what happens when you put the pampered children of leaders into power, they grow up thinking they're intended for the role and start thinking they have some kind of inherent authority.

they don't. and, he doesn't. 

he's just a relatively uneducated person that's been given far more power than he's earned or deserves.

the irony here is, of course, that the government fully supports the pipeline. and, they will crack down on these protesters, eventually - trust me. it's just a question of doing so in a way that avoids the optics of the war measures act.

it was not very long ago when canada was one of the more libertarian western countries, in terms of the political spectrum. i'm not sure how we woke up with this current surreal debate, between two different strains of literal fascism. but, this is how the liberals co-opt and confuse you - they present themselves as a lesser evil, while continuing to shift the discourse to the hard right.

the prime minister has an obligation to listen to the opposition, whether he likes what they have to say or not. insisting otherwise is an egregious abuse of power and a step towards authoritarianism and must be denounced and resisted.

i would call on the other opposition parties to refuse to meet further with the prime minister until he drops his fascistic and, frankly, somewhat childish, strongarm tactics.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeau-ejects-a-protester/

how about nevada?

i know i'm cherry-picking, but the only poll here without an obvious bias (and it doesn't help to verify the results if the polling is all funded by partisan actors) is this one:

Sanders 35%
Warren 16%
Buttigieg 15%
Biden 14%
Steyer 10%
Klobuchar 9%
Gabbard 2%

...and it's also the one that aligns best with the non-literal, intuitive regression model that i erected in my head (stated differently, this is the one that best reflects the direction of the trendlines).

those numbers are a little better for buttigieg, but it's still not clear that he'll end up viable, and i'm not ready to project that he will.

they're very good for sanders, though, who, once again, could nearly take the pot by splitting the field, if that was the actual outcome.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/nevada/

ok, so we're starting to see some shape with this.

the headlines are claiming sanders is in the lead, bloomberg is up & biden is down. they forgot to mention that buttigieg is up more than bloomberg. klobuchar's +2 is statistically a flat outcome.

so, biden is in free fall and the support appears to be splitting between buttigieg and bloomberg. if he falls another few points, buttigieg could maybe end up viable in some of these southern states, which is probably the best he can hope for. the rest of the field is roughly flat.

and, sanders? well, if the field stays the way it is, and he's the only guy that can clear 15%....

warren seems to be dragging a grudge around first and foremost, but biden is actually trying to win and will give up when it's clear that he can't, which might not be too far in the future. when that happens, some other candidate should emerge as a rising second, either bloomberg or buttigieg.

i don't understand who would vote for mike bloomberg, or why. i specifically can't imagine black voters staying with bloomberg, even if they refuse to vote for the jew or the gay. so, what do they do, exactly? i dunno. i will acknowledge that bloomberg is throwing a little bit of a wrench into my projections with this, but i think he has a relatively low ceiling. and, like biden, he will quit fairly quickly when his path is blocked. he won't drag this on, he will move on to something else. so, when you take them both off the ballot, who's next in line? steyer?

what's clear enough is that they're realigning against sanders rather than with him, and that sanders may have had this thing in the bag right now had he tried to organize around them rather than with them. instead, he's ceded a lot of ground to buttigieg & klobuchar & warren, while chasing outcomes that were never very likely.

he appears to be getting a bit of a break, though - he appears to be getting a bit of luck.

i told you months ago that sanders was going to have to split the black vote to win the nomination, then got frustrated with and eventually alienated by his refusal to face the facts on the matter, and instead contort his positions and destroy his legacy by chasing value systems that belong in the last century. now, here he is, observing his chances of winning the nomination increase dramatically by a developing split in the black vote that is developing as a consequence of his own negligence in consolidating white voters.

i also said months ago that he's going to have to heal the divisions after he splits the vote, if he wants to win the general. he might want to get to thinking about that by finding ways to reach out to these southern black groups that, frankly, simply don't like him.

he's done everything wrong, and it's not confidence-inducing. but, the incompetence and inability of his opponents to work together is opening up a gigantic hole for him to run through. and, they're running out of time to figure it out.

...if this isn't actually just theatre, anyways. of course.

the story is that biden's vote is splitting roughly evenly between buttigieg and bloomberg, both of whom may overtake him in the next round of polls. sanders, on the other hand, remains flat, but well ahead of the split field.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/18/nbcwsj-poll-sanders-leads-by-double-digits-as-biden-sinks-bloomberg-rises.html

after passing out hard for another 10+ hours over what was supposed to be a twenty minute nap, and feeling like i'm going to sleep another 10 hours, i'm left with the need to ask the question i should have asked in the first place.

there's no way at all that the totality of this is alcohol related - i'd have had to have drank at least twice as much as i did. and, while i've had some bad reactions to marijuana recently, this is starting to feel like something more than that, as well.

was i drugged on sunday night? did somebody put something in my drink when i was having a smoke?

there weren't a lot of people in the bar from 7:30-10:00 on sunday night. they have a weekly karaoke feature, and it was starting to pick up when i fell asleep. there were maybe five or six people in the bar, pretty much all male, with the exception of a bartender and a small group of females tucked away on the very far side of the bar, which i didn't make it over to, as it would have been out of the way.

of the guys in the bar, i actually think i've met most of them before and would consider essentially all of them to be exceedingly low risk. i would characterize this bar as a nerd hangout and pretty low risk, over all.

i did not purchase my second drink, though. it was bought for me after i had a conversation with somebody about the native african language they were speaking at the bar. they were impressed by my knowledge of the geography of eastern africa, and my usage of terms like "nilotic". and, i scored a drink out of it. i didn't think much of it.

now, though...

i shouldn't be experiencing this kind of overwhelming effect from a couple of drinks and a few tokes. this is an epic hangover, the kind of thing you get after a major bender. 

so, did somebody put something in my drink?

if not, what exactly was i handed?

i've been asleep since 3:00 this morning and i think i'm going back to it.

so, i have a tentative 72 page document done for inri023, but i appear to have flubbed the process the first time around (this is an lp, like inri015 or inri021, but i treated it like an ep, like inri022. i have to reverse that.) and will need to go through it very carefully to make sure i haven't missed anything.

unlike the last three updates, inri023 only has one html5 frontend in the package and will not include discarded remasters. that's something that was sort of unique to those specific recordings.

in fact, the html5 part of this should be pretty quick, i just have to actually get it done.

i think i'm going to take a nap just right now, though. i hope it's short...

i can measure how much alcohol i'm consuming by reading labels and via experience. that's something i have control over, and that i'm actually pretty good at figuring out. i actually don't tend to find myself very drunk very often, although it happens to everybody sometimes.

however, when somebody hands you a joint, you have no idea how potent it is, or if it's even really marijuana in the first place. 

so, if somebody hands you a potent joint and it knocks you out flat on your ass, did you do something irresponsible? or did you just get unlucky?

you could have controlled the situation by not smoking at all, granted. but, you didn't have control of the pot that was given to you, you were at the whim of somebody else. is it actually your fault, really?

imagine if it was alcohol. if somebody gives you a cup worth of beer, it probably won't do much to you; on the other hand, if somebody gives you a cup worth of vodka, and you swig it, it could knock you out right on the spot. the difference between a cbd joint rolled with mostly tobacco and a pure marijuana cigarette at 30% thc is just as profound. 

if somebody gave you a glass of beer, you'd drink it, if you trust them. you would know better than to drink a glass of vodka, though. with marijuana, you don't have the opportunity to make that discretion, and, if you have low tolerance like i do, you can find yourself passed right out relatively quickly, if you take too long a haul on too powerful of a joint. if you had the ability to understand what you're smoking in the first place, you might not make those mistakes.

the potency of marijuana has apparently come up a lot over the last few decades, and i guess my reactions to the drug are reflective of that. 

again, i don't want to come off as unappreciative or entitled.

but, this was a part of the argument for legalization in the first place, and it would be nice if they could get a move on it. this was supposed to have been dealt with quite a while ago, already.

turns out today was a holiday in ontario.

the more you know...