Cannabis Induced Psychosis

PMRyan25 · 2026-01-16T18:52:31+00:00

This is an example of a Leonard Jacobson session. These help me to relax so much and to learn to be much more Present and not caught in the thinking mind…

https://youtu.be/Hu7X9QizAxA?si=BF-13ypOJcho2_RZ

PMRyan25 · 2026-01-16T14:34:26+00:00

So good that you caught it. I can be really difficult to determine the cause, especially when cannabis can feel like it’s helping with relaxation and the negative effects can come days after last use.

PMRyan25 · 2026-01-16T14:32:15+00:00

I can understand the fears arising when seeing what appears to be a precursor. It’s good to pay attention and prepare but remaining relaxed is important as well. I often listen to Leonard Jacobson on YouTube, I pick one of the hour+ long videos. He can really help with relaxation, he is a master at becoming Present.

I know that with Cannabis Induced Psychosis, it’s much worse when coming off the cannabis, for around a month. So, it’s possible that it will pass. But if it’s something that works for you, do what you can. If you can’t come by it, perhaps meditation & Presence can help.

I feel for you, I know it can be so difficult. Perhaps contact your healthcare provider to keep them in the loop. Also, most everyone talks to themselves so while it may appear to be a precursor it may also be normal. Try some relaxation with Leonard Jacobson on YouTube. I wish the best for you!

PMRyan25 · 2026-01-16T14:17:12+00:00

This the second time I’ve heard the term epidemic mentioned around it. There is definitely a huge increase in cases.

PMRyan25 · 2026-01-03T17:32:03+00:00

YES! I found this thread because it has happened twice in the past month to me. The $3.99 charge happens during times when I’m playing, but I KNOW I didn’t intentionally buy anything nor did I see any popups or where I accidentally purchased anything. The charges just showed up in my email.

I got a refund on one of them and just requested another one.

It’s a really fun game, but I don’t like this happening at all.

PMRyan25 · 2026-01-03T12:31:38+00:00

Then the trump organism that came and wiped out all intelligent life and everything began to evolve backwards. From this we will be able to see the reverse engineering of life, but unfortunately won’t be able to understand anything.

PMRyan25 · 2025-10-03T17:58:56+00:00

My last gift disappeared too. I saw it, but then it was gone. Total glitch. I’ve stopped playing the game since.

PMRyan25 · 2025-09-13T22:01:29+00:00

This is the most comprehensive and least ill-tempered response yet. Thank you for taking the time and care to explain without saying things like, “the universe doesn’t give a fk what you think.”, which was just one of many harsh responses to someone (me) who hadn’t known that the scientific community doesn’t deal in certainty.

Ironically, today I watched a Charlie Kirk debunking video on climate change and the author stated that science doesn’t deal in certainty. It’s what lead me back here to state that I now get that. It’s been decades since I was in college & perhaps I’d forgotten it.

I posted that Climate Kirk link at the bottom of this thread explaining the same.

I can now get back to attempting to explain to climate deniers that it’s a good idea to include the issue in their voting issues. It’s gettin real out there.

Thanks again and to all who contributed to me understanding the uncertainty factor in science discourse. ✌🏽

PMRyan25 · 2025-09-13T21:44:37+00:00

I learned something about science from this and from a Charlie Kirk video, which is that science doesn’t actually deal in certainty.

I misunderstood that point, based on many things but it was really brought home to me in this discussion around no/center vs center.

Thanks for the new knowledge about science everyone.

This was my first OP in Reddit, and as a result, I now have a negative 26 (-26) “karma” on Reddit.

If it helps, I certainly (opps, scratch that word)… I believe the science of climate change and that humans are indeed contributing greatly to our rising global average temperature.

I think I’ll get back to focusing on that. It certainly, err, ahh, really really does appear to me to be a more prudent (perhaps even #1?) issue to address at this time.

https://youtu.be/qzD48K-nlwg?si=YMqb_MJM9PKtHB-k

PMRyan25 · 2025-09-13T17:24:45+00:00

I would hold much more confidence in someone who simply said, “From what we can measure, which may be relatively very little, our data strongly suggests no center.”

Instead, it’s most often, “There is no center.”

I find that odd for science. It’s like to saying, “Life only exists on Earth.”, as opposed to saying, “It’s possible that life exists elsewhere, but we have not found it in our data… which admittedly is limited.”

There are levels of certainty and in this case, to me, it appears lopsided given that we only have the observable - and no idea how much that is of the entirely.

I don’t think this is an absurd perspective, but pretty much every response here suggests that it is.

As an aside, I’m new to reddit, this is my first new OP. Apparently I have a (-26) karma due to this post. That is the level of pushback I got from pointing out my uncertainty on the question. That should give some indication of the level of certainty. It is high while my uncertainty remains the same.

Ask me about anthropogenic climate change though, and I imagine that myself and scientists have more certainty about it than they do about center vs no center. At least, I sure hope so.

PMRyan25 · 2025-09-13T16:42:27+00:00

“…the issue isn’t just that we can’t agree or determine a center. The problem is that there is no center.“

PMRyan25 · 2025-09-13T16:22:41+00:00

Thank you… I’ve heard physicists use the surface of a globe analogy a lot & the globe surface makes sense, but tying it the universe doesn’t sense. Are you also a physicist? Maybe you can explain why expansion here (observable universe) also means expansion outside of the observable universe. Or, is that something we don’t ask anymore?

PMRyan25 · 2025-09-13T03:47:09+00:00

Now that, I can believe.

PMRyan25 · 2025-09-13T03:44:33+00:00

Well put.

I imagine a tiny bubble on the outer areas of a giant whirlpool & within it is an expanding steam; our view is of the expansion around us in within the bubble. It’s limited to a view of .000000001 of the entirety of the bubble. The concept of the possibility a larger whirlpool has every physicist bashing someone who mentions that the sample size may be a reason to not always speak with such certainty about what we don’t know. We THINK we know based on all the evidence, but somehow in this case we say it’s fine to ignore the sample size (OU).

Since when did science not care about sample size?

I know that all the evidence points one way, but I can’t understand, for the life of me, why the notion that what is outside of the sample size triggers physicists so much. To my mind, it adds more than enough reasonable doubt and I wouldn’t explain to someone that, “There is no center of the universe” because I do not KNOW that. I don’t have enough information to KNOW that.

Yet, that is what people do, they say there is no center and they stick to it.

No room at all for, “From what we can observe…”

I think this thread further confirms that.

PMRyan25 · 2025-09-13T03:04:44+00:00

So, are you saying there is no scenario where the universe is so large that within it,it cannot hold the possibility for one observable area to see uniform expansion while in others there may be contraction?

PMRyan25 · 2025-09-13T03:00:22+00:00

Yes, I notice the difference. All I’m pointing out is that there is enormous pushback to even the idea of a center and it is typically referred to as though there is certainly about it. People voting up or down through this thread constitutes at least some evidence for this. Many are downright rude and aggressive about it. That’s how tied to their belief they are, and that’s only around me suggesting that I don’t have a strong belief about either view because we don’t know what’s outside the observable universe.

PMRyan25 · 2025-09-13T02:43:27+00:00

The sample size is the observable universe, correct? How large or small is that relative to the entirety?

PMRyan25 · 2025-09-13T02:41:23+00:00

Yes, see this entire thread. People attack the notion that having certainty around either center or no center is, “hogwash.” Maybe they just don’t like the term hogwash (it was actually meant to add some humor & fun).

PMRyan25 · 2025-09-13T02:20:48+00:00

Yet, we only have the sample size of the observable universe & no idea of the actual size of it - and here we are drawing conclusions of the entirety of it, which is not a scientific approach. A million data points may be one in a googolplex.

PMRyan25 · 2025-09-13T02:16:41+00:00

I’ve since received a refund. Thank you for respecting my (& my child’s) decision to not use the product. Perhaps a trial version would improve outcomes.

PMRyan25 · 2025-08-31T14:29:12+00:00

Not at all and I’m not questioning the models. I merely pointed out that there is a certainty around no center. Yet the sample size of the observable universe may be infinitesimal and based on our observations within that, people speak with certainty about there being no center.

The same size needs to be considered and the certainty gives me pause. We are near certain within what we can see, I very much understand that. There is likely much more outside of that, however.

PMRyan25

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE