Quick Note; this research was done simple but correctly. This research is in no means meant to be used in any offical report, writting ect about marijuana or marijuana addiction. The people involved in the research are not trained or have much experience. All research is independent and unpublished.

Now with that out of the way the expierment was indeed simple. I wanted to test out the theory that marijuana was not addictive. 4 friends helped me with this research. 2: 18 year old males. 1: 19 year old male 1: 18 year old female. 3 subjects smoked marijuana every other day for 3 months. 1 subject smoked every day for a month. Then all 4 subjects where tested on there physical and psychological dependece/addiction for 2 weeks after stopping cold. Results showed that all 3 males showed slight irritablity and sleep pattern disturbance but no major withdrawl symptoms while the female reported no noticable withdrawl symptoms. As far as this simple research is concerned, I see no evidence that marijuana is physicaly addicitve. :) just thought id share.

3 months and that's what you call research? I'd think that there have been much longer studies done on this matter over and over again and again just to say the same thing to everyone. Just like smoking a cigarette won't get you into an addiction after only 3 months of inhaling them once a day either. The biggest problem is that it is a gateway drug, you'll always find much harder drugs wherever there is marijuana being sold. That's something you neglected to research because you had a controlled environment unlike the streets. There are many people that have addictive personalities as well and perhaps you just didn't have any among your volunteers this time but if you would have perhaps one of them might have become habit forming from smoking the pot. You just can't tell who's the one that is going to have the problems.

Decriminalize marijuana, making it a misdemenor for less than an ounce and a fine and no criminal record.

Two two word phrases: Sample size and control set.

Marijuana does not seem to be heavily chemically addictive.

Shoplifting, porn, gambling, and cutting aren't chemically addictive either-but there sure are a lot of people hooked on those...

Marijuana does not seem to be heavily chemically addictive.

Shoplifting, porn, gambling, and cutting aren't chemically addictive either-but there sure are a lot of people hooked on those...

It's many due to the difference between direct chemical addiction and secondary addictions. It's known that Marijuana causes the bodies reward centre to be stimulated, this is why people can feel pleasant (or just down right stoned), what isn't taken into consideration is that long term over-stimulation caused damage to the reward centres.

( It's related to the equilibrium within the bodies own chemistry where the body attempts to flush the abundance of chemicals, which creates a potential "addictive" quality as a low usually means either allowing the body to rebalance or un-naturally balancing it back to a high through the reuse of drugs. )

Cannabis is "subtly" addictive compared to "physically" addictive which is when people suffer physical responses because of the bodies chemical imbalances. (Cigarette's "Craving" on smokers is a low level physical addiction compared to some Prescription and Major street drugs which can cause things like coldsweats, violent shaking, irrational thinking etc.)

Long-term usage will cause physical damage, this is where the statements of Schizophrenia spring up and where the smokers that feel currently no side effects dispute that cannabis can ever be responsible. (The reward centre is located in the cerebral cortex, which deals with perception and consciousness among other things like the source of paranoia, both are usually effected through cannabis's usage and can be "altered" if long term mis-usage causes actual damage to the Cortex generating Schizophrenia traits.)

Uh...this is all pretty silly, kids. :o

If we are going to start/continue making pseudo - scientific statements than we need to back those statements up with actual published, peer - reviewed research studies.

Our 15 year old friend has definitely got the interest to do this, but lacks the education as of yet. While I applaud his desire - as I do you others - please substantiate these broad statements with the proper citations.

Otherwise it is just more hot air. :shrug:

Uh...this is all pretty silly, kids. :o

If we are going to start/continue making pseudo - scientific statements than we need to back those statements up with actual published, peer - reviewed research studies.

Our 15 year old friend has definitely got the interest to do this, but lacks the education as of yet. While I applaud his desire - as I do you others - please substantiate these broad statements with the proper citations.

Otherwise it is just more hot air. :shrug:

Your quite welcome to slam it yourself. Why should it always be on the person that presents the theory to back it up, why for once don't the people that disagree with the theory provide proper citations of why that theory is inaccurate (It's what's referred to as "Debunking".)

I state this because what I've written isn't Pseudo-science, it's actually what I've learnt from years of investigation through documented information that even you could find online. It would be difficult to pinpoint which sources, mainly because it was for my own personal musings.

What you might misread is one of my statements:
"Long-term usage will cause physical damage".

lets apply it metaphysically, in the long-term how long could you run a car with the addition of nitrous? The car's engine has a specific design (which incidentally a persons cells do not) and the addition of nitrous goes beyond those design perimeters, in essence if there was a warranty on the car it would be invalidated because it would be known that it was operating beyond it's designed operating levels.

You don't need a citation to identify that over the long-term there is going to be "wear and tear", the usage of drugs just increases the "wear and tear" factor.

In essence it should be common sense, which apparently people do seem to lack nowadays.

I actually liked the study. It was pretty good compared that it was done by a few teenagers. Loved Cosmic, who first slammed it, then backed the idea of decriminalizing the usage.

By the way I would say most cigarette users become addicted after 3 months of smoking, so that is a long enough time. The same with harder drugs. M. being a getaway drug is bullshit, just like beer is not a getaway drink to hard liquor...

I would like to volunteer for the Marijuana addiction test, followed by the 5 pints of beer a day test, followed by.....................

I think I'll pass on the Meth and Crack tests.

I actually liked the study. It was pretty good compared that it was done by a few teenagers. Loved Cosmic, who first slammed it, then backed the idea of decriminalizing the usage.

By the way I would say most cigarette users become addicted after 3 months of smoking, so that is a long enough time. The same with harder drugs. M. being a getaway drug is bullshit, just like beer is not a getaway drink to hard liquor...

Sorry but I disagree with you.

The gateway drug theory (also called gateway theory, gateway hypothesis and gateway effect) is the hypothesis that the use of less deleterious drugs may lead to a future risk of using more dangerous hard drugs and/or crime. It is often attributed to the use of several drugs, including tobacco, alcohol, black coffee and cannabis. While some research shows that many hard drug users used cannabis or alcohol before moving on to the harder substances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory

The true "Gateway" to drugs is purely down to social discourse. For instance as a child it was likely seen that you couldn't legally drink or smoke cigarettes, this meant as you grow up and go through the rebellious phase where a person tries to work out what they want from the world it leads to experimentation with their peers in the substances that they still aren't legally capable of buying themselves.

This "underground" social group can then have other experiments shared between them as others in the group grow more adventurous. This is the point where the drugs or activities can become harder and where some will branch off and away because they realise that "Drugs isn't what life is about" while others continue to experiment.

(Incidentally this is the point where some will become kleptomaniacs to support their cigarette habit, perhaps stealing from a parent or sibling before branching out etc. So cigarette's might not just be the basis of being "a gateway drug" it's also "a gateway for common theft".)

It's statistical to suggest that where there is one low grade drug there is likely a few people that know of someone with something of a higher grade, unless of course their particular dealer actually attempts to handle more than one type. So it can give access to drugs to people that otherwise wouldn't be able to try them purely because of the lack of availability.

I would like to volunteer for the Marijuana addiction test, followed by the 5 pints of beer a day test, followed by.....................

I think I'll pass on the Meth and Crack tests.

If you mix them all for one day, you won't bother with the rest of the week while you recover.

Decriminalize marijuana, making it a misdemenor for less than an ounce and a fine and no criminal record.Certainly a step in the right direction, since heavy criminal penalties seem to have little to impact on MJ usage.
(No citation immediately available, but if we use the OP's definition of "proper research" then I have decades of experience "researching" the matter. ;))



Marijuana does not seem to be heavily chemically addictive.

Shoplifting, porn, gambling, and cutting aren't chemically addictive either-but there sure are a lot of people hooked on those...Depends on how you define physically addictive. I realize that you used the term "chemically" addictive (probably to avoid this very sort of response), but even there definitional issues can arise. If you are talking about "internally generated" chemical addiction, potentially all of your examples could be classified as such. I believe that this is similar to Stryder's reference(s) below...




It's many due to the difference between direct chemical addiction and secondary addictions. It's known that Marijuana causes the bodies reward centre to be stimulated, this is why people can feel pleasant (or just down right stoned), what isn't taken into consideration is that long term over-stimulation caused damage to the reward centres.Anything that influences neurotransmitter production or re-uptake can be classified as being "chemically addictive". If you get a "rush" from gambling, cutting, etc., taking away the external influence that provides said "rush" is going cause withdrawal symptoms. Therefore, it would seem to me that these stimuli could be considered "chemically" addictive, at least in the broadest sense of the word.


( It's related to the equilibrium within the bodies own chemistry where the body attempts to flush the abundance of chemicals, which creates a potential "addictive" quality as a low usually means either allowing the body to rebalance or un-naturally balancing it back to a high through the reuse of drugs. [or other external stimuli] )See above...



Cannabis is "subtly" addictive compared to "physically" addictive which is when people suffer physical responses because of the bodies chemical imbalances. (Cigarette's "Craving" on smokers is a low level physical addiction compared to some Prescription and Major street drugs which can cause things like coldsweats, violent shaking, irrational thinking etc.)Which brings me to my real issue.

Although nicotine delivery systems are usually similar / identical to THC delivery (i.e. "smoking it"), I wonder why alcohol was not brought in for comparing and contrasting.

Alcohol is not considered an illegal "street drug", (at least in most, if not all, western countries) yet it can be violently physically addictive and causes true chemical dependency. My questions revolve around people's opinions on why we as a society allow this legal absurdity to continue.

Quite simply, do you agree with the points made above? If so, do you believe there is an inherent contradiction between keeping pot illegal while alcohol remains legal? Why or why not?
(I am familiar with a lot of the purely historical and propaganda issues involved in creating the current state of affairs, e.g. international treaties and "Reefer Madness" type factual misrepresentations. I'm more interested in your own opinions.)

Having been personally subjected to the actual "Reefer Madness" movie as part of a high school assembly I was forced to attend (where again, it was presented as "fact"), I can see how people of a certain age could view marijuana as the "Devil's weed". But we know better now. At least I hope we do...

Do you feel that MJ is more or less harmful than alcohol when abused? Is alcohol a "gateway" drug? After all, alcohol is usually present where harder drugs are available, much like pot is. If you're underage these days, the easiest place to obtain alcohol may very well be the local drug dealers establishment, thereby exposing young people to the same hard drugs that obtaining a few grams of pot would. Why wouldn't it be considered a gateway drug?

A few additional points:
Which would you rather be driving the same streets with - a bunch of stoners going 15MPH or a bunch of half-blind drunks doing 120 with their impulse control and reaction ability nearly totally destroyed?

Would you prefer that your child smoke pot occasionally or get "stoned" out of their mind on alcohol once in awhile?
(I realize the first impulse is to say "neither", but try to address the question as it's written please.)

What, if anything should be done about the current situation, vis a vis marijuana vs. alcohol legislation? America tried prohibition of course - remember it didn't work out - resoundingly so...


Personally, I think most, if not all "drugs" should be decriminalized and / or legal. Take the enormous amount of resources currently devoted to monitoring, apprehending, trying and imprisoning druggies and devote it to education - true education, not the Reefer Madness type of propaganda. Throw some of that money into treatment centers as well.

This would put people in a position to make informed choices and allow help to be made available to those that make poor ones.

Prohibition doesn't work. You would think we would acknowledge that fact by now, and start making corrections.
:shrug:


Edit: I notice some of these points had already been raised by the time I completed my reply. Sorry for any redundancy...

Redundancy is the least of this threads problems, NBD.

OK, when I say that you need to cite your sources while discussing topics like this, this is what I mean:

Top 10 Cannabis Studies the Government Wished it Had Never Funded


10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY:
A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.


9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON’T RUIN YOUR LIFE:
Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept.
1997


8) THE “GATEWAY EFFECT” MAY BE A MIRAGE:
Marijuana is often called a “gateway drug” by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical “associations” indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana – implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained “without requiring a gateway effect.” More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what’s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.


7) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART I):
The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, “the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement.” And what data exist show “little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use.” In other words, there is no proof that prohibition – the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century – reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.


6) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART II):
DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE “GATEWAY EFFECT”?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its “tolerant” marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.


5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I):
Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.


4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II):
In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, “in a dose-dependent manner” (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, “Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,” AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.


3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III):
Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.


2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV):
Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.


1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE:
In response to passage of California’s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana’s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.” While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, “we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting.” The government’s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government “loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened.” Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006

************************************************** *******

Now this ^ little bit supports a few important points that are either part of this discussion or should be part of this discussion. I have lots more similar and much more detailed. Like I keep saying - this is one of my research topics, has been for many years. Its just fine to state your opinion...as long as you are being clear that is what you are doing.



If you start throwing around statements like
"Long-term usage will cause physical damage" which I consider to be an "extraordinary claim", then you need to provide some of that scientific "extraordinary proof" that goes with one of those to support it.

It is the business and responsibility of the person making said extraordinary claim to substantiate it. It is NOT the responsibility of the reader who disagrees with such a claim to disprove it. Science is not done that way, for reasons both practical and obvious.

Oh yeah - and for the record, I personally favour the legalization of all drugs, also gambling, prostitution and assisted suicide. This for compassion, financial reason, government cost - effectiveness and because I do not believe it is the governments place or right to dictate individual decisions of this nature.

From what I understand and it may be hearsay . Marijuana was made illegal to satisfy the wishes of Me cousin Lloyd Tevis's Partner in crime Randolf Hearst . He owned Timber interests and wanted to replace hemp production with timber . So lobbying efforts made his interest sour by making Marijuana illegal.

It is a joke if you ask Me .

I plan to do my own independent research, just to be on the safe side.

While some research shows that many hard drug users used cannabis or alcohol before moving on to the harder substances.

And other data shows, that:

1. Some people never switched from weed to harder drugs.
2. Other people jumped to hard drugs without starting on weeds.

So how do these fit your theory?

Also, again you make no sense. If you believe in the getaway theory, why would you want it decriminalized???

awesomeness
I remember a study published in the US back in the 1980s that showed how toxic cannabis smoke was. They strapped masks on some rhesus monkeys and pumped smoke into them. The monkeys all died of asphyxiation.


The biggest problem is that it is a gateway drug, you'll always find much harder drugs wherever there is marijuana being sold.
This is one of the best arguments in favor of legalizing it and regulating the supply. The other half to it is the association of weed with harder drugs in public education, leading kids to question everything else they learned in DARE class the instant they smoke their first joint.

The gateway drug argument is a self-fulfilling prophecy entirely of our own making. And that's only in the rare cases where it actually applies - while most heroin addicts will say their first illicit drug was weed, most pot smokers don't go on to shoot heroin.


Long-term usage will cause physical damage, this is where the statements of Schizophrenia spring up and where the smokers that feel currently no side effects dispute that cannabis can ever be responsible. (The reward centre is located in the cerebral cortex, which deals with perception and consciousness among other things like the source of paranoia, both are usually effected through cannabis's usage and can be "altered" if long term mis-usage causes actual damage to the Cortex generating Schizophrenia traits.)
Just to be clear because this gets accepted as fact by a lot of people: cannabis does not cause schizophrenia. Numerous population studies have shown that even in periods during or following a huge explosion in marijuana use, schizophrenia rates have remained unchanged. If marijuana caused schizophrenia, the more people (including teenagers) using pot, the higher the per capita rate of schizophrenia. It's almost certain that the much ballyhooed statistical correlation is the other way round; people with mental illness, including latent schizophrenia, are more likely to seek escape or to self-medicate. In other words, being a pot smoker doesn't make you a schizophrenic; being schizophrenic makes you a pot smoker.

And while it's possible that it may merely hasten the inevitable (causing a user to have a psychotic break at the age of 24 instead of 25 if he had never touched the stuff), A: that's a pretty minor since it's not causing anything that wasn't going to happen anyway, and B: that's far from proven since it's quite possible that those with more serious and more impending latent psychosis may be more prone to self-medicate or seek escape from reality.

Also, marijuana doesn't cause COPD (although those who smoke marijuana and tobacco are at a higher risk than those who smoke only tobacco, those who smoke only marijuana are at no increased risk in comparison with total non-smokers) or any of the common cancers that have been studied in relation to pot. So far, the only negative health effects of marijuana we have any evidence of is the munchies and a slightly increased risk of developing a cold or flu (and that's only if one smokes the drug).


From what I understand and it may be hearsay . Marijuana was made illegal to satisfy the wishes of Me cousin Lloyd Tevis's Partner in crime Randolf Hearst . He owned Timber interests and wanted to replace hemp production with timber . So lobbying efforts made his interest sour by making Marijuana illegal.

It is a joke if you ask Me .


Drug prohibition in the US is rooted in racial and social/moral conflict as well as financial interests. Alcohol was banned as a result of the moralizing women of the early progressive movement. This remains alive today in the form of MADD, whose founder actually left because it had become a "neo-prohibitionist" organization totally opposed to any use of alcohol. Marijuana was banned by ginning up fervor over the corruption of young (white) people by (black) jazz musicians in the 20s and 30s. Today this continues to manifest itself in the racial disparity in sentencing and in our prison population. Psychedelics and ethenogens (LSD, mescaline, mushrooms, MDMA, etc) were banned in the 60s and 70s as a way to crack down on the burgeoning counterculture movement (dirty hippies). Now a lot of it is driven by the prison lobby (private prison corporations and prison guard unions). This will be an increasingly important factor as time goes on, as prisons are being deliberately located in remote towns that become dependent on the prison for jobs, multiplying their lobbying power. It also gives police departments a lot of funding to militarize. Wannabe SWAT teams are everywhere now and their use is commonplace. Today in the US we have the largest per-capita prison population in the world - higher than than Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia (gulags included), or modern North Korea.

Essentially, there is no rationality to our system. Marijuana is Schedule I (dangerous, with no legitimate medical uses) while we're researching cannabinoids for their medical potential and using medical marijuana to treat various problems. It's not possible to die/get permanently hurt from marijuana unless you do something heroically stupid. Meanwhile, alcohol is legal despite being much more damaging and causing many more problems in society than marijuana - physical dependency, overdose, increased aggression, and causing more schizophrenic breaks in susceptible individuals. Similarly, MDMA is also Schedule I despite its experimental uses in therapy. Meanwhile, methamphetamine is available by prescription and used to treat ADHD (Desoxyn - Schedule II).

edit: Since it seems we're all for full disclosure here, I've come around to favor the decriminalization/legalization of certain drugs over time, mainly as a result of seeing the costs of prohibition stack up while usage rates continue to increase. The thing that really made me realize how utterly fucked our current policies are was when I had to move my dad across the country just so he could get a medical marijuana card. Guy was given six months to live thanks to cancer related to agent orange exposure in Vietnam and his doctor couldn't prescribe him the one thing that made his last days bearable enough to have a meaningful conversation with his kids. Why? Because the DEA gets to decide what drugs have medical use. Retired cops, not doctors. Fuck that.

Cannabis
A drug that makes you feel good and reduces pain.
Helps people wind down.
Also increases appetite.
Not particularly addictive.

I bet the drug companies are annoyed that nature invented it first.

beer is not a getaway drink to hard liquor...
Damn straight. Good whiskey needs no introduction.

I remember a study....

Not exactly what I had in mind by formal citation, bro. :m:

Captain Morgan needs no introduction either. :)

It was the 1974 Heath/Tulane study. I thought it was published in the 1980s because Reagan cited it while he was governor of California. I can't find the actual study online anywhere, so I guess I suck at the Internet.

Its OK, bro, there many other studies that are still findable.

'Sides, we all gotta suck at something, the Internet is a good as anything else for that. ;)

Randwolf,
I'll try to cover your post as simply as possible.

"Should people be allowed to smoke/inhale residue or consume Marijuana?"
I'm not going to say people can't, but they should be aware that it's not all "rainbows, butterflies, bunnies and clouds with silver linings." The substance can cause damage when it's misused usually in volume or over time. (Even worse if both)

I have nothing against people that want to experiment or just experience what it is that has been argued over for decades. Of course when you bring up the question of parenting a child that's got to the point in making their own decisions, it's obviously something difficult to handle.

On the one hand you'd never want your child to be introduced to any chemical that they are going to either be dependent on or seek support from, on the other hand you don't want a child "experimenting" behind your back (sometimes its best to know what they are up to).
Parenting to my knowledge isn't suppose to be about telling a child what they can and can't do, it's about teaching them how to make their own decisions and how to work out what information to listen to prior to making a decision. (This is something people don't seem to be taught.)

So on the one hand you'd have to explain about the sensory alterations caused and the reduced level of motorfunction's or perception, along with the potential for paranoia and insomnia, as well has getting the munchies. On the other hand you have the concern you'd want them to understand, the capacity for long term usage to cause damage, the understanding that long term usage is "Burning money" which could of been spent on so many other more productive things and the understanding that the very capacity to think and reason is itself impaired by it's usage.

Don't believe me? There is definitely a difference in mood swings with people that don't use it to those that do. It's down to a balance again of the body moving from an administered high to a counterbalancing low, unfortunately I've seen staff at a company having their Marijuana lows all too often, they are moody, abusive and require having to spark one up during their lunch break which means by the end of the day they aren't even capable of fullfilling their job role and they do this every day of the week. These fluctuations in imbalance are what the body becomes use to, so when they stop it could well result in a psychotic breaks.

This means it's not down to some genetic weakness but the body being "Conditioned" into what it regards as "Normal" which itself is "Abnormal".

The worst part about these guys that work is they are proverbial skanks, pilfering cigarettes from one another or passers by, borrowing money because they are constantly in debt and why? it's because they burn it all on cannabis, as well as drinking on the weekends. (For the lack of money they don't eat properly either and obviously to fit their cannabis in they stay up too, so they are basically "fucking themselves up in many different ways" which is where the accumulation can generate schizophrenia.

"Is it better or worse than alcohol?"
Alcohol is by far the worst in quantity, however it doesn't mean either is better. Let's just say if both are bad, Marijuana is less bad compared to alcohol.

The main reason for writing a negative report of Cannabis is because I know full well that when a person supports it and smokes it, they only pay attention to the PRO's and never the CON's. Selective reading is their own worst nightmare.

If you want to support something for decriminalisation etc, you need to identify both the PRO's and CON's, it can't ever be all PRO's (it never is)

There is definitely a difference in mood swings with people that don't use it to those that do.
I agree with this reasoning. As one grows dependent on something they start to miss it when it is not around. Pot is no different a Snickers bar in this regards.


so when they stop it could well result in a psychotic breaks.
How often does this happen? I suppose it could happen but the probabilities are negligible aren't they?


they are proverbial skanks, pilfering cigarettes from one another or passers by, borrowing money because they are constantly in debt and why? it's because they burn it all on cannabis, as well as drinking on the weekends. (For the lack of money they don't eat properly either and obviously to fit their cannabis in they stay up too, so they are basically "fucking themselves up in many different ways" which is where the accumulation can generate schizophrenia.
Your opinion finally comes out.


I know full well that when a person supports it and smokes it, they only pay attention to the PRO's and never the CON's. Selective reading is their own worst nightmare.
Your emotional investment in this topic has skipped past reality.

---
Answer two rhetorical questions for me if you will.

How many people are you close to that smoke pot?
How many people smoke pot in total worldwide?

---
Answer two rhetorical questions for me if you will.

How many people are you close to that smoke pot?
How many people smoke pot in total worldwide?

If they are "Rhetorical" what would be the point in answering?

Seriously though there are a lot of people that smoke pot, however a "Recreational drug" as they call it, shouldn't be consumed when they are suppose to be working.

It's also not a drug that flushes from your system in a couple of hours (Alcohol can take hours, Marijuana can actually take weeks, which is the main reason the choice of drug of those incarcerated in prisons tends to be harder drugs like Heroine so they can pass spot checks.)

The reason I mention this is that if you smoke a joint in the night prior to a day of work, you are still going to be in under its influence for "days". So the only time you'd be able to use it recreationally without effecting work would likely be only using it on a Friday night and only a Friday night (if you work a 5 day week, Monday to Friday)

I know it is irritating, but it is good science to cite your sources, as I have indicated earlier.

It is fine if you believe that stuff you put up, but if you want anyone with an education to take you seriously, you must cite your sources when you make extraordinary claims. Some of the above statements qualify as extraordinary claims, and thus require extraordinary proofs.

When your proposition is "unfalsifiable" it fails. If your statement lacks a citation based on real world studies, it is nothing more than your opinion. You should make that clear and not try to pass it off as anything factual.

If you are merely doing a bit of trolling here, I apologize for taking you seriously. You will kindly note that we have spoken of this before. :o

If they are "Rhetorical" what would be the point in answering?
As in I had no intention to elicit a reply & the answer can stay in your head.

The word 'answer' was perhaps redundant or meaningless on my part. I hope that settles the confusion.


The reason I mention this is that if you smoke a joint in the night prior to a day of work, you are still going to be in under its influence for "days"

Trace amounts found in urine do not equate to still being "under the influence".

Most people agree that 3 or 4 hours after smoking pot, the effects are negligible and performance returns to normal.

If you can smoke you can feel the effect for days??? Stryder where can I find this weed you speak of????

I strictly smoke fire high grade and im sober in an hour-1/2 tops. I can almost even make myself sober if that makes sense in important social situations unphased. It seems like your spreading disinformation and that some real-life situation has influenced your line of thinking. This is not the first time youve been called out on this and its always the same irrationalizations that can be applied to anything we desire and enjoy.

Joey...you probably smoke more before breakfast than most people do in five years.

I get a real chuckle out of the.....

"Pot destroys your ability to think rationally and makes you incompetent. If you disagree with this statement you are obviously a pothead so we can disregard anything you say because you can't think rationally and are incompetent."

A blatant combination of a straw man AND an ad hominum rolled into one disparaging ontological argument. My logic prof would roll over in his grave! Or burst out laughing. :eek:

Well, if he is dead now.....

Honestly it could be the most addictive substance on the planet and we could never know. It takes so long to get out of your system (up to a month for a heavy long term smoker) that you are automatically slowly weened off of it. People may be going crazy over it if you were to chelate it out of your system though. Never seen a study done like that.

You most likely never will either.

Chelation works well with heavy metal poisoning, but not with cannabinoids. Also, if you flushed all of the cannabinoids out of your system, you would fall over dead as the last bit left your body. :o

Why? Because our bodies constantly make endocannabinoids like anadamide on an ongoing basis to fill vital, necessary biological roles. A dearth of the cannabinoids that engage CB2 receptors in your spinal cord results in intractable pain like myofacial spikes and/or hyperalgesia. Lack of sufficient cannabinoids in the paraquaductal gray region of your brain will result in your developing a severe balance disorder and migraine headaches that will put you down and out vomiting uncontrollably.

Your' entire body is chock full of cannabinoid receptors that require chemical engagement to function properly. While it takes about 10 pounds of high grade cannabis to kill a healthy adult male human being (noone has ever been killed by cannabis in at least 8,500 years of recorded human usage), the complete lack of cannabinoids will kill you right away.

This is the scientific basis for the Medical Marijuana laws that have been being passed in many US states. Also why the US federal laws classifying it as a type 1 substance are a violation of both science and common sense. Cannabis has a proven track record of being a viable alternative to such chemicals as Oxycontin, codeine, morphine and other opiate pain reducer/relievers. While it does not remove the pain, it does reduce the perception of pain sufficiently for the person to regain a significant measure of normal activities.

Many MMJ patients do not consume sufficient cannabis to become "stoned", rather they consume only enough to curb their pain sensations and/or stop the nausea. We must take care not to paint with too large a brush when we discuss this venerable herb.

You most likely never will either.

Chelation works well with heavy metal poisoning, but not with cannabinoids. Also, if you flushed all of the cannabinoids out of your system, you would fall over dead as the last bit left your body. :o

Why? Because our bodies constantly make endocannabinoids like anadamide on an ongoing basis to fill vital, necessary biological roles. A dearth of the cannabinoids that engage CB2 receptors in your spinal cord results in intractable pain like myofacial spikes and/or hyperalgesia. Lack of sufficient cannabinoids in the paraquaductal gray region of your brain will result in your developing a severe balance disorder and migraine headaches that will put you down and out vomiting uncontrollably.

Your' entire body is chock full of cannabinoid receptors that require chemical engagement to function properly. While it takes about 10 pounds of high grade cannabis to kill a healthy adult male human being (noone has ever been killed by cannabis in at least 8,500 years of recorded human usage), the complete lack of cannabinoids will kill you right away.

This is the scientific basis for the Medical Marijuana laws that have been being passed in many US states. Also why the US federal laws classifying it as a type 1 substance are a violation of both science and common sense. Cannabis has a proven track record of being a viable alternative to such chemicals as Oxycontin, codeine, morphine and other opiate pain reducer/relievers. While it does not remove the pain, it does reduce the perception of pain sufficiently for the person to regain a significant measure of normal activities.

Many MMJ patients do not consume sufficient cannabis to become "stoned", rather they consume only enough to curb their pain sensations and/or stop the nausea. We must take care not to paint with too large a brush when we discuss this venerable herb.

Agreed

Marijuana regularly causes esquizofrenia in people who have not taken it...

Marijuana regularly causes esquizofrenia in people who have not taken it...

Esquizofrenia: mental illness that affects a person's ability to distinguish whether the experiences are real or not. Also affects the ability to think logically, to feel emotions and feelings, and behave in social situations.

Marijuana regularly causes esquizofrenia in people who have not taken it...

Good one! I have observed this as well. :D

Honestly it could be the most addictive substance on the planet and we could never know. It takes so long to get out of your system (up to a month for a heavy long term smoker) that you are automatically slowly weened off of it. People may be going crazy over it if you were to chelate it out of your system though. Never seen a study done like that.
Yeah, if it weren't for the fat solubility of THC, cannabis withdrawal would be pretty goddamned awful. Kind of neat how it just so happens to work out that way.

Some of the research cannabinoids the DEA recently scheduled (JWH-xxx series) can elicit withdrawal symptoms more effectively. Although that could be due to them being full CB1 and CB2 agonists, rather than fat insolubility.

Leave it to the US govt to come up with more hard drugs with severe side effects. :(

It would sure suck to deuce out all of your CB1 and 2 receptors. Too bad we don't have a neat little chart of where all of those are so we could see the potential damage such an agonist could do.

Yeah, if it weren't for the fat solubility of THC, cannabis withdrawal would be pretty goddamned awful. Kind of neat how it just so happens to work out that way.

that has definitely crossed my mind. I assume that's why the cravings are worst around 2 weeks- 1 months into abstinence.

as for the pro's/con's, like most things, it's probably not black and white, but somewhere in the middle.

I have smoked cannabis thousands upon thousands of times, from crappy street schwagg to high grade dispensary hydro (a whole different experience).
I have only experienced withdrawals from street weed. The medical quality weed, despite getting me far, far higher, gives a much fresher, cleaner high, and the withdrawals, despite the potency of the bud, are minimal. This led me to believe most of my withdrawals (insomnia, vomiting, irritability, no appetite) are more related to pesticides and other random additives than cannabis itself.

As for retaining full mental function, it definitely doesn't come back in a day, not even a week. Last year I didn't smoke for 7 months. It took about 3 months to really start feeling "normal" or how I used to feel.

Joey, is it possible that your brain has been overloaded with THC for so long that you forgot what true "normal" feels like? Try not smoking for a week, I bet the shift in reality will blow your mind (in fact, if you smoke daily, abstaining may act as a new sort of "high")

Ultimately, cannabis is a deceptive mothafucka. For every beautiful revelation it provides, there is a little something it takes away. It is subtle though, very subtle. It takes a very "awake" consciousness to objectively identify the negatives of marijuana abuse. If there ever was a double-edged sword, it is marijuana.

I may sound like an Above The Influence ad, but I am probably the biggest pothead you will ever meet- not in terms of how often I smoke (which is a lot) but in terms of how much I love weed. I have written about it extensively, and in many ways it has improved my life immensely (mostly in terms of perspective; how I see the world, life, humanity etc.)

My issue is with moderation. I can go months without alcohol crossing my mind, but there is always a small portion of my mind, subconscious or not, that wants to smoke some sweet marijuana.

As a wise man once said, "once you know Mary Jane, you cannot unknow her."

There is a significant difference between ingesting cannabis and smoking cannabis.

Burning any vegetable material, cannabis inclusive, converts a major portion of it to chemicals like benzene, anthracine, styrene, acetone and carbon monoxide. If you inhale a lot of cannabis smoke, you are uptaking those nasty chemicals along with the cannabinoids. The resultant high is a blend of the effects of this.

Many cannabis affectionados do not care for the pure cannabis high that they get from eating, drinking or inhaling the active ingredients in cannabis, while they very much enjoy the effects of smoking it. This because they have become accustomed to the chronic anoxia effect of the carbon monoxide and the stupefying effects of the solvents and plastics formed by burning cannabis at 1200 degrees F, the combustion temperature at the tip of a lit joint or in the bowl of a lit pipe.

There are many cannabis consumers that have purchased a vaporizer in order to get away from the toxins formed by burning cannabis only to find that they cannot make the switch to a healthier delivery system. This despite that it delivers most all of the active ingredients to the consumer rather than destroying more than half as with burning it.

They find that they are actually enjoying the smoke toxins as much - if not more - than the cannabis.

Something to consider. :o

I've never heard that, StoniPhil. Yikes.
That might explain why I do not like edibles, but love smoking.
thanks for the buzzkill :p
nah, it's better to know the truth (if that's what you speak)
The D.A.R.E. program could use a lesson from you in objectivity.
Those chemicals that are created at 1200º sound harmful- but the numerous studies of long-term marijuana users suggests otherwise...

Well....yes and no. :o

There are solid studies (some of which I posted up on the first page here) that indicate that cannabis usage is beneficial for some problems and does not cause other problems - like lung, mouth and throat cancer, say, or schizophrenia.

However, if you are inhaling the smoke, you are inhaling dirt and toxins. There is no getting around the fact that carbon monoxide is bad for you. If you smoke cannabis, you are aware that you cough up black carbon particle sludge afterwards. That stuff ain't good for your lungs. Things like COPD and emphysema are still potential hazards for the smoker. Considering the cheapness and ready availability of 'hot box' vaporizers like Vapor Brothers and the high efficiency of such as the Volcano, healthier alternatives to smoking are available for the cannabis affectionado that do not put him/her at a risk from the byproducts of combustion.

There is a big difference between drinking a glass of red wine and drinking mouthwash or rubbing alcohol. While they are all alcohol, the wine is beneficial but the others are not so much, despite that all 3 will get you stoned.

The active ingredients in cannabis can be beneficial, but the components of the burning vegetable material are not. Vaporizers operate at 400 degrees F, a red ember is 1200 degrees F. That hurt at the end of your tongue after burning one is burnt tongue from that heat. A vape won't do that as it works at lower temperatures.

As always, I strongly urge those who wish to or need to consume cannabis to do so in as safe and healthful a manner as possible. If you are a med card holder it is even more important for you to do so, as your health is already compromised. A cancer patient undergoing chemo and radiation who is suffering from constant projectile vomiting does not need to inhale smoke and get a good cough going as well to complicate the issue. Same for the asthma sufferer.

Besides being practical, this is just common sense, as I see it.

Oh yeah - the D.A.R.E. program does not work, sadly. :o

Alternatively, I am a firm believer in teaching persons how to make good decisions/choices and then presenting them with the pertinent facts without muddying the waters with value judgements.

3 months and that's what you call research? I'd think that there have been much longer studies done on this matter over and over again and again just to say the same thing to everyone.I know a guy who had gotten high every night for at least ten years. Then his company shut down and he had to find a new job. He was worried about having to take a drug test so he stopped abruptly. Nobody noticed any ill effects and it took him seven or eight months to find his next job.

One of the things about marijuana is that THC doesn't flush out of your system very fast. That's why counselors warn you that it could show up in a drug test a month later, and one guy I know who was applying for medical insurance at his office and had to take a blood test was told by the nurse that the world record was two months. The point is that it dissipates so slowly that there's no "withdrawal" of the kind that many other drugs have. In fact if you put on weight while you're using pot some of the THC will be stored in your fat cells, and then when you decide to lose weight and burn off the fat, it will show up in your urine.
From what I understand and it may be hearsay . Marijuana was made illegal to satisfy the wishes of Me cousin Lloyd Tevis's Partner in crime Randolf Hearst . He owned Timber interests and wanted to replace hemp production with timber.There are various explanations and perhaps they're all true and reinforced each other. In the Southwest the one we always heard from the old-timers was that nobody cared about marijuana when it was used by jazz musicians in New York. But when Mexican immigrants started using it in Colorado, cracking down on it was an easy way to persecute "them dam Messikins."
Seriously though there are a lot of people that smoke pot, however a "Recreational drug" as they call it, shouldn't be consumed when they are suppose to be working.Obviously that depends on the type of "work." Anecdotal evidence indicates that marijuana suppresses left-brain activity. This gives the right hemisphere more freedom, so musicians and other artists claim to experience greater creativity when high. I've certainly witnessed enough performances to take the claim seriously. Engineers, computer programmers, attorneys and other people who have to be extremely logical all day have told me that a little ganja lets their creative side out of its cage so they can paint, write, etc., when they're off duty. Again, I've witnessed the results so I tend not to discount their assertions.

Obviously this only works on bright people. If your IQ is 98 it would not be a good idea to use a joint to knock off twenty points.
However, if you are inhaling the smoke, you are inhaling dirt and toxins. There is no getting around the fact that carbon monoxide is bad for you. If you smoke cannabis, you are aware that you cough up black carbon particle sludge afterwards. That stuff ain't good for your lungs. Things like COPD and emphysema are still potential hazards for the smoker. Considering the cheapness and ready availability of 'hot box' vaporizers like Vapor Brothers and the high efficiency of such as the Volcano, healthier alternatives to smoking are available for the cannabis affectionado that do not put him/her at a risk from the byproducts of combustion.All the retired hippies of my generation have been using vaporizers since they became available. Before that they were just baking it into brownies or brewing tea or using other means to heat it and ingest it. (Raw dope apparently is as indigestible as any other raw leaf because all the ingredients you want are locked in cellulose.) Of course the big difference is that eating grass is very inefficient and an expensive way to do it, whereas the vaporizer is the most efficient and economical.

However, the reports I've read said that cannabis smoke is nowhere near as toxic as tobacco smoke. Turns out that the big danger in cigarettes is not the ash and other byproducts of burning, but the nicotine itself. A study in Jamaica tracked heavy pot smokers for decades (and heavy pot smokers are easy to find in Jamaica) and found that their incidence of lung cancer and other lung disease was almost indistinguishable from the control group.

Nonetheless it just doesn't seem like a very good idea to breathe smoke.

One of the things about marijuana is that THC doesn't flush out of your system very fast. That's why counselors warn you that it could show up in a drug test a month later, and one guy I know who was applying for medical insurance at his office and had to take a blood test was told by the nurse that the world record was two months. The point is that it dissipates so slowly that there's no "withdrawal" of the kind that many other drugs have.

That last part doesn't follow - that there are detectable residual chemicals locked in your fat cells, doesn't mean that the pharmacological effects of the drug haven't long worn off. You do not stay high for an entire month, and the withdrawl symptoms (if any) occur when the effect wears off, not when the trace chemicals exit your fat cells. People can and do experience withdrawl symptoms with marijuana, although usually not the sorts of nasty things associated with cocaine or alcohol (alcohol withdrawl can be fatal, and should not be attempted outside of professional medical care).


Engineers, computer programmers, attorneys and other people who have to be extremely logical all day have told me that a little ganja lets their creative side out of its cage so they can paint, write, etc., when they're off duty. Again, I've witnessed the results so I tend not to discount their assertions.

I know plenty of engineers and computer programmers who use the stuff on-duty, for the same reason. Those jobs often require insight and creativity as much as logic and rigor.


(Raw dope apparently is as indigestible as any other raw leaf because all the ingredients you want are locked in cellulose.)

Nah, the psychoactive chemicals are all found on the surface in the trichomes. If you've much experience with vaporizers, you've surely observed that they can remove essentially all of the psychoactive materials without breaking down the cellulosic materials at all - such being exactly their point.


However, the reports I've read said that cannabis smoke is nowhere near as toxic as tobacco smoke.

I've only read that it's less carcinogenic, not that it's safer in general. Certain of the damage caused by smoking is simply due to the heating and dehydrating of the throat tissues - hot, dry air would be as bad as anything.



Turns out that the big danger in cigarettes is not the ash and other byproducts of burning, but the nicotine itself.

The nicotine is dangerous in that it's highly addictive, and so tends to cause you to want to do a lot of smoking, but it is not physically harmful as such (short of larger doses, which are indeed toxic, or in those who already have problematic blood pressure or poor circulation).



A study in Jamaica tracked heavy pot smokers for decades (and heavy pot smokers are easy to find in Jamaica) and found that their incidence of lung cancer and other lung disease was almost indistinguishable from the control group.

I'm told the differences really come down to the particulate size of the smoke. IIRC, the marijuana smoke doesn't have much of the very fine particulates that your lungs can't expell, whereas the tobacco smoke does. But, again, what I've seen only demonstrated the cannabis smoke wasn't carcinogenic - my recollection is that it's just as bad for stuff like emphysema and the like...

Well, tobacco does have high levels of Polonium 210 (an incredibly toxic radioisotope) too, as a result of the farmers' use of high potency phosphate fertilizer. That comes from fossil shell beds and contains enough U - 235 and lead 210 to create the Polonium problem. It collects at the branches in the smokers' lungs. The FDA was considering forcing the makers to put on labels noting the polonium, but found so many other bad things in ciggies that they just went with the current warnings. (this from a recent Scientific American article)

Any burning vegetative matter produces those toxins I noted in the other post above, so they are all toxic to breathe. :o

Cannabis smoke does have some interesting properties that make it not so bad as tobacco smoke though, as it appears that cannabis smoke's cannabinoid content induces precancerous cells to commit apoptosis, which lowers the cannabis smokers chances of developing mouth, neck, lung and throat cancer from smoking cannabis. (I have the citation if needed, as usual)

The active ingredients are concentrated in the trichome gland heads, on the surface of the cola leaves and seed covers. They evaporate at 400 degrees F, but can be ingested at room temperatures. Eating cannabis is the only way to get ALL of the active ingredients in your body from a given sample, so the stone is greatest from eating it.

In fact, eating it is a great way to experience the 'hallucinogenic' aspect of cannabis.

hmmmm...looks like some people have a love affair with their own drug of choice. Which is fine and far be it from me to lecture people but dont think smoking weed will not or cannot have serious health problems. The NORML propaganda being dispensed is a little comical, but i dont think that is right because people should know the truth and if they decide to do something anyway at least they know what they are in for. Smoking weed is not good for you...period. Are you better off never smoking it? yes you are definitely better off to never smoke weed. OTOH, there is no comparison to the harder drugs...robbing, committing other crimes, and a truck load of deviant perversions etc.

AFA the creative aspect, the greatest works of art, literature and possibly even music were done by people not under the influence of any drugs so that needs to be considered.

Aslo, there are many aspects to addiction. You have you physical, your psychological and just the mere fact a person like doing something that is bad for them so they keep doing it. I knew a crack addict, who is probably dead now as i had seen him go on a binge for a few days and he was a skinny as a twig so if he kept it up then chances are he is dead by now. He told me the worst part about the drug and really any drug is that you are never going to forget the feeling, the taste and most people spend the rest of their addictions chasing those few first times and they end up broke or dead. He also told me the higher the high the harder the crash. Thoughts of suicide etc. are common but you dont have that with weed. Best thing is to never try a drug and you wont have these problems.

I know plenty of engineers and computer programmers who use the stuff on-duty, for the same reason. Those jobs often require insight and creativity as much as logic and rigor.Back in the 1980s I knew a lawyer who had discovered that he performed much better in court when he was stoned, so he just made a regular practice of it. His clients loved him and it did wonders for his income.
Nah, the psychoactive chemicals are all found on the surface in the trichomes. If you've much experience with vaporizers, you've surely observed that they can remove essentially all of the psychoactive materials without breaking down the cellulosic materials at all - such being exactly their point.Everybody I know with a vaporizer dutifully follows the instructions and grinds their pot into powder in a coffee grinder. I remember in the 1960s people trying to eat raw marijuana and it had no effect at all.
yes you are definitely better off to never smoke weed.I have a couple of friends in their 70s who would strongly disagree. They claim that it saved their lives.
OTOH, there is no comparison to the harder drugs...robbing, committing other crimes . . . .You're committing the classic logic error of counting the second-order effects of drug prohibition as direct effects of the drugs themselves. The only reason that drug addicts commit crimes is that the shit-for-brains government moved a popular commodity onto the black market, where prices are enormously higher, and also because they get busted and lose their jobs so they're broke. The most dangerous drug ever invented is alcohol, and when's the last time you heard of a drunk going on a crime spree to buy booze? It's legal and affordable and they all have jobs!
. . . . and a truck load of deviant perversions etc.Dude, you've been watching waaaay too much government propaganda!
AFA the creative aspect, the greatest works of art, literature and possibly even music were done by people not under the influence of any drugs so that needs to be considered.And you know this how? Alcoholism is and always has been quite common among artistic people. So is tobacco: that mood-leveling effect that makes it so popular can be very helpful to an artist. Some of our most beloved artists have died from the effects of licit and/or illicit drugs, including Billie Holiday, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley and Janis Joplin. Many more have managed to take the drugs and not die, just like most people. As far as I know, the entire reggae canon was composed and recorded under the influence of ganja.
Eating cannabis is the only way to get ALL of the active ingredients in your body from a given sample, so the stone is greatest from eating it. In fact, eating it is a great way to experience the 'hallucinogenic' aspect of cannabis.I've heard my friends raving about how their new vaporizers make their pot budget go a lot further, but they liked it better when they could afford to cook it.

Hi Folks..

I can only speak for myself. I started out with Cross-Tops (whites). Great fun and I got an amazing amount of work done in very short order. Only used them on weekends so never became addicted. Then I tried LSD at a concert and several times after that. Never really like the stuff, was too weird watching plants walking all over the place etc.

Then got drafted to Vietnam and assigned a guard post away from the main action. Looked to fall in with some social group, I tried the Christians. Their collective IQ's made them very boring. I then tried the Pot Smokers. They were also very boring because all they wanted to do was kick back and listen to music. So I then tried the Beer Group. Forget that! Every night was at least 4 fights and easy access to weapons. Saw more guys get shot at that club (friendly fire?) than due to enemy fire. So finally that left the Heroin Group. That drug scared me but the guys were very bright and liked Chess, Cards and Conversation. Eventually I tried the stuff, so pure that nobody injected it. Just rolled it into a cigarette and smoked it. Wow.. incredible comfort. And no obvious side effects. Also was super cheap. Did that for over 6 months. When time approached to leave Vietnam, I decided to go cold turkey.. and that scared me. But my symptoms were no worse than a common mild flu over the following two weeks. I came home clean.

Next ten years.. got married and started a career. My wife became progressively ill, sort of like a permanent PMS but no bleeding. Doctors couldn't figure it out and we couldn't have kids. She was on some heavy pain meds for several years. The change occurred when we met some neighbors that offered us some pot one night. I didn't like the stoned feeling but my wife said it helped her far more than the pain meds. So we started smoking a pipe load every night. Very soon she got completely off the pain meds and stated feeling human again. For myself, I discovered pot to be something that was easily adjusted to. Meaning the uncomfortable stoned effect wore off after a few weeks of nightly usage and was replaced with a general feeling of well being and a new appreciation for comedy TV. Then I noticed something unexpected. I was suffering from stress prior to pot. I had regular bouts with Asthma. I had Psoriasis. I had Ulcers. I had Insomnia. I had a very high stress job. After doing pot for about a month, all these ailments disappeared. I felt great and my job performance improved. Life improved all around. This went on for the next ten years.

In 2003 my wife passed away from acute diabetes, she was almost blind by then, and I became very depressed. I stopped the pot then (no withdrawals) and haven't indulged in anything since. All my stress symptoms have returned. I'm thinking about medical pot, but it feels like I would be partying without her. Go Figure..

Just my personal experience for what it's worth.

Best to all from Dave :^)

Thanks davidoblad for the post. One of the nice things about herb is the social group that accompanies it. Traveling the world I've been able to make friends with locals in nearly every city I've been to right away through grass. I see it as the fastest most direct way to meeting new interesting people. While other travelers are stuck on their lonely planet I'm on the grass ticket, placing myself in situations that most people only can dream of.

And likewise, I've gone cold turkey after years of use with no withdrawal symptoms.

Welcome to the site Dave. We are glad to have you here with us. :)

What we call "survivor guilt" is a very common problem for survivors like you. It would be of benefit to you to get past that, and I will bet dollars to donuts that your wife would agree with me on that.

^^ Yeah, that. And welcome aboard.

hey folks. one week sober, I have some key differences to report:

-huge increase in enthusiasm for life
-tenfold increase in confidence
-much quicker minded
-no binge eating, no sugar cravings
-feel alert upon waking up in the morning
-clear eyed (and hence, much more attractive in the mirror :D)

not smoking weed, at least for me, is the difference between being a boy and being a man. I feel like a completely different person.

I can't guarantee these same results for everyone, because brain chemistry is so complex and varies from person to person.

for me, marijuana acts as a numbing agent. but while it numbs me to pain and loneliness, it numbs me to the best things in life as well. and if life is extraordinary, why go through it half asleep?

for me, marijuana acts as a numbing agent. but while it numbs me to pain and loneliness, it numbs me to the best things in life as well. and if life is extraordinary, why go through it half asleep?

I believe that's what most regular substance users who quit report.
Pain passes, loneliness is cured by people.

The first blood pressure med the doc put me on did that. It was like knocking back a couple of shots of Captain Morgan before breakfast every day. Since it was a script side effect, I enjoyed it for a couple of months...until I got the constant cough side effect. :( Then he put me on Avapro, an angiotension receptor agonist and sodium diuretic. No more breakfast buzz, it was replaced by a frequent need to pee for a couple of hours every morning. Kinda sucks in comparison.

Oh yeah, and the copay went from $5/month to $50/month. Does keep my blood pressure around 105/65 though.

EDIT: Pain I live with, reminds me I am alive, the daily run produces enough endorphins to dull the edge on it. I don't get lonely, have many friends and acquaintances, a family and the most wonderful Yellow Labrador Retriever in the whole wide world. Being Buddhist helps with a lot of this stuff too. ;)

EDIT: Pain I live with, reminds me I am alive, the daily run produces enough endorphins to dull the edge on it.

Turns out it's more likely to be endocannabinoids than endorphins doing that:


In a groundbreaking 2003 experiment, scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology found that 50 minutes of hard running on a treadmill or riding a stationary bicycle significantly increased blood levels of endocannabinoid molecules in a group of college students. The endocannabinoid system was first mapped some years before that, when scientists set out to determine just how cannabis, a k a marijuana, acts upon the body. They found that a widespread group of receptors, clustered in the brain but also found elsewhere in the body, allow the active ingredient in marijuana to bind to the nervous system and set off reactions that reduce pain and anxiety and produce a floaty, free-form sense of well-being. Even more intriguing, the researchers found that with the right stimuli, the body creates its own cannabinoids (the endocannabinoids). These cannabinoids are composed of molecules known as lipids, which are small enough to cross the blood-brain barrier, so cannabinoids found in the blood after exercise could be affecting the brain.


http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/phys-ed-what-really-causes-runners-high/

Intriguing article, the logic seems sound. I will be most entertained to see how it follows through. Thanks for sharing that. :)

I've no desire to put crap in my brain, but I fail to see why it should be illegal.

I find it fairly hypocritical that alcohol is legal when it seems to be, behaviourally anyway, more harmful. I've never met a dope smoker who started fights, drove at Mach 2 and caused crashes, or screamed abuse at random young people in the park. If you're going to make something illegal at least base that on the actual level of harm it can do.

I find it fairly hypocritical that alcohol is legal when it seems to be, behaviourally anyway, more harmful.

Alcohol is more harmful to health by pretty much any measure.

Marijuana prohibition has everything to do with cotton farmers teaming up with anti-Mexican racists to advance their own socioeconomic goals. It is pointedly not justified by any medical or public health policy considerations. That's why those who argue that it is, end up propounding ridiculous things like the gateway theory, or the outright hysterics of Reefer Madness fame (note that all of those tacks are also vulnerable to the "wine is fine, but pot is not?" counter).

back again to report. fuckin' miserable.

days 4-8 without cannabis were amazing, as noted in this thread.
I was fully of energy, enthusiasm, even sexual desire. however, the second week has been awful. I am lethargic, depressed, and I've been sleeping/resting away half the day.

this depressed state has occurred in spite of 8 hours of sleep per night, a rigorous exercise regimen, and a healthy, well-rounded diet (salmon burgers, coconut water, chicken tacos, stir fry, apples, pears, kombucha, salad, corn on the cob, mahi-mahi, eggs, walnuts, organic cereal, blueberries, oatmeal, etc.)

I am doing everything right, but I feel so wrong.

I suspect that marijuana essentially treated my depression, and the more I exercise and the more THC gets flushed out of my fat cells, the worse the depression becomes. Having gone 7 months without cannabis two years ago, with limited positive results, I am considering the idea that my depression came first, and marijuana is a form of self-medication.

A lady friend has been asking me to toke up every night this week, but I've been abstaining because I have a job interview tomorrow and I want to be on my A game. But I'm starting to wonder if sobriety truly is my A-game.

I have four uncles, all whom smoke cannabis, all whom are millionaires, all whom seem quite happy. I am starting to wonder if they are on to something. Could this plant lift us out of our genetically predisposed depression?

I will report back soon.

cheers,
Tim

General scuttlebutt with other crazy people:
SSRI's almost always work better than pot, especially when you look at day-to-day functionality. The SSRI's provide the mood lift without the stupids.

If you are not taking SSRI's, 5-HTP seems to help some people, and it's an over the counter supplement. Not safe to mix with meds though.
Creatine Monohydrate seems to help depression too, or at least I read that they are doing a large-scale clinical trial of it as an antidepressant. If you're an undiagnosed bipolar though? expect mania with the latter.

I've heard too many horror stories about SSRI's. I will avoid them at all costs, even depression.

but yes, pot definitely comes with the stupids :bugeye:

funny you should mention bipolar... before I was even familiar with the term, I remember telling my parents, "it's like a switch goes off in my brain"...
uggh.

I did take an online BP test and my score was through the roof.
it's sad to think that my lifelong sense of purpose and spiritual connection to the earth could merely be "delusions of grandeur".

pot is a tricky devil. when I smoke in moderation, life is grand, but when I abuse the stuff, I end up more depressed than I was in the first place.

what's your story with pot Chimpkin?

Meh, just doesn't work like SSRI's, and may cause worsening of symptoms in bipolar and schizophrenic people...or rather temporary abatement followed by worsening of symptoms.

For unipolar depressives it just does not work too well from what I remember reading.

Good for pain and nausea, but not too much for psych symptoms is the general research verdict...there is part of the plant under investigation as an antidepressant, but it's not the tetrahydrocannabinol-fun-part.

My brother turned into a jerk and an airhead on it, but he smoked before breakfast.

If you're talking about the whole withdrawal thing, a doc had me cold-turkey off of Zoloft for two weeks, in order to switch to Prozac...it was annoying, but, yanno, I soldiered up and went to work... so, not so bad, I thought.
I've pretty much been through most of the SSRI's at this point, I seem to get resistant.
But it beats me drooling at the TV set on pot.

As far as depression...mine's exceedingly bad, and so I can either take happy pills or...do the other thing that cures depression. Very abruptly.

My mom's been on Prozac for 30 years.
We are ALL much happier since mom's been on Prozac. Before that she could turn into superb!tch really easily.

Although, if you are, in fact, bipolar 2 (Which is sort of mostly-depressed bipolar) SSRI's can cause mania also.
OTOH you are neither severely manic nor nonfunctionally depressed or suicidal. So unless you run up a giant credit card debt in a happy mood, or your grades get flushed down the toilet when you're on a downswing... meh.

Among all the detecting activities, gold metal detecting is the most interesting one. It can not only relax both your body and mind , but also give you a big fortune if you are lucky enough.Next time if you feel bored, you can pick up a gold detector and have a try.

That's a sad news for hunters. As far as I am concerned, gold detecting should not be outlawed, because the sources belong to everyone in the world and those who have legal methods to obtain it .
Gold detecting can be developed as a personal hobby but not just as a means to gather fortune. If not forbidden, people may be incented to detect more and more metals , gold and so on, just as the old saying goes, many hands make light work. The government, on the other hand, should encourage those who detect gold and award those who donate the fortune to the whole country. This news will not only affect those hunters but also metal detector sale. Perhaps detecters can work together to appel to the country, I think that may be useful.

Hey, friends, i am interested in what you said about gold detecting. I am new to gold detecting and i am curious about your equipment

Recently, I have read a new online about metal detectors in schools, most schools think that it is too expensive but they are working on it.
There is a program out there that offers NO COST metal detectors to the school systems. The schools and Boards of Education should see this site.
As far as I am concerned , it is a good idea to carry out this program for it provide security to the students and the teaching staff. Walkthrough metal detector will not take up too much space .

From what you have said above, i think that there may be something wrong with the ring you have just discovered. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the real gold from the fake, but with the help of best metal detector, you don't need to worry about it at all. I think metal detector can help you to solve your problem and wish that you can have a try and resolve your puzzle as soon as possible.

From what you have said above, i think that there may be something wrong with the ring you have just discovered. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the real gold from the fake, but with the help of best metal detector, you don't need to worry about it at all. I think metal detector can help you to solve your problem and wish that you can have a try and resolve your puzzle as soon as possible.

What does this have to do with marijuana? And if you don't know the difference between real gold and anything else like fools gold you really have not studied up on the metals because there's a big difference and you should easily tell by looking at them. If you can't then don't even bother trying to find gold at all.

I have done a lot of research over this topic. Mostly using myself as a test tube! I've come to realize it can enhance the mind or slow it down. It all just depends on your mental processes at the time of consumption. It is a powerful hypnotic and the mind can do powerful thing under the influence of hypnosis.

Quick Note; this research was done simple but correctly. This research is in no means meant to be used in any offical report, writting ect about marijuana or marijuana addiction. The people involved in the research are not trained or have much experience. All research is independent and unpublished.

Now with that out of the way the expierment was indeed simple. I wanted to test out the theory that marijuana was not addictive. 4 friends helped me with this research. 2: 18 year old males. 1: 19 year old male 1: 18 year old female. 3 subjects smoked marijuana every other day for 3 months. 1 subject smoked every day for a month. Then all 4 subjects where tested on there physical and psychological dependece/addiction for 2 weeks after stopping cold. Results showed that all 3 males showed slight irritablity and sleep pattern disturbance but no major withdrawl symptoms while the female reported no noticable withdrawl symptoms. As far as this simple research is concerned, I see no evidence that marijuana is physicaly addicitve. :) just thought id share.
That is funny. You don't view irritability and disturbance in sleep patterns as withdrawal? Do you think this is a physiological addiction and not a physical (or psychological) one?

There is apparently sometime type of addiction if three males experienced instability in their mood and sleep patterns. I know I have terrible sleep patterns and mood problems now that I quit smoking marijuana and I didn't have them before I smoked or did drugs.

It would be nice if medical marijuana was available where I live to smoke once a week to alleviate my sleeping disorders and moodiness, because over the counter drugs don't work.

Well its your independent research but according to what i have seen is that every marijuana consumer craves for a dose after he/she gets out of the marijuana effect.