Cannabinoids are a group of 21 carbon terpenophenolic compounds produced uniquely by Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica species.[1,2] These plant-derived compounds may be referred to as phytocannabinoids. Although delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the primary psychoactive ingredient, other known compounds with biologic activity are cannabinol, cannabidiol, cannabichromene, cannabigerol, tetrahydrocannabivirin, and delta-8-THC. Cannabidiol, in particular, is thought to have significant analgesic and anti-inflammatory activity without the psychoactive effect (high) of delta-9-THC.
Antitumor Effects
One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors. [3] During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo .[4] In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.[5-8]
A man from my Province was giving people cannabis extract for free as a medicine and cure for lots of ailments for years, cancer being one of them. He's now hiding out in Europe evading charges. How much proof do people need?
At the very least, this leaves the Feds in a tough spot with marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic/drug.
** I don't want this thread to become a flame war between anti-cannabis activists and "stoners". I just want to share the information with you. Let's not get sick.
edit: It should also be noted that the medicinal effects are through ingestion or topical application. When you smoke cannabis you lose nearly all medicinal qualities of the plant.
I think it should be noted that the (I believe it was)DEA gave rights to the big pharmaceutical companies to use chemicals derived from cannabis. The Feds have also cracked down on a lot of "legal and approved" dispensaries in California and Montana recently. This would lead me to believe it's just about the money, and the government doesn't want you to grow your own natural medicine when they can "force" you to buy it at ridiculous prices from a pharmacy.
Cannabis could cure everything known to man and people would still not want to see it legalized.
This report once agains shows that the stuff isn't just harmless, it's even beneficial. The stigma however is just too great, an entire generation has been brought up on the notion that weed makes you want to kill your family.
Atleast it's semi-legal in my country, that still leaves it up in the air and very easy to ban. I don't even use the stuff and i still want to see police do real police work rather then going after people that smoke weed whilst child-porn cases are left on the shelves due to understaffing.
This though doesn't grant everyone some free pass to use cannabis now (for pleasure)without any form of moral/legal trouble. People who use cannabis regularly don't use it as 'medicine' but as a drug. And there is no need to take a cure if you don't get sick in the first place ( on the contrary to popular belief, almost every case of cancer could have been prohibited easily ). I just think that people will use this as an excuse for using cannabis.
Oh silly you, assuming that lawmakers base their ideas on ratio and sound logic instead of some moral idea they purely acquired by imprinting of their parents...
Reminds me of an interesting discussion I had lately with a friend of mum's, she's an adviser to the government here and she said that sometimes she feels with some politicians that her position is useless, they come in ask for advice on how to proceed, but it's clear they have made their mind up from the start and aren't willing to listen to experts on that field who may think otherwise and think that it's not a good idea and just won't work.
I wonder though, if people really believe in something to the extend they are willing to enter politics about it, maybe they believe in it a little too much. The wise man has no beliefs and no political affiliation, he chooses how to proceed on an issue-per-issue basis and on the available evidence at that point.
That said, it's impossible to deny that some stuff like alcohol or tobacco is way worse. And no, I don't use, I don't drink, I don't smoke, my hardest drugs are coffee and sugar, and yes, there is no reason to not say that sugar and coffee aren't recreational drugs.
i dont really care if its legalized or not (and anyway i believe its already legalized for medical purposes in my state), but i dont see any "admission" here, just a link to a section on a website.
On April 03 2011 07:22 solidbebe wrote: This though doesn't grant everyone some free pass to use cannabis now (for pleasure)without any form of moral/legal trouble. People who use cannabis regularly don't use it as 'medicine' but as a drug. And there is no need to take a cure if you don't get sick in the first place ( on the contrary to popular belief, almost every case of cancer could have been prohibited easily ). I just think that people will use this as an excuse for using cannabis.
How about people who drink coffee? People who use alcohol? People who eat sugar? People who visit dating agencies with the purpose to fall in love.
All of these are drugs that are addictive and alter one's perception of reality. The latter possibly one of the worst, have you ever seen how distorted one's perception of reality (the other person) is when he or she is in love? And how drastic the effects of kicking off from it can be? How deluded some people can become by it?
Ban love?
Drugs are everywhere, in every food, when we play sports, when we play StarCraft, when we drink coffee, when we have sex, it's everywhere. So ehh, better not eat any more chocolate any more, we all know it's basically a mild drug that's addictive.
On April 03 2011 07:27 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
marijuana in high doses does cause acute psychosis along with numerous other drugs
On April 03 2011 07:22 zalz wrote: Cannabis could cure everything known to man and people would still not want to see it legalized.
This report once agains shows that the stuff isn't just harmless, it's even beneficial. The stigma however is just too great, an entire generation has been brought up on the notion that weed makes you want to kill your family.
Atleast it's semi-legal in my country, that still leaves it up in the air and very easy to ban. I don't even use the stuff and i still want to see police do real police work rather then going after people that smoke weed whilst child-porn cases are left on the shelves due to understaffing.
You're completely out of your mind if you think child-porn cases are under-enforced. In the grand scheme of societal harm, they are likely the most disproportionately high-priority crimes in any system of law. Think of all the meth labs, weed plantations, work camps and slave labor in the world and then stop to think about the people that put together child porn to make money. Oh wait, you can't? That's right, nobody makes money from producing child porn and no actual children are really at risk as we speak. It's illegal and stigmatized so much that people don't wanna touch or be associated with it so it's a problem that will never grow.
Domestic abuse and sexual predators are a real problem make no mistake about that but there is no child porn industry in the same sense as drugs constitute an industry. Largely an imaginary evil.
On April 03 2011 07:22 zalz wrote: Cannabis could cure everything known to man and people would still not want to see it legalized.
This report once agains shows that the stuff isn't just harmless, it's even beneficial. The stigma however is just too great, an entire generation has been brought up on the notion that weed makes you want to kill your family.
Atleast it's semi-legal in my country, that still leaves it up in the air and very easy to ban. I don't even use the stuff and i still want to see police do real police work rather then going after people that smoke weed whilst child-porn cases are left on the shelves due to understaffing.
You're completely out of your mind if you think child-porn cases are under-enforced. In the grand scheme of societal harm, they are likely the most disproportionately high-priority crimes in any system of law. Think of all the meth labs, weed plantations, work camps and slave labor in the world and then stop to think about the people that put together child porn to make money. Oh wait, you can't? That's right, nobody makes money from producing child porn and no actual children are really at risk as we speak. It's illegal and stigmatized so much that people don't wanna touch or be associated with it so it's a problem that will never grow.
Domestic abuse and sexual predators are a real problem make no mistake about that but there is no child porn industry in the same sense as drugs constitute an industry. Largely an imaginary evil.
This is more true in the United States than it is in the rest of the world. Sex traffickers care little about whether their girls are 18 or not.
On topic: Just FYI any possible anti-cancer properties of a few cannabinoids don't exactly counteract the cancer-causing effects of burning organic matter and inhaling it, which is something a few posts in this thread so far don't seem to understand.
On April 03 2011 07:27 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
marijuana in high doses does cause acute psychosis along with numerous other drugs
The % of getting dementia later in life from marijuana has proven in studies to be very very low, like 1-2% higher then a person who never smoked pot, might be just a coincidence since the % is so small.
On April 03 2011 07:27 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
marijuana in high doses does cause acute psychosis along with numerous other drugs
It hardly 'causes' 'acute' psychosis, it has been indicated to trigger an episode with people who are already sensitive to it.
But basically, if you have a history of paranoia and/or depression, it's best to stay away from MJ, cocaine, or Ritalin and similar stuff.
Also, child porn is a huge moral panic nowadays, people are currently seriously in legal troubles for making 'child porn', as in, pictures of their own children of 4 playing naked in the garden...
they really do need to legalize marijuana though, its getting ridiculous how much money is spent to control something that isn't being controlled
that said if you do use any drug you are likely a total moron and I hope you OD at some point in your life off being depressed that you were too stoned to do anything in your life
lol @ anti marijuana people, even if you think it's gross and don't smoke, you should have the common sense to realize that it's much safer than alcohol and tobacco, there aren't any recorded deaths stemming from marijuana. there isn't really even much of a discussion, these are hard facts, people going on about side-effects and shit clearly have never been high..
On April 03 2011 07:27 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
marijuana in high doses does cause acute psychosis along with numerous other drugs
The % of getting dementia later in life from marijuana has proven in studies to be very very low, like 1-2% higher then a person who never smoked pot, might be just a coincidence since the % is so small.
I'm not really sure why you're bringing up dementia, we were talking about psychosis
psychosis is when someone is suffering from 1 of 3 symptoms
1. hallucinations 2. delusions 3. thought disorder
The average recreational dose of marijuana isn't going to cause any of these three (although it could in a small % of people), in very high doses it can cause hallucinations, thought disorder and arguably delusions.
It's acute though, not chronic. That's the main point here.
On April 03 2011 07:55 Teivospy wrote: they really do need to legalize marijuana though, its getting ridiculous how much money is spent to control something that isn't being controlled
that said if you do use any drug you are likely a total moron and I hope you OD at some point in your life off being depressed that you were too stoned to do anything in your life
lol, why don't you take the advice expressed in your signature?
On April 03 2011 07:27 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
marijuana in high doses does cause acute psychosis along with numerous other drugs
It hardly 'causes' 'acute' psychosis, it has been indicated to trigger an episode with people who are already sensitive to it.
But basically, if you have a history of paranoia and/or depression, it's best to stay away from MJ, cocaine, or Ritalin and similar stuff.
Also, child porn is a huge moral panic nowadays, people are currently seriously in legal troubles for making 'child porn', as in, pictures of their own children of 4 playing naked in the garden...
yeah it hardly causes it, you're right, doesn't mean it can't cause it.
go eat 5 grams of weed and find out for yourself. Trust me, I know from experience it can cause acute psychosis
On April 03 2011 07:53 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
But basically, if you have a history of paranoia and/or depression, it's best to stay away from MJ, cocaine, or Ritalin and similar stuff.
If you have any mental illness you should never use stimulates period, and you should only use psych medicine under the care of a medical doctor
Meh this is just gonna be used as another excuse by people who smoke alot to say that it's ok. I'm fine with it being legalized (it is in Holland) but I just think everyone who does it is an idiot.
The title is absolutely misleading... it talks about mice and benign tumors in the study for the most part. Taking it further seems a stretch. Cancer was mentioned only once in the article, and it was 1) speculation that has lead to a hypothesis and 2) a specific type of cancer (and probably in the mice).
Klogon that's just one article on the site. I'm just trying to get the info out there that cannabis is not an evil devil drug that makes white women have sex with black men or children kill their families like the government would love for you to believe. You can choose to do your own research or not.
On April 03 2011 07:22 zalz wrote: Cannabis could cure everything known to man and people would still not want to see it legalized.
This report once agains shows that the stuff isn't just harmless, it's even beneficial. The stigma however is just too great, an entire generation has been brought up on the notion that weed makes you want to kill your family.
Atleast it's semi-legal in my country, that still leaves it up in the air and very easy to ban. I don't even use the stuff and i still want to see police do real police work rather then going after people that smoke weed whilst child-porn cases are left on the shelves due to understaffing.
You're completely out of your mind if you think child-porn cases are under-enforced. In the grand scheme of societal harm, they are likely the most disproportionately high-priority crimes in any system of law. Think of all the meth labs, weed plantations, work camps and slave labor in the world and then stop to think about the people that put together child porn to make money. Oh wait, you can't? That's right, nobody makes money from producing child porn and no actual children are really at risk as we speak. It's illegal and stigmatized so much that people don't wanna touch or be associated with it so it's a problem that will never grow.
Domestic abuse and sexual predators are a real problem make no mistake about that but there is no child porn industry in the same sense as drugs constitute an industry. Largely an imaginary evil.
I don't know anything about child pornography industry, but I do know that child prostitution is a real and serious problem in S.E Asia and some European countries as well. That being said, claiming that "nobody makes money from producing child porn and no actual children are really at risk" is a monumental and arrogant claim.
Is there something wrong with having slight thought disorder, or a few hallucinations? (mostly closed eye hallucinations, open eye are pretty near impossible off just weed)
Is this bad? I think not. Maybe it's just cause I've smoked multiple times a day for the past 4 or 5 years, but I'm perfectly sane. People see the word psychosis and think "oh weed makes you crazy"
no, it just makes it a little more pretty when you close your eyes. I also cannot think as well when I am sober, since too much fluff gets in the way.
Soooooo many people have such a warped idea of what weed does to you....for most people there is barely an effect. But with so many big words about what it causes getting thrown around, along with a great deal of age old misconceptions based on old propaganda.....it's easy for people to think things to be true, when in fact they are nothing near true.
Anybody ever hear the "marijuana kills your braincells!" line? Wanna know how that study was conducted? They took one of the smaller breeds of monkeys, put gas masks on em, and pumped pure burnt cannabis(no oxygen or breaks) for 5 minutes into the lungs of the monkeys. It doesn't take a smart person to know that no air for 5 minutes, along with a great deal of smoke, would suffocate the poor monkey, and guess what a lack of oxygen does to your brain? YUP YUP brain cells die.
Correlation=causation all the time no matter what so of course, weed kills brain cells.
God dammit I hate people that believe shit like that.
On April 03 2011 07:27 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
marijuana in high doses does cause acute psychosis along with numerous other drugs
The % of getting dementia later in life from marijuana has proven in studies to be very very low, like 1-2% higher then a person who never smoked pot, might be just a coincidence since the % is so small.
I'm not really sure why you're bringing up dementia, we were talking about psychosis
psychosis is when someone is suffering from 1 of 3 symptoms
1. hallucinations 2. delusions 3. thought disorder
The average recreational dose of marijuana isn't going to cause any of these three (although it could in a small % of people), in very high doses it can cause hallucinations, thought disorder and arguably delusions.
It's acute though, not chronic. That's the main point here.
People who believe in ... horoscopes..? People who believe that zero tolerance policies actually help?
The point about this 'psychosis' is that what is a delusion is so vague, who's going to decide what is true and what isn't? You can just as well argue that having faith in psychiatry is a delusion as from a purely formal perspective it's a pseudoscience.
On April 03 2011 07:27 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
marijuana in high doses does cause acute psychosis along with numerous other drugs
It hardly 'causes' 'acute' psychosis, it has been indicated to trigger an episode with people who are already sensitive to it.
But basically, if you have a history of paranoia and/or depression, it's best to stay away from MJ, cocaine, or Ritalin and similar stuff.
Also, child porn is a huge moral panic nowadays, people are currently seriously in legal troubles for making 'child porn', as in, pictures of their own children of 4 playing naked in the garden...
yeah it hardly causes it, you're right, doesn't mean it can't cause it.
go eat 5 grams of weed and find out for yourself. Trust me, I know from experience it can cause acute psychosis
Experience isn't evidence. I'm sure it can cause it with me too, because I'm sensitive to this stuff, I've had various psychotic phases in my life and suffer from a unipolar depression.
The point is that this isn't 'causing' it as much as just bringing to the surface something that is already there. It hasn't been shown to induce psychosis into people that aren't already at risk just yet.
On April 03 2011 07:53 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: But basically, if you have a history of paranoia and/or depression, it's best to stay away from MJ, cocaine, or Ritalin and similar stuff.
If you have any mental illness you should never use stimulates period, and you should only use psych medicine under the care of a medical doctor
I'm sure that if you have dyslexia or alien hand disorder there is no risk whatsoever...
On April 03 2011 08:00 Klogon wrote: The title is absolutely misleading... it talks about mice and benign tumors in the study for the most part. Taking it further seems a stretch. Cancer was mentioned only once in the article, and it was 1) speculation that has lead to a hypothesis and 2) a specific type of cancer (and probably in the mice).
To the stoners: Do you -really- want to see marijuana legalized? Think about it: once it is, the government will have to regulate it. And tax it. And a company will come along to distribute it. And they'll decide how much they charge for it. Which will be a lot. And anyone caught with their own will be considered a thief.
On April 03 2011 08:08 Kaonis wrote: To the stoners: Do you -really- want to see marijuana legalized? Think about it: once it is, the government will have to regulate it. And tax it. And a company will come along to distribute it. And they'll decide how much they charge for it. Which will be a lot. And anyone caught with their own will be considered a thief.
Not that I'm in super support or anything, as I've never gone near the stuff, but isn't that what happened to Tabacoo/Cigs (not that they were ever illegal) and I think people who smoke that are glad it's at least legal.
On April 03 2011 08:00 Klogon wrote: The title is absolutely misleading... it talks about mice and benign tumors in the study for the most part. Taking it further seems a stretch. Cancer was mentioned only once in the article, and it was 1) speculation that has lead to a hypothesis and 2) a specific type of cancer (and probably in the mice).
isnt it pretty much well known that cannabis can help against cancer and is overall something that can help in many sickness situations?
its the most amazing plant we have on earth (cheap,grows like hell,food,fiber,fuel, medical use, a nice drug with in comparison small sideeffects and much more). so sad that some financial bullshit stuff from 80 years ago still keeps it down...
On April 03 2011 07:27 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
marijuana in high doses does cause acute psychosis along with numerous other drugs
The % of getting dementia later in life from marijuana has proven in studies to be very very low, like 1-2% higher then a person who never smoked pot, might be just a coincidence since the % is so small.
I'm not really sure why you're bringing up dementia, we were talking about psychosis
psychosis is when someone is suffering from 1 of 3 symptoms
1. hallucinations 2. delusions 3. thought disorder
The average recreational dose of marijuana isn't going to cause any of these three (although it could in a small % of people), in very high doses it can cause hallucinations, thought disorder and arguably delusions.
It's acute though, not chronic. That's the main point here.
What would you consider "Very high doses"
I could argue, ANYTHING in "very high doses" is unhealthy, and it is.
On April 03 2011 07:27 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
marijuana in high doses does cause acute psychosis along with numerous other drugs
The % of getting dementia later in life from marijuana has proven in studies to be very very low, like 1-2% higher then a person who never smoked pot, might be just a coincidence since the % is so small.
I'm not really sure why you're bringing up dementia, we were talking about psychosis
psychosis is when someone is suffering from 1 of 3 symptoms
1. hallucinations 2. delusions 3. thought disorder
The average recreational dose of marijuana isn't going to cause any of these three (although it could in a small % of people), in very high doses it can cause hallucinations, thought disorder and arguably delusions.
It's acute though, not chronic. That's the main point here.
What would you consider "Very high doses"
I could argue, ANYTHING in "very high doses" is unhealthy, and it is.
yep. those "very high doses" people talk about are unreasonably high(to impossible to intake) which is just irrelevant since all other drugs and medicine would just plain kill you in such high doses.
also psychosis is VERY dependant on the person. its nothing that just happens cause of cannabis. its true that if you have a history within your family with stuff like that then overuse can trigger it(actually happened to a friend) . but for a normal person that just smokes abit it wont do anything like that ever.
I've always wondered: What's the difference with unhealthy foods (fried, fatty, candy, etc.) and drugs? They're supposedly both bad for you (except, unhealthy food is MUCH more apparent in over-usage). Both are kind of addictive (depending on your tolerance, but I find that a fat person has just as much of a hard time staying from cake as a druggy does weed). But one is illegal, while the other is SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. It's not JUST legal, it's normal. Probably over 80% of American eat unhealthily EVERY. DAY.
What's the difference? And if anything, why isn't occasional weed better for you? There's no marketing or fucked up, greedy corporations shoving their product down your throat via every source of media trying to advertise weed (yet).
At this rate, I'm sticking with the age-old phrase of, "FUCK DA POLICE." Illegal or not, people will still use. And if a cop has nothing better to do than track me down, he should either move or get another fucking job.
/rant (sorry if this is completely retarded sounding, I wrote it over like a half hour, and I feel as though it may be poorly written)
Experience isn't evidence. I'm sure it can cause it with me too, because I'm sensitive to this stuff, I've had various psychotic phases in my life and suffer from a unipolar depression.
The point is that this isn't 'causing' it as much as just bringing to the surface something that is already there. It hasn't been shown to induce psychosis into people that aren't already at risk just yet.
What are you talking about? Anybody can develop psychosis. If you binge on meth for a week you're going to get psychosis. If you stay awake for a week, you're going to get psychosis. If you eat 5 grams of dank, you're going to get psychosis.
I'm not saying smoking a joint everyday is going to turn you into a psychotic crazy person, my only claim was that weed can cause psychosis, along with lots of things.
On April 03 2011 07:59 chonkyfire wrote: If you have any mental illness you should never use stimulates period, and you should only use psych medicine under the care of a medical doctor
This is misleading, stimulants are used to treat many mental illnesses from ADHD to depression.
On April 03 2011 07:27 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
marijuana in high doses does cause acute psychosis along with numerous other drugs
The % of getting dementia later in life from marijuana has proven in studies to be very very low, like 1-2% higher then a person who never smoked pot, might be just a coincidence since the % is so small.
I'm not really sure why you're bringing up dementia, we were talking about psychosis
psychosis is when someone is suffering from 1 of 3 symptoms
1. hallucinations 2. delusions 3. thought disorder
The average recreational dose of marijuana isn't going to cause any of these three (although it could in a small % of people), in very high doses it can cause hallucinations, thought disorder and arguably delusions.
It's acute though, not chronic. That's the main point here.
What would you consider "Very high doses"
I could argue, ANYTHING in "very high doses" is unhealthy, and it is.
Do you know how the studies come the conclusion marijuana causes psychosis? It's because they inject massive amounts of THC without any other cannabinoids and the person who receives the THC express symptoms of psychosis.
On April 03 2011 07:59 chonkyfire wrote: If you have any mental illness you should never use stimulates period, and you should only use psych medicine under the care of a medical doctor
This is misleading, stimulants are used to treat many mental illnesses from ADHD to depression.
Yes, but in the end the illness it's treating just makes it worse.
ADHD is a little different, but not as many people actually have ADHD as what is diagnosed. I could have ADHD tomorrow if I really wanted to.
I remember seeing a news article about THC and Canabaloid and marijuana in general for medical purposes.
Personally, the main problem that I see is the poster child for marijuana. It's evident even in the OP (not blaming the OP in any way) but he didn't want anti-marijuana users to debate or argue with "stoners." It's this image and association that marijuana has with "stoners" that I think stands in the way of legalizing marijuana for the benefit of society.
People make the argument that drinking is more hazardous to your health in terms of addiction, and while that is probably true, no one goes, oh man you're a "drinker" or people who eat fast food, no one goes "oh man you eat "fast food"".
I think the best solution is for those who sell medical marijuana and those who prescribe it to find a way to differentiate their business from the negative aspects of marijuana culture and the overall negative stereotype. It's my opinion that the best way to go about this is this clinicize the use of medical marijuana via the use of vaporizers and inhaler therapies. There are already diseases that are cured via the vaporization of drugs where the person who is sick inhales the medicine. I don't see why its not possible for marijuana. Doing so I think would remove the stereotype of a stoner, and put it squarely as a drug prescribed by doctors from your regular doctors office and not something that may or may not be shady.
On April 03 2011 08:28 chonkyfire wrote: Do you know how the studies come the conclusion marijuana causes psychosis? It's because they inject massive amounts of THC without any of cannabinoids and the person who receives the THC express symptoms of psychosis.
What studies are you refering to specifically? Most stuides i've encountered involve humans are case studies which work with people who smoke the drug, i would be interested to learn of a study which injected large amounts of thc into a human.
On April 03 2011 08:28 chonkyfire wrote: Do you know how the studies come the conclusion marijuana causes psychosis? It's because they inject massive amounts of THC without any of cannabinoids and the person who receives the THC express symptoms of psychosis.
What studies are you refering to specifically? Most stuides i've encountered involving humans are case studies which work with people who smoke the drug, i would be interested to learn of a study which injected large amounts of thc into a human.
There's tons.
The reason for doing it is because marijuana contains lots of different cannabinoids, so they will inject THC alone and then THC with others such as CBD and CBN, and compare the effects.
On April 03 2011 08:37 Froadac wrote: My mom's a pharmacist. they can synthesize most cannaboids.
with mostly untested side effects. all that sweed and whatever that shits named is exactly that. and ive heard so many complains about headaches, bad feelings and some people outright vomiting from that stuff . mind that all those people are years long expirienced smokers.
also why go the chemical way when nature makes that stuff grow in your garden?
On April 03 2011 08:28 chonkyfire wrote: Do you know how the studies come the conclusion marijuana causes psychosis? It's because they inject massive amounts of THC without any of cannabinoids and the person who receives the THC express symptoms of psychosis.
What studies are you refering to specifically? Most stuides i've encountered involving humans are case studies which work with people who smoke the drug, i would be interested to learn of a study which injected large amounts of thc into a human.
There's tons.
The reason for doing it is because marijuana contains lots of different cannabinoids, so they will inject THC alone and then THC with others such as CBD and CBN, and compare the effects.
As much as I would like to trust my fellow TLer, I would still like too see a few of those studies. Im searching now but am having trouble finding one which injected patients with large amounts of thc, the ethics and methodology behind such a study would be very interesting to me. Please provide me with one.
So cannabis cures some forms of cancer ? I'm sure that will make alot of people with that sort of cancer a bit happier once or if people acutally legalize it as a treatment. A good step forward for humanity in my eyes.
Great to hear, more and more evidence stacks against the nay-sayers. Marijuana has tons of beneficial effects, and has been used by Natives for years to cure ailments. It doesn't always have to be smoked, people seem to get it mixed up.
I am certain that smoking is not good, but it doesn't mean marijuana is just as bad for you as cigarettes/tobacco, it's a totally different plant all together, with totally different effects and chemicals.
On April 03 2011 08:37 Froadac wrote: My mom's a pharmacist. they can synthesize most cannaboids.
also why go the chemical way when nature makes that stuff grow in your garden?
Because THC =\= cannabis. Cannabis has many more carcinogens than cigarettes.
The only real defense of this is THC counteracts the carcinogens, but there are studies that have discounted that as statistical error and found lung cancer risk. I guess you could also say volume of marijuana smoked over a lifetime is likely much lower than a tobacco smoker.
Please don't use the, "Its natural!" defense. Arsenic is natural. Poison ivy is natural. Everything is natural. Just think about it. I don't really care about marijuana either way, but the natural thing just gets on my nerves.
I believe a lot of the conclusions being drawn from the NCI excerpt are misinformed. Cannabinoids are a pretty diverse range of chemicals and their effects are just as diverse and poorly understood.
It's difficult to interpret data being extrapolated from clinical trials even for PhD/MDs so I would hardly think that the average person (regardless of intelligence) is qualified to make any sort of educated statements about it.
I've worked in the pharma/biotech industry for 5 years (strategy consulting, CRO, currently as a sales manager) and my education is in neurobiology and I still glaze over when reading clinical trial data. And I've read my share.
Drano is anti-tumor in that if culture some cancerous cells and pour Drano on it, they will die. Anti-cancer compound. Should you drink Drano if you have cancer?
This trial proves effectively one thing: cannibinoids are toxic to certain cells. Not groundbreaking or justification for anything.
On April 03 2011 07:27 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
marijuana in high doses does cause acute psychosis along with numerous other drugs
lol no, no it doesn't
*may cause* could be accurate, though that's not proved.
On April 03 2011 08:28 chonkyfire wrote: Do you know how the studies come the conclusion marijuana causes psychosis? It's because they inject massive amounts of THC without any of cannabinoids and the person who receives the THC express symptoms of psychosis.
What studies are you refering to specifically? Most stuides i've encountered involving humans are case studies which work with people who smoke the drug, i would be interested to learn of a study which injected large amounts of thc into a human.
There's tons.
The reason for doing it is because marijuana contains lots of different cannabinoids, so they will inject THC alone and then THC with others such as CBD and CBN, and compare the effects.
As much as I would like to trust my fellow TLer, I would still like too see a few of those studies. Im searching now but am having trouble finding one which injected patients with large amounts of thc, the ethics and methodology behind such a study would be very interesting to me. Please provide me with one.
I think I'm wording this wrongly. Let's start by saying there's so many studies claiming cannabis causes psychosis is because people who abuse cannabis often exhibit behaviors that closely resemble psychosis such a hallucinations, paranoia and possibly delusions. People who are heavily intoxicated will also often have trouble continuing a train of thought or say things that sometimes will make no sense.
You may have seen this video, but they will inject her with pure THC and THC/CBD. It's already been pretty well known that the other cannabinoids in marijuana play a pretty big role in the actual "high" of marijuana. CBD specifically is considered an antipsychotic with anxiolytic effects.
On April 03 2011 08:52 GloPikkle wrote: I believe a lot of the conclusions being drawn from the NCI excerpt are misinformed. Cannabinoids are a pretty diverse range of chemicals and their effects are just as diverse and poorly understood.
Very well said, and it should be noted that many "commercial" strains of cannabis has bred most if not all of the CBDs out of the plant whenever possible because those chemicals go hand-in-hand with the couchlock/burned out feelings.
That said, a breeder in California has produced a strain of cannabis with more CBD than THC, (~10% CBD levels). It's very exciting for people who want to don't want to pump their bodies full of chemicals produced in a lab. Obviously eating cannabis and/or the various extracts isn't going to be for everyone.
On April 03 2011 08:07 Whitewing wrote: The reason cannabis is still illegal is an economic one, it has nothing to actually do with the substance.
A lot of jobs only exist because cannabis is illegal. The fact that those jobs shouldn't exist and cannabis should be legal isn't really considered.
Not really. What kind of jobs would dissapear if MJ would be legalized ? Besides traffickers there really isn't any? Nearly all MJ related law enforcement could just be given an actual useful job. like hunting real criminal, those that actually hurt other ppl.
MJ is illegal because powerful lobbies want it to be. Paper, textile and petrol industry lobby would all lose allot of money if it was fully legalized. That's why it got outlawed in the first place. Did you know that before WW2 hemp was the 2nd cash crop in the US?
On April 03 2011 08:52 GloPikkle wrote: I believe a lot of the conclusions being drawn from the NCI excerpt are misinformed. Cannabinoids are a pretty diverse range of chemicals and their effects are just as diverse and poorly understood.
That said, a breeder in California has produced a strain of cannabis with more CBD than THC, (~10% CBD levels). It's very exciting for people who want to don't want to pump their bodies full of chemicals produced in a lab. Obviously eating cannabis and/or the various extracts isn't going to be for everyone.
Do you know what it's called? It's proven 10%? I"ve heard of 2%, but 10 is pretty crazy
On April 03 2011 08:52 GloPikkle wrote: I believe a lot of the conclusions being drawn from the NCI excerpt are misinformed. Cannabinoids are a pretty diverse range of chemicals and their effects are just as diverse and poorly understood.
That said, a breeder in California has produced a strain of cannabis with more CBD than THC, (~10% CBD levels). It's very exciting for people who want to don't want to pump their bodies full of chemicals produced in a lab. Obviously eating cannabis and/or the various extracts isn't going to be for everyone.
Do you know what it's called? It's proven 10%? I"ve heard of 2%, but 10 is pretty crazy
I want to smoke some of that
LOL.. wait guys. you have some SERIOUS misunderstandings please let me clarify.
a high CBD amount isnt anything special at all. first of all, CBD isnt psychoactive. it is said that it still alters the THC high. but it's not psychoactive itself.
secondly... as a rule of thumb, the less THC a plant has, the more CBD it has. REALLY. it works this way .
CBD is nothing special
2% cbd means, that the plant has quite some THC. 10% cbd plants would probably be <10% thc. nothing special whatsoever. every plant with low THC will have high CBD. EVERY. in germany there's plants with 0.2% THC... they have A LOT OF CBD though!
On April 03 2011 08:52 GloPikkle wrote: I believe a lot of the conclusions being drawn from the NCI excerpt are misinformed. Cannabinoids are a pretty diverse range of chemicals and their effects are just as diverse and poorly understood.
That said, a breeder in California has produced a strain of cannabis with more CBD than THC, (~10% CBD levels). It's very exciting for people who want to don't want to pump their bodies full of chemicals produced in a lab. Obviously eating cannabis and/or the various extracts isn't going to be for everyone.
Do you know what it's called? It's proven 10%? I"ve heard of 2%, but 10 is pretty crazy
I want to smoke some of that
It was tested in a laboratory yes. He calls it Sour Tsunami. A quote from a website,
For the first time, a California grower has "stabilized" a Cannabis strain high in Cannabidiol. Lawrence Ringo of the Southern Humboldt Seed Collective is now offering seeds of "Sour Tsunami" that have a one-in-four chance of containing 10-11% CBD (and 6-7% THC)!
On April 03 2011 08:37 Froadac wrote: My mom's a pharmacist. they can synthesize most cannaboids.
also why go the chemical way when nature makes that stuff grow in your garden?
Because THC =\= cannabis. Cannabis has many more carcinogens than cigarettes.
The only real defense of this is THC counteracts the carcinogens, but there are studies that have discounted that as statistical error and found lung cancer risk. I guess you could also say volume of marijuana smoked over a lifetime is likely much lower than a tobacco smoker.
Please don't use the, "Its natural!" defense. Arsenic is natural. Poison ivy is natural. Everything is natural. Just think about it. I don't really care about marijuana either way, but the natural thing just gets on my nerves.
if you read the rest of my post you quoted youll see why im against this synthetic stuff.it wasnt some "defense" in any way. but when i have to pick between untested synthetic expensive stuff and the normal kind that millions of people have "tested" for years then imho the choice isnt hard
also you dont have to smoke at all. vaporizers and eating/drinking are all fine alternatives.
On April 03 2011 08:52 GloPikkle wrote: I believe a lot of the conclusions being drawn from the NCI excerpt are misinformed. Cannabinoids are a pretty diverse range of chemicals and their effects are just as diverse and poorly understood.
That said, a breeder in California has produced a strain of cannabis with more CBD than THC, (~10% CBD levels). It's very exciting for people who want to don't want to pump their bodies full of chemicals produced in a lab. Obviously eating cannabis and/or the various extracts isn't going to be for everyone.
Do you know what it's called? It's proven 10%? I"ve heard of 2%, but 10 is pretty crazy
I want to smoke some of that
LOL.. wait guys. you have some SERIOUS misunderstandings please let me clarify.
a high CBD amount isnt anything special at all. first of all, CBD isnt psychoactive. it is said that it still alters the THC high. but it's not psychoactive itself.
secondly... as a rule of thumb, the less THC a plant has, the more CBD it has. REALLY. it works this way .
CBD is nothing special
2% cbd means, that the plant has quite some THC. 10% cbd plants would probably be <10% thc. nothing special whatsoever. every plant with low THC will have high CBD. EVERY. in germany there's plants with 0.2% THC... they have A LOT OF CBD though!
Yes but it still has effects on the cannabinoid receptors. There is evidence that CBD is also a 5Ht agonist
CBD also apparently binds to another cannabinoid besides CB1/CB2 that is called GPR55, which we don't know too much about. There is no denying though that CBD produces unique effects.
People are using pretty bold words here considering the scope of actual and legit data on cannabinoids compared to eg. a three phase drug trial. I'd be careful of drawing conclusions from numerous dispersed and non-standardized datasets.
Having said that, I sincerely hope the_important_people put a stop to cannabinoid research marginalization and we get those large, legit, standardized and reviewed datasets. At the current state of affairs I'd say it's hard for a government to say it has the best interests of its citizens in mind when it ices cannabinoid research funding and allocates exorbitant funds to anti-drug law enforcement.
[QUOTE]On April 03 2011 09:05 Nizaris wrote: [QUOTE]On April 03 2011 08:07 Whitewing wrote: The reason cannabis is still illegal is an economic one, it has nothing to actually do with the substance.
MJ is illegal because powerful lobbies want it to be. Paper, textile and petrol industry lobby would all lose allot of money if it was fully legalized. That's why it got outlawed in the first place. Did you know that before WW2 hemp was the 2nd cash crop in the US?[/QUOTE] +1
On April 03 2011 07:26 bRuTaL!! wrote: What about schizophrenia? If its cancer your concerned about, eat "super" foods...
I believe that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
It also can exacerbate existing anxiety issues. Nearly everyone I know who quit did it to avoid the feelings of paranoia, anxiety, and laziness that results from using it often.
On April 03 2011 07:55 Teivospy wrote: they really do need to legalize marijuana though, its getting ridiculous how much money is spent to control something that isn't being controlled
that said if you do use any drug you are likely a total moron and I hope you OD at some point in your life off being depressed that you were too stoned to do anything in your life
On April 03 2011 07:26 bRuTaL!! wrote: What about schizophrenia? If its cancer your concerned about, eat "super" foods...
I believe that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
It also can exacerbate existing anxiety issues. Nearly everyone I know who quit did it to avoid the feelings of paranoia, anxiety, and laziness that results from using it often.
you mean mind altering drugs can have bad side affects for people who struggle with mental issues, gosh, first drug to ever had a side affect.
using this logic we should ban paracetamol because some people sometimes get heart burn
Smoking weed can cause symptoms of acute psychosis, any one who argues against this is an idiot or does not understand the definition of psychosis, which are presence of any of the following 3:
1. Hallucinations (any sensory perception in a person which was not due to a real world stimulus, can be visual, auditory, touch, smell, or taste).
2. Delusions (a fixed, unshakable false belief in something not believed by the majority of people (thus excluding things like religion)).
3. Thought disorder (disordered pattern of thought. There are many types of thought disorder, generally only assessed by a third party performing a mental state examination. Many people suffering thought disorder have poor insight and are unaware of this).
Acute psychosis does not mean you are going to go crazy and grab an axe and kill people (although it is theoretically possible if you're hallucinating zombies and are deluded into believing everyone is a zombie who wants to kill you). It does not mean you'll be in this state forever. In weed smokers, it will usually fade away as your body excretes the drugs.
In a small susceptible population of people, weed smoking puts them at extremely high risk of developing chronic forms of psychosis such as schizophrenia. Population rates of schizophrenia are about 1/100. Let's say you and your 4 friends love smoking weed and believe it's 100% safe. Chances are in your life times, if you're all saying "smoking weed is absolutely safe, ignore the quaks" to 20 people you meet each, one of you will have falsely informed a susceptible individual who could then go on to develop chronic psychosis.
I'm not pro-weed or anti-weed, personally I hate smoking it because I don't like the high, and I green out at low dose. If you want to smoke it, that's your prerogative. What I do hate is people not properly informing themselves, or worse, spreading false information due to pre-conceived bias. 1% is low on a per-person basis because most of us wouldn't even know 1000 people by name, but on a population basis 1% becomes a high number of people.
On April 03 2011 10:41 LilClinkin wrote: Smoking weed can cause symptoms of acute psychosis, any one who argues against this is an idiot or does not understand the definition of psychosis, which are presence of any of the following 3:
1. Hallucinations (any sensory perception in a person which was not due to a real world stimulus, can be visual, auditory, touch, smell, or taste).
2. Delusions (a fixed, unshakable false belief in something not believed by the majority of people (thus excluding things like religion)).
3. Thought disorder (disordered pattern of thought. There are many types of thought disorder, generally only assessed by a third party performing a mental state examination. Many people suffering thought disorder have poor insight and are unaware of this).
Acute psychosis does not mean you are going to go crazy and grab an axe and kill people (although it is theoretically possible if you're hallucinating zombies and are deluded into believing everyone is a zombie who wants to kill you). It does not mean you'll be in this state forever. In weed smokers, it will usually fade away as your body excretes the drugs.
In a small susceptible population of people, weed smoking puts them at extremely high risk of developing chronic forms of psychosis such as schizophrenia. Population rates of schizophrenia are about 1/100. Let's say you and your 4 friends love smoking weed and believe it's 100% safe. Chances are in your life times, if you're all saying "smoking weed is absolutely safe, ignore the quaks" to 20 people you meet each, one of you will have falsely informed a susceptible individual who could then go on to develop chronic psychosis.
I'm not pro-weed or anti-weed, personally I hate smoking it because I don't like the high, and I green out at low dose. If you want to smoke it, that's your prerogative. What I do hate is people not properly informing themselves, or worse, spreading false information due to pre-conceived bias. 1% is low on a per-person basis because most of us wouldn't even know 1000 people by name, but on a population basis 1% becomes a high number of people.
yes but more or less those people are going to have a psychotic episode if they smoke weed or not, so you cant just simply say marijuana is going to be the reason for you to have a psychotic episode.
If you get 100 people in a room the chances are if they do drugs or not there is still going to be that 1% chance that sooner or later they are going to freak out and do something labeled as schizophrenia.
Does anyone remember what the tally was for California's legalization initiative last time? I'll bet if we try again in a couple years we can push it over this time.
On April 03 2011 07:16 dANiELcanuck wrote: he Feds have also cracked down on a lot of "legal and approved" dispensaries in California and Montana recently. This would lead me to believe it's just about the money, and the government doesn't want you to grow your own natural medicine when they can "force" you to buy it at ridiculous prices from a pharmacy.
This is just a Federal vs State Government pissing match. They are "legal" by California law, but not by United States law, etc.
On April 03 2011 07:16 dANiELcanuck wrote: he Feds have also cracked down on a lot of "legal and approved" dispensaries in California and Montana recently. This would lead me to believe it's just about the money, and the government doesn't want you to grow your own natural medicine when they can "force" you to buy it at ridiculous prices from a pharmacy.
This is just a Federal vs State Government pissing match. They are "legal" by California law, but not by United States law, etc.
Of course. But isn't there a section in the constitution that allows States to make their own laws separate from Federal regulations? I don't want this to be an argument on whether or not it should be legalized or if the Feds should leave individual States alone. I just wanted to share information with people to educate them enough they can make their own decisions on what medicines they want to use.
Cannabinoids are a group of 21 carbon terpenophenolic compounds produced uniquely by Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica species.[1,2] These plant-derived compounds may be referred to as phytocannabinoids. Although delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the primary psychoactive ingredient, other known compounds with biologic activity are cannabinol, cannabidiol, cannabichromene, cannabigerol, tetrahydrocannabivirin, and delta-8-THC. Cannabidiol, in particular, is thought to have significant analgesic and anti-inflammatory activity without the psychoactive effect (high) of delta-9-THC.
Antitumor Effects
One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors. [3] During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo .[4] In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.[5-8]
A man from my Province was giving people cannabis extract for free as a medicine and cure for lots of ailments for years, cancer being one of them. He's now hiding out in Europe evading charges. How much proof do people need?
At the very least, this leaves the Feds in a tough spot with marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic/drug.
** I don't want this thread to become a flame war between anti-cannabis activists and "stoners". I just want to share the information with you. Let's not get sick.
edit: It should also be noted that the medicinal effects are through ingestion or topical application. When you smoke cannabis you lose nearly all medicinal qualities of the plant.
I think it should be noted that the (I believe it was)DEA gave rights to the big pharmaceutical companies to use chemicals derived from cannabis. The Feds have also cracked down on a lot of "legal and approved" dispensaries in California and Montana recently. This would lead me to believe it's just about the money, and the government doesn't want you to grow your own natural medicine when they can "force" you to buy it at ridiculous prices from a pharmacy.
One study means nothing.. how is this study made?? Is this a prospective cohort? a randomized double-blind experimental trial?? a review?? What are the study's limitations?? What are the adverse effects?? What dosage is required on rats?? Would that translate to a toxic dosage in humans??
I could continue posting questions unanswered. In science, one study means absolutely nothing. Particularly since you can use statistics to prove nearly anything. There might also be conflicts of interest involved. Remember the dude who said Measles vaccination caused autism?? Well that was fake, a fraud. These things happen.
I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying one study alone is not nearly enough evidence to prove anything. This is not how it works. It does need to be studied further though.
EDIT: At least the small amount of studies shown are listed on Pubmed. Also.. look at the authors. Many are made by the same team/people. Do they have any special interest in making this happen?
EDIT2: Continuing the search, there's apparently not enough evidence supporting cannabis as treatment for any type of cancer. There's evidence good enough proving cannabis is a useful therapy for pain and chemotherapy side-effects. Nothing we didn't know already.
On April 03 2011 07:18 Sufficiency wrote: What are the side effects of cannabis?
Being wayyyyyy too chill
I have stopped being mad marijuana isn't legal. I just enjoy it and do your thing, and if it turns out that the effects really do help I think doctors will do the right thing and make at least medical marijuana legal; yet I think it shouldn't be the main argument for the legalization of marijuana
I ain't hurting anybody by smoking weed and the fact I might cause some symptoms of psychosis (lol) shouldn't factor in its legality. I mean, it turns out Cigarettes kill you, yet its still legal =/ and this is what the problem really is...hypocrite laws stops us from doing something harmless. As a firm advocator or the harm principle I must say its pretty morally wrong
On April 03 2011 07:18 Sufficiency wrote: What are the side effects of cannabis?
Being wayyyyyy too chill
I have stopped being mad marijuana isn't legal. I just enjoy it and do your thing, and if it turns out that the effects really do help I think doctors will do the right thing and make at least medical marijuana legal; yet I think it shouldn't be the main argument for the legalization of marijuana
I ain't hurting anybody by smoking weed and the fact I might cause some symptoms of psychosis (lol) shouldn't factor in its legality. I mean, it turns out Cigarettes kill you, yet its still legal =/ and this is what the problem really is...hypocrite laws stops us from doing something harmless. As a firm advocator or the harm principle I must say its pretty morally wrong
I agree on this... They should either outlaw both of them, or allow them both. If I had to choose which, I'd say outlaw both, since cigarettes are a lot worser for everyone than the good marijuana could bring.
On April 03 2011 10:51 mordk wrote: One study means nothing.. how is this study made?? Is this a prospective cohort? a randomized double-blind experimental trial?? a review?? What are the study's limitations?? What are the adverse effects?? What dosage is required on rats?? Would that translate to a toxic dosage in humans??
Are double quotations really necessary after every single statement??
It's very annoying and comes off as incredibly condescending, which greatly detracts from the argument you're attempting.
On April 03 2011 09:58 hawliet wrote: it affects short term memory...i'm not a scientist but if you mess with your short term memory... then nothing can go to the long therm memory
On April 03 2011 10:51 mordk wrote:In science, one study means absolutely nothing.
That, dear sir, is a blatant lie. Do the leg work, be meticulous and your study will mean a lot more than absolutely nothing. Things get more complicated when statistics are involved, as they often are in medical studies. But do the statistics right and your study will have an impact.
EDIT: At least the small amount of studies shown are listed on Pubmed. Also.. look at the authors. Many are made by the same team/people. Do they have any special interest in making this happen?
Scientific studies often require specialists and study specific instrumentation. If a group is focused on cannabinoid research you shouldn't be surprised to find most of their papers are on the subject. It's like saying Einstein had a secret agenda because he only published physics papers.
yes but more or less those people are going to have a psychotic episode if they smoke weed or not, so you cant just simply say marijuana is going to be the reason for you to have a psychotic episode.
I don't think you even understand what you're trying to say
On April 03 2011 10:41 LilClinkin wrote: Smoking weed can cause symptoms of acute psychosis, any one who argues against this is an idiot or does not understand the definition of psychosis, which are presence of any of the following 3:
1. Hallucinations (any sensory perception in a person which was not due to a real world stimulus, can be visual, auditory, touch, smell, or taste).
2. Delusions (a fixed, unshakable false belief in something not believed by the majority of people (thus excluding things like religion)).
3. Thought disorder (disordered pattern of thought. There are many types of thought disorder, generally only assessed by a third party performing a mental state examination. Many people suffering thought disorder have poor insight and are unaware of this).
It's a bit liberal to call this a 'definition', this is a guideline at best. One of the things which is really why a lot of people don't take psychiatry that seriously, the extreme vagueness of many terms used therein which are also obviously a continuum with many a grey area in between.
Point is, unlike cancer, there are no objective criteria for 'psychosis', the only way to diagnose it is a subjective 'professional opinion', what one psychiatrist may consider a psychosis another might not with no objective way to determine which is 'wrong', let alone the philosophical question if 'wrong' even exists in such a case.
So what criteria did they use to determine psychoses in these tests / researches I wonder? You can't really perform blind diagnoses because you can tell from people if they are high, and you still need a psychiatrist to talk to people to subjectively 'diagnose' such a psychosis, with all the power of suggestion that implies.
More technically:
1: There is no sensory perception not due to a real world stimulus, every hallucination ultimately starts with a real world stimulus, the question is how much does the mind warp this to something different. This line is very subjective and dives into the philosophical of what is 'real' and what is not. Essentially, a normal bloke in a world full of colour blind people would be called insane because he keeps insisting that a red and a green ball are fundamentally different and no one sees it.
A psychotic patient put in a salt bath with no sound and no vision won't hallucinate anything, no stimulus, no thoughts, no hallucinations.
2: 'Majority' is a very vague term which is with respect to a culture, time, and space, this definition also dictates that many of the greatest minds were 'psychotic' because they were well ahead of their time with brilliant beliefs the masses couldn't accept.
3: Thought disorder is also an extremely vague term and greatly depends on the perceiver. I've seen videotapes of certified experts in certain specializations told to act out a crazy man and then simply ramble on about correct things in their certain specializations, of course, the psychiatrist, not a specialist in that field, couldn't understand it and classified it as crazy, incoherent rambling, while it was extremely coherent and if it was said to a peer it would be perceived as accurate, but simply in a strange voice. Power of suggestion gets you pretty far. Isn't this a delusion of the psychiatrist by the way?
On April 03 2011 10:51 mordk wrote:In science, one study means absolutely nothing.
That, dear sir, is a blatant lie. Do the leg work, be meticulous and your study will mean a lot more than absolutely nothing. Things get more complicated when statistics are involved, as they often are in medical studies. But do the statistics right and your study will have an impact.
EDIT: At least the small amount of studies shown are listed on Pubmed. Also.. look at the authors. Many are made by the same team/people. Do they have any special interest in making this happen?
Scientific studies often require specialists and study specific instrumentation. If a group is focused on cannabinoid research you shouldn't be surprised to find most of their papers are on the subject. It's like saying Einstein had a secret agenda because he only published physics papers.
Hmmm.. maybe more than absoultely nothing... Let's say it means very little. Unless it's something like the Framingham. And we know this is nothing like that. And even then, the evidence from the framingham spawned multiple studies, which is actually where it's value relies.
You're just interpretating the second statement wrong:
1. It's OK if most of their papers are related to the subject, many people do that. That doesn't mean a conflict of interest doesn't exists and shouldn't be investigated. This has happened tons of times.
2. I'm not saying they DEFINITELY HAVE a conflict of interest, haven't researched that. I'm saying it could be there and should be ruled out.
This thing has happened so many times it's crazy. Farmaceutical companies finance studies ALL THE TIME, which make their products seem so much better than the rest. Many times it's not true, and has been proven wrong later on by thorough investigation.
1: There is no sensory perception not due to a real world stimulus, every hallucination ultimately starts with a real world stimulus, the question is how much does the mind warp this to something different. This line is very subjective and dives into the philosophical of what is 'real' and what is not. Essentially, a normal bloke in a world full of colour blind people would be called insane because he keeps insisting that a red and a green ball are fundamentally different and no one sees it.
A psychotic patient put in a salt bath with no sound and no vision won't hallucinate anything, no stimulus, no thoughts, no hallucinations.
I don't believe this. Take 500 mics of LSD and put yourself in a tank, you would still have a change in sensory perception.
2: 'Majority' is a very vague term which is with respect to a culture, time, and space, this definition also dictates that many of the greatest minds were 'psychotic' because they were well ahead of their time with brilliant beliefs the masses couldn't accept.
This is a pretty bad example because delusions and paranoia are pretty obvious.
3: Thought disorder is also an extremely vague term and greatly depends on the perceiver. I've seen videotapes of certified experts in certain specializations told to act out a crazy man and then simply ramble on about correct things in their certain specializations, of course, the psychiatrist, not a specialist in that field, couldn't understand it and classified it as crazy, incoherent rambling, while it was extremely coherent and if it was said to a peer it would be perceived as accurate, but simply in a strange voice. Power of suggestion gets you pretty far. Isn't this a delusion of the psychiatrist by the way?
Thought disorder is when people don't make sense. If they are going from one train of thought to another and constantly changing topics or just say sentences that make no sense, then you have thought disorder.
On April 03 2011 10:51 mordk wrote:In science, one study means absolutely nothing.
That, dear sir, is a blatant lie. Do the leg work, be meticulous and your study will mean a lot more than absolutely nothing. Things get more complicated when statistics are involved, as they often are in medical studies. But do the statistics right and your study will have an impact.
EDIT: At least the small amount of studies shown are listed on Pubmed. Also.. look at the authors. Many are made by the same team/people. Do they have any special interest in making this happen?
Scientific studies often require specialists and study specific instrumentation. If a group is focused on cannabinoid research you shouldn't be surprised to find most of their papers are on the subject. It's like saying Einstein had a secret agenda because he only published physics papers.
Hmmm.. maybe more than absoultely nothing... Let's say it means very little. Unless it's something like the Framingham. And we know this is nothing like that. And even then, the evidence from the framingham spawned multiple studies, which is actually where it's value relies.
You're just interpretating the second statement wrong:
1. It's OK if most of their papers are related to the subject, many people do that. That doesn't mean a conflict of interest doesn't exists and shouldn't be investigated. This has happened tons of times.
2. I'm not saying they DEFINITELY HAVE a conflict of interest, haven't researched that. I'm saying it could be there and should be ruled out.
This thing has happened so many times it's crazy. Farmaceutical companies finance studies ALL THE TIME, which make their products seem so much better than the rest. Many times it's not true, and has been proven wrong later on by thorough investigation.
Depends on the science really, in some sciences, one study is conclusive and all you need. In exact sciences, 'studies' don't exactly are able to contradict each other's finding.
Some might argue that the scientific method originally was designed for this exactly, that one research done accordingly scientific methodology and rigour couldn't just come to a different conclusion than another one. After all,what are they worth if they can contradict themselves gravely? What's it worth to cite a study if it's possible that one tomorrow will bring out a different thing?
I personally find that stuff in medicine and social sciences is really pretty liberal with interpreting stuff and going a lot further with conclusions than they should made. What is presented as a conclusion 'Sleep may be effective in improving reaction time' should really go no further than:
It was found that more sleep correlates with: - Improved performance on this specifically described test (if this test indicates reaction timing is everyone's own to decide) - In individuals of 18-24 years old - Who are students of pharmacology - And live in the east coast of the united states - During the summer months - Whenever the test is administered in a room with white walls - etc etc
I take it you know the joke of the scientist who comments on purple cows 'Tut tut, we only know they are purple on the side facing us.'...?
1: There is no sensory perception not due to a real world stimulus, every hallucination ultimately starts with a real world stimulus, the question is how much does the mind warp this to something different. This line is very subjective and dives into the philosophical of what is 'real' and what is not. Essentially, a normal bloke in a world full of colour blind people would be called insane because he keeps insisting that a red and a green ball are fundamentally different and no one sees it.
A psychotic patient put in a salt bath with no sound and no vision won't hallucinate anything, no stimulus, no thoughts, no hallucinations.
I don't believe this. Take 500 mics of LSD and put yourself in a tank, you would still have a change in sensory perception.
No you have no change in sensory perception, as you have no sensory perception at all in a perfect salt bath with no vision, and audio, that's the idea of it, to remove any all sensory perception.
2: 'Majority' is a very vague term which is with respect to a culture, time, and space, this definition also dictates that many of the greatest minds were 'psychotic' because they were well ahead of their time with brilliant beliefs the masses couldn't accept.
This is a pretty bad example because delusions and paranoia are pretty obvious.
No, they are not, where does the line lie?
I was also commenting purely on the 'definition' of it it, the definition is bad since it dictates what I just said.
I'm asking for a rigorous definition, not something like 'Yeah, duhh, it's obvious', that's not the real of science where one's ought to work with very clear unmistakable definitions that are not open any gramme of personal interpretation whatsoever.
Different psychiatrists are still possible to disagree about if a patient is paranoid or has real fears, thus it is not clear.
Thought disorder is when people don't make sense. If they are going from one train of thought to another and constantly changing topics or just say sentences that make no sense, then you have thought disorder.
Yes, and what does not make 'sense' to some people may to another.
Like I said, if I talk about advanced mathematics to a random person and (correctly) claim that a part may be just as great as a whole and start to throw in diagonal arguments to demonstrate it, to that person it will make 'no sense' even though to a mathematician this will obviously do.
Define 'making sense', it's far more subjective than you might think and depends on the understanding of the listener as much as the reasoning of the speaker.
I've even had maths professors disagree over if my argument made sense or not (though one was able to convince the other eventually.)
Sense is in the eye of the beholder, and quite frankly, any person studying psychiatry to completion without realizing half way through just how much it relies on half baked logic I wouldn't exactly trust to differentiate nonsense from crisp logic.
On April 03 2011 10:51 mordk wrote:In science, one study means absolutely nothing.
That, dear sir, is a blatant lie. Do the leg work, be meticulous and your study will mean a lot more than absolutely nothing. Things get more complicated when statistics are involved, as they often are in medical studies. But do the statistics right and your study will have an impact.
EDIT: At least the small amount of studies shown are listed on Pubmed. Also.. look at the authors. Many are made by the same team/people. Do they have any special interest in making this happen?
Scientific studies often require specialists and study specific instrumentation. If a group is focused on cannabinoid research you shouldn't be surprised to find most of their papers are on the subject. It's like saying Einstein had a secret agenda because he only published physics papers.
Hmmm.. maybe more than absoultely nothing... Let's say it means very little. Unless it's something like the Framingham. And we know this is nothing like that. And even then, the evidence from the framingham spawned multiple studies, which is actually where it's value relies.
You're just interpretating the second statement wrong:
1. It's OK if most of their papers are related to the subject, many people do that. That doesn't mean a conflict of interest doesn't exists and shouldn't be investigated. This has happened tons of times.
2. I'm not saying they DEFINITELY HAVE a conflict of interest, haven't researched that. I'm saying it could be there and should be ruled out.
This thing has happened so many times it's crazy. Farmaceutical companies finance studies ALL THE TIME, which make their products seem so much better than the rest. Many times it's not true, and has been proven wrong later on by thorough investigation.
This is quite true and ought not to be taken lightly. The way a study gets carried out can be manipulated in a lot of subtle ways and much more importantly there is no real academic oversight on the way studies are represented or reported on by other parties. It doesn't make much sense to go to far in a discussion about them without at least reading the abstract and probably the procedure as well.
Here is a video that discusses some of the more popular myths regarding the effects of marijuana ( i post this because it seems that there is a fair bit of misunderstanding when it comes to these effects). The second video is by the same author, where he discusses some of the complaints that viewers had wit the first that will most likely appear in this thread as well. Please note that i didn't make the videos, and that these discuss the negative effects
On April 03 2011 12:00 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: [o you have no change in sensory perception, as you have no sensory perception at all in a perfect salt bath with no vision, and audio, that's the idea of it, to remove any all sensory perception.
You can't change something that's not there.
lol, high doses of psychedelic tryptamines will cause the user to lose all touch with reality, you wouldn't even know you were in the tub.
No, they are not, where does the line lie?
I was also commenting purely on the 'definition' of it it, the definition is bad since it dictates what I just said.
I'm asking for a rigorous definition, not something like 'Yeah, duhh, it's obvious', that's not the real of science where one's ought to work with very clear unmistakable definitions that are not open any gramme of personal interpretation whatsoever.
Different psychiatrists are still possible to disagree about if a patient is paranoid or has real fears, thus it is not clear.
You've clearly never met a delusional person before.
Yes, and what does not make 'sense' to some people may to another.
Like I said, if I talk about advanced mathematics to a random person and (correctly) claim that a part may be just as great as a whole and start to throw in diagonal arguments to demonstrate it, to that person it will make 'no sense' even though to a mathematician this will obviously do.
Define 'making sense', it's far more subjective than you might think and depends on the understanding of the listener as much as the reasoning of the speaker.
I've even had maths professors disagree over if my argument made sense or not (though one was able to convince the other eventually.)
Sense is in the eye of the beholder, and quite frankly, any person studying psychiatry to completion without realizing half way through just how much it relies on half baked logic I wouldn't exactly trust to differentiate nonsense from crisp logic.
Who is saying anything about advanced mathematics?
You're comparing incoherence to brilliance now. There is a different.
I really can't argue any of your points though, because all of them are "you can't really know". I don't really know what to say to it.
One man's gibberish is actually some kind of theory on physics to you lol
Legalization Persons over the age of 21 may possess up to one ounce of marijuana for personal consumption. May use cannabis in a non-public place such as a residence or a public establishment licensed for on site marijuana consumption. May grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet for personal use.
Local taxes and fees Allows the collection of taxes specifically to allow local governments to raise revenue or to offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation.
And requiring licenses and etc to sell, basically the same rules as booze with the exception you can grow your plant.
it was voted 54% no, 46% yes.
It was literally that close to passing. Such is the times we live in.
Legalization Persons over the age of 21 may possess up to one ounce of marijuana for personal consumption. May use cannabis in a non-public place such as a residence or a public establishment licensed for on site marijuana consumption. May grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet for personal use.
Local taxes and fees Allows the collection of taxes specifically to allow local governments to raise revenue or to offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation.
And requiring licenses and etc to sell, basically the same rules as booze with the exception you can grow your plant.
it was voted 54% no, 46% yes.
It was literally that close to passing. Such is the times we live in.
ps,
You do realize weed dealers are the reason it didn't pass right?
On April 03 2011 12:00 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: [o you have no change in sensory perception, as you have no sensory perception at all in a perfect salt bath with no vision, and audio, that's the idea of it, to remove any all sensory perception.
You can't change something that's not there.
lol, high doses of psychedelic tryptamines will cause the user to lose all touch with reality, you wouldn't even know you were in the tub.
You don't know you are in a tub either way if you are in a perfect salt bath.
Do you know what a perfect salt bath does?
If I give you a spiked drink and put you there, you wouldn't even realize you woke up. There is literally NO stimulus, it's salt water at your own body temperature and your own body density, no sound, no touch, no vision, nothing.
A perfect salt bath gives completely sensory deprivation.
You've clearly never met a delusional person before.
You're trying really hard not to read are you?
I asked where the line lies? There is a continuum between utter clear mad delusion and completely conforming sanity. It's a continuum, now, where does the line lie.
Who is saying anything about advanced mathematics?
I'm just giving an example how something that makes perfect sense can appear as nonsense to someone who lacks the capacity, be it in education or intellect, to understand it.
You're comparing incoherence to brilliance now. There is a different.
No, I'm comparing incoherence to undergraduate mathematics that any maths student ought to understand.
I really can't argue any of your points though, because all of them are "you can't really know". I don't really know what to say to it.
My point is more that the 'definition' of these concepts is utterly vague and there is a grey area and there is a lot of subjective interpretation of it.
What one man may find insane another may find not. I'm not denying that there are people who are 'clearly' delusional (though really, if it's that clear, there is no need for a trained professional), I'm saying that there are people who are in the grey area.
One man's gibberish is actually some kind of theory on physics to you lol
It could very well be possible. Many people termed brilliant minds in retrospect were called insane because no one understood them.
I'm not saying that all gibberish is, I'm saying that a psychiatrist has no ability to differentiate between nonsense and coherence that he simply cannon understand.
It's extremely hard for any human being to see the difference between nonsense and simply something he cannot understand. I'm just pointing out that what is nonsense isn't really clear-cut.
I mean, the average person with a degree in philosophy will probably come across as saying nonsense to the average psychiatrist if he simply talks about life.. (much like your inexperience with the Sorites Parodox I outlined above)
On April 03 2011 07:27 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
marijuana in high doses does cause acute psychosis along with numerous other drugs
That can be said about anything. Use without moderation of any substance will be bad for you.
On April 03 2011 10:41 LilClinkin wrote: Smoking weed can cause symptoms of acute psychosis, any one who argues against this is an idiot or does not understand the definition of psychosis, which are presence of any of the following 3:
1. Hallucinations (any sensory perception in a person which was not due to a real world stimulus, can be visual, auditory, touch, smell, or taste).
2. Delusions (a fixed, unshakable false belief in something not believed by the majority of people (thus excluding things like religion)).
3. Thought disorder (disordered pattern of thought. There are many types of thought disorder, generally only assessed by a third party performing a mental state examination. Many people suffering thought disorder have poor insight and are unaware of this).
It's a bit liberal to call this a 'definition', this is a guideline at best. One of the things which is really why a lot of people don't take psychiatry that seriously, the extreme vagueness of many terms used therein which are also obviously a continuum with many a grey area in between.
Point is, unlike cancer, there are no objective criteria for 'psychosis', the only way to diagnose it is a subjective 'professional opinion', what one psychiatrist may consider a psychosis another might not with no objective way to determine which is 'wrong', let alone the philosophical question if 'wrong' even exists in such a case.
So what criteria did they use to determine psychoses in these tests / researches I wonder? You can't really perform blind diagnoses because you can tell from people if they are high, and you still need a psychiatrist to talk to people to subjectively 'diagnose' such a psychosis, with all the power of suggestion that implies.
More technically:
1: There is no sensory perception not due to a real world stimulus, every hallucination ultimately starts with a real world stimulus, the question is how much does the mind warp this to something different. This line is very subjective and dives into the philosophical of what is 'real' and what is not. Essentially, a normal bloke in a world full of colour blind people would be called insane because he keeps insisting that a red and a green ball are fundamentally different and no one sees it.
A psychotic patient put in a salt bath with no sound and no vision won't hallucinate anything, no stimulus, no thoughts, no hallucinations.
2: 'Majority' is a very vague term which is with respect to a culture, time, and space, this definition also dictates that many of the greatest minds were 'psychotic' because they were well ahead of their time with brilliant beliefs the masses couldn't accept.
3: Thought disorder is also an extremely vague term and greatly depends on the perceiver. I've seen videotapes of certified experts in certain specializations told to act out a crazy man and then simply ramble on about correct things in their certain specializations, of course, the psychiatrist, not a specialist in that field, couldn't understand it and classified it as crazy, incoherent rambling, while it was extremely coherent and if it was said to a peer it would be perceived as accurate, but simply in a strange voice. Power of suggestion gets you pretty far. Isn't this a delusion of the psychiatrist by the way?
I'm sorry, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm a medical student, becoming a doctor next year, and I have studied these things. Yes, psychiatry is not an exact science, but it is far more objectively based than you give it credit for. Simple questioning will suffice to determine whether some one is experiencing symptoms of psychosis in nearly all cases. Your assertion that all hallucinations beginning with a real-world stimulus is completely wrong. What you're describing is an illusion. Yes, it is true that a psychotic person put in a quiet room is less likely to experience a hallucination, but if they are psychotic enough, they will still hallucinate.
Your argument that geniuses who were ahead of their time are deluded is also completely wrong, and shows you don't understand the definition of a delusion. It is a fixed belief in something which is falsifiable. Christopher Columbus wasn't deluded when he said the world was round, because he could prove it. Delusions in psychotic people are things like "I believe I am Jesus Christ", or "the television is sending me secret messages", or "the government is hunting me and has spies watching me every moment, and you're secretly an assassin sent to kill me". The current DSM IV definition of delusion extending to "excluding anything that a majority of people believe in" I personally feel is a cop-out just so followers of religion don't get upset when atheists call them deluded, but I can't let my personal feelings get in the way of medical definitions.
Finally, "thought disorder" does not strictly mean some one is crazy or wrong in what they say or think. It is simply the presence of disordered thought patterns and thought constructions. Manic people tend to have a rapid flight of ideas, a type of thought disorder, but it doesn't mean they're 'crazy' or 'stupid' or whatever you think it seems to mean. If you've played Mass Effect 2, the character Mordin would be a good example: He obviously has thought disorder, but he's not "wrong" about anything he is saying, he's actually a genius.
Why are people so eager for drugs to be legalized? I often see arguments that they are no more harmful than alcohol or smoking, but frankly I don't think those are exactly desirable social elements anyways.
If I give you a spiked drink and put you there, you wouldn't even realize you woke up. There is literally NO stimulus, it's salt water at your own body temperature and your own body density, no sound, no touch, no vision, nothing.
A perfect salt bath gives completely sensory deprivation.
You're wrong. I really don't know what else to say. If you orally took DMT with an MAOI you would still trip your ass off.
]You're trying really hard not to read are you?
I asked where the line lies? There is a continuum between utter clear mad delusion and completely conforming sanity. It's a continuum, now, where does the line lie.
A delusion is when someone believes something is fact, when it's false. There are all kinds of delusions.
Thinking you can fly... Thinking your god... thinking someone is in love with you... thinking eating dog food will make you live longer
the list goes on, it's hard to draw the line. Obviously you can fake delusions, which is the only real reason you are questioning the diagnosis of a delusion anyways.
I'm just giving an example how something that makes perfect sense can appear as nonsense to someone who lacks the capacity, be it in education or intellect, to understand it.
No, I'm comparing incoherence to undergraduate mathematics that any maths student ought to understand.
My point is more that the 'definition' of these concepts is utterly vague and there is a grey area and there is a lot of subjective interpretation of it.
What one man may find insane another may find not. I'm not denying that there are people who are 'clearly' delusional (though really, if it's that clear, there is no need for a trained professional), I'm saying that there are people who are in the grey area.
It's a terrible example though. It has nothing to do with thought disorder. You're saying it's hard to tell what thought disorder is when someone can say something that makes perfect sense to someone who doesn't understand the actual meaning.
People of have thought disorders won't be able to follow trains of thought, or they'll start talking and then stop without finishing what they were saying. Or they'll have flights of ideas and talk and talk.
I mean, the average person with a degree in philosophy will probably come across as saying nonsense to the average psychiatrist if he simply talks about life.. (much like your inexperience with the Sorites Parodox I outlined above)
philosophy is for dumb people and people who want a 4.0 so they can get into law school.
On April 03 2011 12:56 sikyon wrote: Why are people so eager for drugs to be legalized? I often see arguments that they are no more harmful than alcohol or smoking, but frankly I don't think those are exactly desirable social elements anyways.
The problem is why are some legal and some illegal? People want the drugs they like legalized because they don't want to have to get arrested/ripped off/or worse, with legalization the government can control it as they do with alcohol/tobacco.
On April 03 2011 10:41 LilClinkin wrote: Smoking weed can cause symptoms of acute psychosis, any one who argues against this is an idiot or does not understand the definition of psychosis, which are presence of any of the following 3:
1. Hallucinations (any sensory perception in a person which was not due to a real world stimulus, can be visual, auditory, touch, smell, or taste).
2. Delusions (a fixed, unshakable false belief in something not believed by the majority of people (thus excluding things like religion)).
3. Thought disorder (disordered pattern of thought. There are many types of thought disorder, generally only assessed by a third party performing a mental state examination. Many people suffering thought disorder have poor insight and are unaware of this).
It's a bit liberal to call this a 'definition', this is a guideline at best. One of the things which is really why a lot of people don't take psychiatry that seriously, the extreme vagueness of many terms used therein which are also obviously a continuum with many a grey area in between.
Point is, unlike cancer, there are no objective criteria for 'psychosis', the only way to diagnose it is a subjective 'professional opinion', what one psychiatrist may consider a psychosis another might not with no objective way to determine which is 'wrong', let alone the philosophical question if 'wrong' even exists in such a case.
So what criteria did they use to determine psychoses in these tests / researches I wonder? You can't really perform blind diagnoses because you can tell from people if they are high, and you still need a psychiatrist to talk to people to subjectively 'diagnose' such a psychosis, with all the power of suggestion that implies.
More technically:
1: There is no sensory perception not due to a real world stimulus, every hallucination ultimately starts with a real world stimulus, the question is how much does the mind warp this to something different. This line is very subjective and dives into the philosophical of what is 'real' and what is not. Essentially, a normal bloke in a world full of colour blind people would be called insane because he keeps insisting that a red and a green ball are fundamentally different and no one sees it.
A psychotic patient put in a salt bath with no sound and no vision won't hallucinate anything, no stimulus, no thoughts, no hallucinations.
2: 'Majority' is a very vague term which is with respect to a culture, time, and space, this definition also dictates that many of the greatest minds were 'psychotic' because they were well ahead of their time with brilliant beliefs the masses couldn't accept.
3: Thought disorder is also an extremely vague term and greatly depends on the perceiver. I've seen videotapes of certified experts in certain specializations told to act out a crazy man and then simply ramble on about correct things in their certain specializations, of course, the psychiatrist, not a specialist in that field, couldn't understand it and classified it as crazy, incoherent rambling, while it was extremely coherent and if it was said to a peer it would be perceived as accurate, but simply in a strange voice. Power of suggestion gets you pretty far. Isn't this a delusion of the psychiatrist by the way?
I'm sorry, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm a medical student, becoming a doctor next year, and I have studied these things. Yes, psychiatry is not an exact science, but it is far more objectively based than you give it credit for. Simple questioning will suffice to determine whether some one is experiencing symptoms of psychosis in nearly all cases.
And doe it does so reliably and validly?
The latter being impossible to test because there is no hard objective and precise definition of psychosis, the validity of any test to determine it is therefore undefined.
Your assertion that all hallucinations beginning with a real-world stimulus is completely wrong. What you're describing is an illusion. Yes, it is true that a psychotic person put in a quiet room is less likely to experience a hallucination, but if they are psychotic enough, they will still hallucinate.
'quite room' != no sensory stimulus.
You know that most neurologists agree that people who have been deprived of sensory stimulus their entire live don't develop a form of thought right?
When I say 'no sensory stimulus', I mean it, I mean the neurons aren't firing.
Every thought, action, emotion, and even homoeostatic action starts with some form of sensory stimulus. Someone who receives no sensory stimulus is a plant, nay, worse, someone who receives no sensory stimulus isn't breathing. Heart beat, peristaltic functions, and all that all starts with sensory stimulus.
Your argument that geniuses who were ahead of their time are deluded is also completely wrong, and shows you don't understand the definition of a delusion. It is a fixed belief in something which is falsifiable.
Every person believes in many a thing which is falsifiable, all human beings believe in a lot of shit which is easily falsifiable. As a medical student who may have some experience in psychiatry, you ought to know that most 'sane' people to some extend over-estimate their own importance, capabilities, and just generally colour themselves better than they objectively are. This is just part of being a normal human being really.
Now, where this end and NPD beings is again, vague. Just as where a person who is slightly suspicious of others ends and someone who believes irrationally that the government is after him start is also vague and there is a grey area. I've met many people on the line who were a bit suspicious about things they saw but they were still some-what rational and could eloquently explain their point and the reasoning behind why they didn't trust some things.
Christopher Columbus wasn't deluded when he said the world was round, because he could prove it.
He was also not deluded because everyone back then already knew the world was round. Christopher Columbus (incorrectly) believed the radius of the earth was much shorter than everyone else (correctly) believed it to be.
Also, how does one proof the earth is round by discovering another continent exactly?
Delusions in psychotic people are things like "I believe I am Jesus Christ", or "the television is sending me secret messages", or "the government is hunting me and has spies watching me every moment, and you're secretly an assassin sent to kill me". The current DSM IV definition of delusion extending to "excluding anything that a majority of people believe in" I personally feel is a cop-out just so followers of religion don't get upset when atheists call them deluded, but I can't let my personal feelings get in the way of medical definitions.
Of course this is the case, and this is a sad thing, but it also highlights a very interesting point. People can be raised to be deluded.
Are religious people somehow 'insane'? I'm sure you agree that religions above all else are something that people are raised to believe in and a healthy human being will believe such things if one is raised to believe it. Together with various other cultural 'delusions'.
What I'm saying is, if someone is raised to believe these things about the TV or the FBI by his or her parents and that person believes that, is there then truly anything clinically abnormal going on with that person, or is this something you would expect from any human being in that position?
I'm quite confident I can make my kids believe the wildest stuff simply by repeating it often enough... like any human being, this is quite normal and not medically exceptional at all.
Finally, "thought disorder" does not strictly mean some one is crazy or wrong in what they say or think. It is simply the presence of disordered thought patterns and thought constructions. Manic people tend to have a rapid flight of ideas, a type of thought disorder, but it doesn't mean they're 'crazy' or 'stupid' or whatever you think it seems to mean. If you've played Mass Effect 2, the character Mordin would be a good example: He obviously has thought disorder, but he's not "wrong" about anything he is saying, he's actually a genius.
I know, there are a variety of thought disorders, from utter word salads to people who are simply hard to follow. (these are both called 'thought disorders' but as far as I know there is no indication that they have similar causes)
My point is that this is again in the eye of the beholder, what may appear as chaos to one person may be logical order to another.
And again, it's a grey area that lies in between, where does the line lie? This is all quite subjective.
I personally stand by the sorites argument here. If there is a continuous transition between two points, then they cannot be distinct, a position many philosophers and logicians you encounter will adopt.
If I give you a spiked drink and put you there, you wouldn't even realize you woke up. There is literally NO stimulus, it's salt water at your own body temperature and your own body density, no sound, no touch, no vision, nothing.
A perfect salt bath gives completely sensory deprivation.
You're wrong. I really don't know what else to say. If you orally took DMT with an MAOI you would still trip your ass off.
Again, do you know what a perfect salt bath is?
I'm talking about a hypothetical method that would deprive you of any and all sensory stimulus, I'm talking about perfect theoretical sensory deprivation, no neuron is firing in the perfect situation, you have no thoughts, no sensations.
A delusion is when someone believes something is fact, when it's false. There are all kinds of delusions.
Define false, define true, when is something false? If I believe HuK is going to win MLG but he's not going to? Was that then deluded? 40% of this forum is deluded if HuK doesn't turn out to win it?
Do you believe the earth is a sphere, because that's a delusion, it's not, it's actually more of an ovoid shape?
Thinking you can fly... Thinking your god... thinking someone is in love with you... thinking eating dog food will make you live longer
Define 'god', define 'being in love', these are all things which are vague, there are several gradations of 'love', people disagree about when people are 'in love', people wonder about themselves if they are in 'in love' or not, these are subjective and vague terms, and don't get me started on 'god'. Surely you have to see that in order to perform healthy science such terms have to be defined rigorously?
Also, again, the grey area, where does the line lie. There are some people who have beliefs which are a bit on the edge. Like ehhh, a really good player in Masters who thinks he can become a pro, I mean, is this deluded or not? This is the vague part. Of course we can recognise that anyone in Gold is deluded, but this is a grey area on the edge, maybe he's deluded, maybe he isn't..?
the list goes on, it's hard to draw the line. Obviously you can fake delusions, which is the only real reason you are questioning the diagnosis of a delusion anyways.
No, I'm questioning it because of the Sorites argument which holds that if a continuum exists between two points than they cannot be binary distinct.
Which is by the way something that exact sciences use all the time. If some guy A has a cool physical theory which supposes a duality of two groups of whatevers and some other dudes says 'But wait, I can demonstrate the existence of a continuum between an element of group A and one of group B.', then basically the theory is falsified due to being internally contradicting.
So basically, the fact that a lot of psychiatrists (definitely not all, many start to recognise that the concept indeed falls to the Sorites argument) still hold on to the believe in 'delusion' despite the existence of a continuum between delusion and sanity would be perceived as irrational and thus 'deluded' by a lot of exact scientists and philosophers.
It's a terrible example though. It has nothing to do with thought disorder. You're saying it's hard to tell what thought disorder is when someone can say something that makes perfect sense to someone who doesn't understand the actual meaning.
People of have thought disorders won't be able to follow trains of thought, or they'll start talking and then stop without finishing what they were saying. Or they'll have flights of ideas and talk and talk.
And like I said, a psychiatrist is not able to see the difference between this and coherent higher mathematics or something else fancy.
If the average person with no background in it sees analytical philosophers debate or what not it WILL appear to them as complete garbled unfinished sentences with no train of logic to be found to them.
I mean, the average person with a degree in philosophy will probably come across as saying nonsense to the average psychiatrist if he simply talks about life.. (much like your inexperience with the Sorites Parodox I outlined above)
philosophy is for dumb people and people who want a 4.0 so they can get into law school.
An argument which is as silly as it is completely irrelevant, true or not. It's still coherence which will be perceived as coherence by peers but as completely garbled nonsense and flights of ideas to a psychiatrist.
On April 03 2011 12:56 sikyon wrote: Why are people so eager for drugs to be legalized?
Because it's our right.
Says who? Rights are debatable things. Saying you have a right to something is merely stating your personal opinion unless it is some sort of practical legal discussion.
I just don't think that we need another substance legalized that, if used irresponsibly, lessens an individuals potential. If everyone was smart enough to maintain control and not use in excesses, than I believe it would be legalized and would not have a problem with it. But when ever my peers talk about legalization of weed, they all fantasize about smoking their brains out and not doing anything for weeks. Aka : Being worthless.
On April 03 2011 13:38 UisTehSux wrote: I just don't think that we need another substance legalized that, if used irresponsibly, lessens an individuals potential. If everyone was smart enough to maintain control and not use in excesses, than I believe it would be legalized and would not have a problem with it. But when ever my peers talk about legalization of weed, they all fantasize about smoking their brains out and not doing anything for weeks. Aka : Being worthless.
So ehh, make StarCraft illegal?
Lots of people don't use it responsibly and blow their education for it or something like that?
Don't get me started on alcohol really, how often do husbands get high and proceed to beat up their wives then?
On April 03 2011 07:59 chonkyfire wrote: go eat 5 grams of weed and find out for yourself. Trust me, I know from experience it can cause acute psychosis
I hope you realize exactly how much 5 grams of weed is. In order for one person to get high chances are they aren't smoking any more than 1/10th of a gram. Even when eaten thats still like 3-5x too much for your average person, depending on weight. You should always do your research before putting any chemical into your body, especially when its such an incredibly huge amount.
As for the topic, marijuana has been used as a medicine for centuries. Its a shame that all the gov't propaganda against it is blindly believed by so many people who aren't willing to do their own research on the matter. They did the same thing with ecstasy too. Holes in your brain my ass, thats been debunked for a long time and people still believe it.
If I give you a spiked drink and put you there, you wouldn't even realize you woke up. There is literally NO stimulus, it's salt water at your own body temperature and your own body density, no sound, no touch, no vision, nothing.
A perfect salt bath gives completely sensory deprivation.
You're wrong. I really don't know what else to say. If you orally took DMT with an MAOI you would still trip your ass off.
Again, do you know what a perfect salt bath is?
I'm talking about a hypothetical method that would deprive you of any and all sensory stimulus, I'm talking about perfect theoretical sensory deprivation, no neuron is firing in the perfect situation, you have no thoughts, no sensations.
A delusion is when someone believes something is fact, when it's false. There are all kinds of delusions.
Define false, define true, when is something false? If I believe HuK is going to win MLG but he's not going to? Was that then deluded? 40% of this forum is deluded if HuK doesn't turn out to win it?
Do you believe the earth is a sphere, because that's a delusion, it's not, it's actually more of an ovoid shape?
Thinking you can fly... Thinking your god... thinking someone is in love with you... thinking eating dog food will make you live longer
Define 'god', define 'being in love', these are all things which are vague, there are several gradations of 'love', people disagree about when people are 'in love', people wonder about themselves if they are in 'in love' or not, these are subjective and vague terms, and don't get me started on 'god'. Surely you have to see that in order to perform healthy science such terms have to be defined rigorously?
Also, again, the grey area, where does the line lie. There are some people who have beliefs which are a bit on the edge. Like ehhh, a really good player in Masters who thinks he can become a pro, I mean, is this deluded or not? This is the vague part. Of course we can recognise that anyone in Gold is deluded, but this is a grey area on the edge, maybe he's deluded, maybe he isn't..?
the list goes on, it's hard to draw the line. Obviously you can fake delusions, which is the only real reason you are questioning the diagnosis of a delusion anyways.
No, I'm questioning it because of the Sorites argument which holds that if a continuum exists between two points than they cannot be binary distinct.
Which is by the way something that exact sciences use all the time. If some guy A has a cool physical theory which supposes a duality of two groups of whatevers and some other dudes says 'But wait, I can demonstrate the existence of a continuum between an element of group A and one of group B.', then basically the theory is falsified due to being internally contradicting.
So basically, the fact that a lot of psychiatrists (definitely not all, many start to recognise that the concept indeed falls to the Sorites argument) still hold on to the believe in 'delusion' despite the existence of a continuum between delusion and sanity would be perceived as irrational and thus 'deluded' by a lot of exact scientists and philosophers.
It's a terrible example though. It has nothing to do with thought disorder. You're saying it's hard to tell what thought disorder is when someone can say something that makes perfect sense to someone who doesn't understand the actual meaning.
People of have thought disorders won't be able to follow trains of thought, or they'll start talking and then stop without finishing what they were saying. Or they'll have flights of ideas and talk and talk.
And like I said, a psychiatrist is not able to see the difference between this and coherent higher mathematics or something else fancy.
If the average person with no background in it sees analytical philosophers debate or what not it WILL appear to them as complete garbled unfinished sentences with no train of logic to be found to them.
I mean, the average person with a degree in philosophy will probably come across as saying nonsense to the average psychiatrist if he simply talks about life.. (much like your inexperience with the Sorites Parodox I outlined above)
philosophy is for dumb people and people who want a 4.0 so they can get into law school.
An argument which is as silly as it is completely irrelevant, true or not. It's still coherence which will be perceived as coherence by peers but as completely garbled nonsense and flights of ideas to a psychiatrist.
lol... I"m not even going to bother responding to any of this. You are just deducing this down to logical fallacies, semantics and skepticism
If I told you 2+2=4 you would probably try to convince me it's actually 5 so
Philosophy has nothing to do with neuroscience
You're entire argument goes like this,
X says he's god I say X is delusional you say how do you know X isn't god? maybe you're delusional
If I give you a spiked drink and put you there, you wouldn't even realize you woke up. There is literally NO stimulus, it's salt water at your own body temperature and your own body density, no sound, no touch, no vision, nothing.
A perfect salt bath gives completely sensory deprivation.
You're wrong. I really don't know what else to say. If you orally took DMT with an MAOI you would still trip your ass off.
Again, do you know what a perfect salt bath is?
I'm talking about a hypothetical method that would deprive you of any and all sensory stimulus, I'm talking about perfect theoretical sensory deprivation, no neuron is firing in the perfect situation, you have no thoughts, no sensations.
A delusion is when someone believes something is fact, when it's false. There are all kinds of delusions.
Define false, define true, when is something false? If I believe HuK is going to win MLG but he's not going to? Was that then deluded? 40% of this forum is deluded if HuK doesn't turn out to win it?
Do you believe the earth is a sphere, because that's a delusion, it's not, it's actually more of an ovoid shape?
Thinking you can fly... Thinking your god... thinking someone is in love with you... thinking eating dog food will make you live longer
Define 'god', define 'being in love', these are all things which are vague, there are several gradations of 'love', people disagree about when people are 'in love', people wonder about themselves if they are in 'in love' or not, these are subjective and vague terms, and don't get me started on 'god'. Surely you have to see that in order to perform healthy science such terms have to be defined rigorously?
Also, again, the grey area, where does the line lie. There are some people who have beliefs which are a bit on the edge. Like ehhh, a really good player in Masters who thinks he can become a pro, I mean, is this deluded or not? This is the vague part. Of course we can recognise that anyone in Gold is deluded, but this is a grey area on the edge, maybe he's deluded, maybe he isn't..?
the list goes on, it's hard to draw the line. Obviously you can fake delusions, which is the only real reason you are questioning the diagnosis of a delusion anyways.
No, I'm questioning it because of the Sorites argument which holds that if a continuum exists between two points than they cannot be binary distinct.
Which is by the way something that exact sciences use all the time. If some guy A has a cool physical theory which supposes a duality of two groups of whatevers and some other dudes says 'But wait, I can demonstrate the existence of a continuum between an element of group A and one of group B.', then basically the theory is falsified due to being internally contradicting.
So basically, the fact that a lot of psychiatrists (definitely not all, many start to recognise that the concept indeed falls to the Sorites argument) still hold on to the believe in 'delusion' despite the existence of a continuum between delusion and sanity would be perceived as irrational and thus 'deluded' by a lot of exact scientists and philosophers.
It's a terrible example though. It has nothing to do with thought disorder. You're saying it's hard to tell what thought disorder is when someone can say something that makes perfect sense to someone who doesn't understand the actual meaning.
People of have thought disorders won't be able to follow trains of thought, or they'll start talking and then stop without finishing what they were saying. Or they'll have flights of ideas and talk and talk.
And like I said, a psychiatrist is not able to see the difference between this and coherent higher mathematics or something else fancy.
If the average person with no background in it sees analytical philosophers debate or what not it WILL appear to them as complete garbled unfinished sentences with no train of logic to be found to them.
I mean, the average person with a degree in philosophy will probably come across as saying nonsense to the average psychiatrist if he simply talks about life.. (much like your inexperience with the Sorites Parodox I outlined above)
philosophy is for dumb people and people who want a 4.0 so they can get into law school.
An argument which is as silly as it is completely irrelevant, true or not. It's still coherence which will be perceived as coherence by peers but as completely garbled nonsense and flights of ideas to a psychiatrist.
lol... I"m not even going to bother responding to any of this. You are just deducing this down to logical fallacies
Funny isn't it? Debating with someone mildly educated in a science where any theory gets thrown away at the first sign of logical fallacy?
semantics
No, precise definitions, I want precise and objective definitions.
skepticism
Wot? Scientific scepticism, philosophical scepticism, mereological scepticism? James-Randi-esque 'scepticism', all completely different things?
Again, clarify your terms.
If I told you 2+2=4 you would probably try to convince me it's actually 5 so
No, but I bet you a thousand suns that you have no idea why 2+2=4 and can't explain it either.
Note that there are logical systems where this isn't true or where addition cannot be proven to be commutative.
Philosophy has nothing to do with neuroscience
Philosophy of science has everything to do with neuroscience, and psychiatry has very little to do with neuroscience.
If psychiatry was based on neuroscience 95% of DSM-IV would be voided simply because they aren't conditions based on neurology, they are based on culture and perception.
Now, people who have been hit on the head and suddenly can't recognise moving objects any more, that's a real case of a neurological disorder, because there is an identifiable neurological area that is damaged in that point which is the same every time.
From what I'm getting from the article, it says that the cannaboids found in cannabis slow down or even push into remission the development of tumors, both benign and cancerous, in certain parts of the body. The cannaboids accomplish this by killing cancerous cells and inhibiting blood vessel development . So essentially, the study says that some things found in marijuana can have positive effects on people who already have cancer, so I think that US laws regarding medical marijuana are completely right here. However, this study is also performed on mice, and not people, so the findings may not carry over to the human body. This study also ignores the carcinogens found in regular marijuana, which could for all we know cancel out these effects.
So overall: Some parts of cannabis can help deal with cancer and tumors. People with cancer can get medical marijuana cards. The government seems to be getting it right.
If I give you a spiked drink and put you there, you wouldn't even realize you woke up. There is literally NO stimulus, it's salt water at your own body temperature and your own body density, no sound, no touch, no vision, nothing.
A perfect salt bath gives completely sensory deprivation.
You're wrong. I really don't know what else to say. If you orally took DMT with an MAOI you would still trip your ass off.
Again, do you know what a perfect salt bath is?
I'm talking about a hypothetical method that would deprive you of any and all sensory stimulus, I'm talking about perfect theoretical sensory deprivation, no neuron is firing in the perfect situation, you have no thoughts, no sensations.
A delusion is when someone believes something is fact, when it's false. There are all kinds of delusions.
Define false, define true, when is something false? If I believe HuK is going to win MLG but he's not going to? Was that then deluded? 40% of this forum is deluded if HuK doesn't turn out to win it?
Do you believe the earth is a sphere, because that's a delusion, it's not, it's actually more of an ovoid shape?
Thinking you can fly... Thinking your god... thinking someone is in love with you... thinking eating dog food will make you live longer
Define 'god', define 'being in love', these are all things which are vague, there are several gradations of 'love', people disagree about when people are 'in love', people wonder about themselves if they are in 'in love' or not, these are subjective and vague terms, and don't get me started on 'god'. Surely you have to see that in order to perform healthy science such terms have to be defined rigorously?
Also, again, the grey area, where does the line lie. There are some people who have beliefs which are a bit on the edge. Like ehhh, a really good player in Masters who thinks he can become a pro, I mean, is this deluded or not? This is the vague part. Of course we can recognise that anyone in Gold is deluded, but this is a grey area on the edge, maybe he's deluded, maybe he isn't..?
the list goes on, it's hard to draw the line. Obviously you can fake delusions, which is the only real reason you are questioning the diagnosis of a delusion anyways.
No, I'm questioning it because of the Sorites argument which holds that if a continuum exists between two points than they cannot be binary distinct.
Which is by the way something that exact sciences use all the time. If some guy A has a cool physical theory which supposes a duality of two groups of whatevers and some other dudes says 'But wait, I can demonstrate the existence of a continuum between an element of group A and one of group B.', then basically the theory is falsified due to being internally contradicting.
So basically, the fact that a lot of psychiatrists (definitely not all, many start to recognise that the concept indeed falls to the Sorites argument) still hold on to the believe in 'delusion' despite the existence of a continuum between delusion and sanity would be perceived as irrational and thus 'deluded' by a lot of exact scientists and philosophers.
It's a terrible example though. It has nothing to do with thought disorder. You're saying it's hard to tell what thought disorder is when someone can say something that makes perfect sense to someone who doesn't understand the actual meaning.
People of have thought disorders won't be able to follow trains of thought, or they'll start talking and then stop without finishing what they were saying. Or they'll have flights of ideas and talk and talk.
And like I said, a psychiatrist is not able to see the difference between this and coherent higher mathematics or something else fancy.
If the average person with no background in it sees analytical philosophers debate or what not it WILL appear to them as complete garbled unfinished sentences with no train of logic to be found to them.
I mean, the average person with a degree in philosophy will probably come across as saying nonsense to the average psychiatrist if he simply talks about life.. (much like your inexperience with the Sorites Parodox I outlined above)
philosophy is for dumb people and people who want a 4.0 so they can get into law school.
An argument which is as silly as it is completely irrelevant, true or not. It's still coherence which will be perceived as coherence by peers but as completely garbled nonsense and flights of ideas to a psychiatrist.
lol... I"m not even going to bother responding to any of this. You are just deducing this down to logical fallacies
Funny isn't it? Debating with someone mildly educated in a science where any theory gets thrown away at the first sign of logical fallacy?
Philosophy of science has everything to do with neuroscience, and psychiatry has very little to do with neuroscience.
If psychiatry was based on neuroscience 95% of DSM-IV would be voided simply because they aren't conditions based on neurology, they are based on culture and perception.
Now, people who have been hit on the head and suddenly can't recognise moving objects any more, that's a real case of a neurological disorder, because there is an identifiable neurological area that is damaged in that point which is the same every time.
Stop this already... It's offtopic enough and you've already made your point: anything is possible and can be argued. Point two: Arguing with you is senseless and idiotic, since this argument is leading nowhere.
Legalization Persons over the age of 21 may possess up to one ounce of marijuana for personal consumption. May use cannabis in a non-public place such as a residence or a public establishment licensed for on site marijuana consumption. May grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet for personal use.
Local taxes and fees Allows the collection of taxes specifically to allow local governments to raise revenue or to offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation.
And requiring licenses and etc to sell, basically the same rules as booze with the exception you can grow your plant.
it was voted 54% no, 46% yes.
It was literally that close to passing. Such is the times we live in.
ps,
You do realize weed dealers are the reason it didn't pass right?
Not really.... It didn't pass because many people in favor of the law are to lazy to go out and vote on it.
The majority of California does want marijuana legalized, and I think the votes will reflect that in a couple of years.
You know, people who want pot to stay Illegal, I'd venture most of you are mostly doing so because you hate the kind of person who really likes to smoke (stoners etc), and you kind of resent that lifestyle, and you hate the people who are like "SMOKING A BLUNT SOLVES ALL YOUR PROBLEMS".
So look at it this way. The reason why these people even exist is because smoking is illegal. You don't see people taking pride in the fact that there raging alcoholics or smoking three packs a days, because smoking and drinking aren't really acts of rebellion anymore, so they aren't socially vindicating, and pot is super accessible. You legalize pot, and I'd stoner culture would probably be less prevalent, not more. Though of course, more people would probably do it, they'd probably do it more casually and it wouldn't really have a "culture" anymore.
This does make me skeptical. I have smoked marijuana a few times and I fully support the legalization of it, but I cannot help but wonder what other side effects are missing. People thought cigarettes were not perfectly harmless, but it took 200 years to connect cigarettes with lung cancer. and I hope to God that we are not repeating history when talking about a new type of drug
Bizarre how so many people here seem to be anti tobacco yet pro marijuana?? Hello? they both cause lung cancer?? Pot actually is more likely to cause lung cancer due to holding the smoke in the lungs for longer than cigarettes.
If you want to get your dose of these 'beneficial' ingredients in pot then have it in liquid solution or baked in cookies , don't kid yourself into thinking smoking it is any safer for you than tobacco.
On April 03 2011 14:33 Shiragaku wrote: People thought cigarettes were not perfectly harmless, but it took 200 years to connect cigarettes with lung cancer. and I hope to God that we are not repeating history when talking about a new type of drug
On April 03 2011 14:33 Shiragaku wrote: People thought cigarettes were not perfectly harmless, but it took 200 years to connect cigarettes with lung cancer. and I hope to God that we are not repeating history when talking about a new type of drug
Haha you really think they didn't know that...
Absolutely. When looking back at bloodletting, all of us wonder how the hell we could be that stupid. Similar case with cigs.
On April 03 2011 09:05 Nizaris wrote: MJ is illegal because powerful lobbies want it to be. Paper, textile and petrol industry lobby would all lose allot of money if it was fully legalized. That's why it got outlawed in the first place. Did you know that before WW2 hemp was the 2nd cash crop in the US?
This is true. Did anyone here ever hear about the Ford car made out of hemp? Imagine how much fuel you would save with this lighter material.
On April 03 2011 12:56 sikyon wrote: Why are people so eager for drugs to be legalized? I often see arguments that they are no more harmful than alcohol or smoking, but frankly I don't think those are exactly desirable social elements anyways.
The problem is why are some legal and some illegal? People want the drugs they like legalized because they don't want to have to get arrested/ripped off/or worse, with legalization the government can control it as they do with alcohol/tobacco.
The reason I oppose it is that we already have certain drugs legal, and they are legal mainly due to the failure in banning them (see the Prohibition). I personally think that most of them are vastly negative to society, including alcohol and tobacco. Is there a good reason for alcohol being legal and marijuana not? Not really, but that's the choice that the government made, and the choice that we have to abide by in order to be part of the society. If the government suddenly declared that wearing yellow is a crime, it'd be a stupid, pointless law - it would receive a lot of hatred and annoy a lot of people - but it isn't such a great hassle to myself to avoid breaking the law. The same is true of marijuana - it's not like it'll kill people to avoid it and use legal drugs instead.
Basically, it has always struck me as odd that despite having perfectly legal methods of sensory alteration, people insist on seeking out the illegal ones.
Basically, it has always struck me as odd that despite having perfectly legal methods of sensory alteration, people insist on seeking out the illegal ones.
But it doesn't strike you odd that people don't want to pump themselves full of chemicals with side effects worse than the problem they're seeking treatment for in the first place?
Find one case of someone dying due to use of cannabis. I'd take my chances in being the first one if it meant I could cure or treat an illness with something that grows out of the ground instead of something that was brewed up in a laboratory by someone wearing a white lab coat.
This thread wasn't supposed to be on legal vs illegal or recreation vs medicinal. Maybe there are people you know that this information could help. I know it's hard to believe but there are genuinely good people out there that only want to help others.
A somewhat long video of real people claiming it helped them overcome more illnesses than cancer. I grew up a couple hours from these people, they're real people and the stories are real.
Silmakuoppaanikinko, obviously you enjoy argument for arguments sake. No one ever said psychiatry is a precise science, but it does strive to be as scientific as possible in a field where many things cannot be quantitatively measured. The entire point of DSM-IV and other similar classification systems are so that psychiatrist A can talk to psychiatrist B and, as much as possible, objectively construct a picture of what patient X is like. That is why it attempts to define, as precisely as possible, what terms such as 'delusion' and 'thought disorder' mean. It is an imprecise tool, to be used in conjunction with other things, in order to attempt to improve some one's quality of life. So while you can argue semantics and show that the definition of a delusion is imprecise because you could say that some people are "deluded" for having a heightened sense of self importance, thus the definition of "delusion" no longer has any relevance is pointless because psychiatry isn't concerned with treating "delusion", it is about trying to improve quality of life for a select group of people severely impaired by their mental state.
One of the major factors a psychiatrist considers when deciding whether to diagnose some one with a mental illness is to qualify whether, as a result of their cognitions and behaiviors, this person's mental condition is detrimental to their own life, eg. they cannot maintain a job, their relationships are breaking down, they are at risk of harming themselves or other people, etc. Thus, the point of such systems is to help guide a psychiatrist into formulating a diagnosis so that they may be able to offer treatment to patient X to improve their quality of life. Psychiatry isn't neuroscience, it doesn't seek to come up with chemical explanations to explain why the things observed are occurring. Of course, the two are intimately related, and every psychiatrist has a grounding in neuroscience as well, but there is obviously a distinct difference between the two fields.
To argue that there is no strict measurable instrument with which to classify what a "delusion" is, or a "thought disorder" or any other inherent bias you have against the field of psychiatry, and to then use that as a basis to discredit this entire branch of medicine which has shown to be beneficial to countless people's lives, is illogical, and I would argue, irresponsible. To use it as a reason to justify that marijuana is 100% harmless and does not cause in some cases and in some people a long-term impairment in their brains' ability to function, when this has in fact been statistically measured, is ridiculous.
Basically, it has always struck me as odd that despite having perfectly legal methods of sensory alteration, people insist on seeking out the illegal ones.
But it doesn't strike you odd that people don't want to pump themselves full of chemicals with side effects worse than the problem they're seeking treatment for in the first place?
Find one case of someone dying due to use of cannabis. I'd take my chances in being the first one if it meant I could cure or treat an illness with something that grows out of the ground instead of something that was brewed up in a laboratory by someone wearing a white lab coat.
This thread wasn't supposed to be on legal vs illegal or recreation vs medicinal. Maybe there are people you know that this information could help. I know it's hard to believe but there are genuinely good people out there that only want to help others.
A somewhat long video of real people claiming it helped them overcome more illnesses than cancer. I grew up a couple hours from these people, they're real people and the stories are real.
I did a quick google on it, and people have died due to marijuana. It isn't very common, even when comparing it on a percentage basis. I don't agree that people in lab coats mixing up chemicals are a bad choice - these people are always subject to numerous regulations, and they have developed medicines that greatly benefit us. Just because it grows in the ground, doesn't mean it's going to be safe (numerous plants are even poisonous, and tobacco causes tooth decay).
There are really two main reasons that I am against marijuana (as a recreational drug. I have no complaints about people using it medicinally or for long-term pain management on a doctor's perscription):
1) I'm against it because I'm against all drugs, legal or illegal. If the drug is being used for recreational purposes, I find that it tends to be abused or used badly. For every 10, 100, or 1000 people who are able to control their usage of these drugs, there tends to be 1 who cannot. Some people are just not emotionally stable enough, or disciplined enough, to handle freedom to use it. Adding to this is the issue that drugs (and alcohol) are mind-altering in the short term. They inspire people to reckless/poorly considered acts, and this can cause problems when their actions interfere with others. I've acknowledged that alcohol must be in society to prevent rebellion and dissension; I have no wish to add more options for people to abuse. If I could, I'd make most forms of self-destruction illegal, be they tobacco, alcohol, or using a cell phone while driving.
2) I'm against it because people who argue for it tend to be people who already use it. I deeply oppose hypocrisy, and it rarely seems like people who are arguing for marijuana's legalization are free of it's influence themselves. If some law is argued for by people who will not directly benefit from it, I tend to lend it more credence, as I can assume they are arguing out of logic and not preference. (There is an example in the spoiler if you want to read it). + Show Spoiler +
Recently, in my home province of British Columbia, Canada, we had a new tax implemented called the HST. The way it works is that instead of having a provincial sales tax of 5% and a government sales tax of 7%, we would have a single tax of 12%. The reason it was opposed is that some goods and services which were previously exempt from one of the two smaller taxes were subjected to the full amount of the HST.
The reason I support it, as a taxpayer, is that I have had people who are informed about the issue explain the benefits to me, despite the taxes they must pay. When the government says it's the best thing, I don't believe them, because they benefit the most from it. When someone unrelated tells me it's the best thing, I agree.
You are right, I have never tried marijuana - and I probably won't (for the reasons I have stated above). I still don't think that we need it in our society when another option is available.
It's ridiculous that YOU a med student is going around here saying shit like "acute psychosis" and "delusions" from weed lol, please, please do not be my doctor if I ever need one. I use to smoke tons of weed for 4 years straight and never once have I "hallucinated" or had any psychosis or whatever term you want to define it as. The only place where I can see you having a point is "thought disorder (lol btw)". I had some thought disorder ( when your mind just wanders) which pretty much went away in a week (understandably) after quitting. and yes there is no way to measure any "delusions" or "psychosis", but i know from personal experience that everything youve been spewing out of that mouth makes it sound much worst than it is. any symptoms or side affects one might have are pretty much non factors from long term smoking of weed (unless we are talking like decades here then who knows..) even then I know people that have been smoking for more than that and are still fine.
I dont really see why people want weed to be legal, i remember being 13 and 14 running around stores with friends picking up bottles and shit, pretty much just doing it wrong and being stupid. Maybe its easier to say this in cali but weed is practically nothing here even if you dont have a card, you might get a fine if you're stupid enough to get pulled over with it on you or something. But my point is, why would you want your kids to have easy access to it? It certainly isn't anything kids should be doing because it makes *most* people lazy (some people actually do better on it) If you wanna smoke it you still can, and if you dont mind your kids smoking it dont you atleast want to introduce it to them the correct way yourself instead of running around with their friends or so?
In the end I think the laws are in place to protect the youth. The adults can do whatever they want
pot is mildly addictive, but not as addictive as cigs or alchohol. It passes through your system in several weeks. Aside from stimulating appetite, there isn't much of a side effect. Withdraw symptoms include irritability, agitation, disturbed sleep pattern. The effects of being "high" can vary from increased awareness of sensations, introspection, impaired memory, or in rare cases depression/anxiety. None of the mentioned effects are violent.
Driving while high is dangerous because of lengthened decision time and swerving in lane. Which probably translates in to bad response timing and rambo queens. Dont try to ladder while high.
That said, if you're worried about cannabis, you should be much more worried about alcohol.
That said, with regards to OP,
i'd be curious to know what the amount needed to meet a beneficial threshold is. AKA how much weed do you need to smoke in order to have some of those benefits. I'd place my bet on "A FUCK TON", so while i do encourage the research i suspect they will be trying to make a pill out of it and try to take away the making people high part, in order to make it more marketable.
No side effects, no registered deaths attributed to cannabis ever. Probably one of the safest drugs you could possibly use. There are millions of functional cannabis smokers in society. The idea that everyone who smokes it becomes some lazy teenager, is just totally ridiculous. Arguing cannabis is bad is like arguing the world is flat, it's nonsensical. If people want to smoke some cannabis in there spare time, who really cares tobacco is worse, so is alcohol and so is just about everything else you could possibly do. Walking up a steep hill is more dangerous.
On April 03 2011 07:26 bRuTaL!! wrote: What about schizophrenia? If its cancer your concerned about, eat "super" foods...
MJ can trigger schizophrenia if you use in conjunction with amphetamines and you're genetically predisposed to it. So if you have a history of schizophrenia in your family you should be careful.
And what super foods are you referring to, and where are the studies that offer support for their supposed anti-tumour effects? If you had cancer you'd should be exploring every possible treatment, including MJ.
On April 03 2011 12:36 a176 wrote: California's marijuana bill was perhaps the best written marijuana bill I've seen.
...
it was voted 54% no, 46% yes.
It was literally that close to passing. Such is the times we live in.
I hope you know that Obama vs McCain ended 53%-46% and was considered a landslide. An 8 point defeat is not "close" to passing.
(edit: those 8 points in the Prop 19 Vote were equal to approx 700,000 votes which is bigger than the entire population of Washington DC, Baltimore, Boston, or numerous other large cities)
To those arguing federal legalization of marijuana, there is close to 0% chance that it will happen in the next 25 years (that being a very conservative and generous number). America is way too socially conservative at this point to even begin considering legalizing marijuana on a federal level. Look at our Congress where ultimately nearly every decision is based on getting reelected.
Every super-liberal Democrat in the House working out of a safe district who steps up and votes in favor of it will have a huge target on their back. They will face against mobilization and fundraising on an unprecedented scale in their next election as conservative money starts flowing into the district from the outside. Even someone from leadership like Pelosi or CVH might risk their seats if they co-sponsored a bill like that. That doesn't even begin to consider the fact that any chance of higher office would be shattered (Senate for Reps, President for Senators, reelection for Presidents). Ultimately, the elected official would be martyring him or herself to a cause. Nobody is going to even dare (or waste time to) take a whip count on it for at least 20 years.
Assuming it reaches the Senate, there will be a line of 40+ senators trying to take the hero filibuster in order to combat the "drug problem in America" and look tough on crime. Since they have to act based on a larger and probably more moderate constituency, there is a miniscule chance that 60 senators will approve. Look at a list of the 100 senators right now and I can assure you that you won't hit 10 senators who would even consider it. Also, remember that more than a quarter of all senators are probably considering a presidential bid in the future and this will surely kill that chance, something that they're not willing to do.
In the miraculous chance that it actually makes it to the Oval, any president even remotely considering their legacy or reelection will auto-veto it. By the way, just to give some perspective, over the last 4 administrations, there has been a 7% success rate in overriding vetoes. Reelection will be impossible since this will spark another WillieHorton-like vicious attack. A lame duck president might be willing to sign it (I doubt he would anyways) but once again it would never get there.
I'm personally undecided regarding the issue and the morality behind it. However, I do think it is a monumental waste of time arguing its legalization. It won't happen for many many years, if ever. Also, all of the speculative numbers I provided were REALLY generous. Sorry if this sounded lecture-y but really there are better things to argue about than legalization of marijuana.
On April 03 2011 12:36 a176 wrote: California's marijuana bill was perhaps the best written marijuana bill I've seen.
...
it was voted 54% no, 46% yes.
It was literally that close to passing. Such is the times we live in.
I hope you know that Obama vs McCain ended 53%-46% and was considered a landslide. An 8 point defeat is not "close" to passing.
To those arguing federal legalization of marijuana, there is close to 0% chance that it will happen in the next 25 years (that being a very conservative and generous number). America is way too socially conservative at this point to even begin considering legalizing marijuana on a federal level. Look at our Congress where ultimately nearly every decision is based on getting reelected.
Every super-liberal Democrat in the House working out of a safe district who steps up and votes in favor of it will have a huge target on their back. They will face against mobilization and fundraising on an unprecedented scale in their next election as conservative money starts flowing into the district from the outside. Even someone from leadership like Pelosi or CVH might risk their seats if they co-sponsored a bill like that. That doesn't even begin to consider the fact that any chance of higher office would be shattered (Senate for Reps, President for Senators, reelection for Presidents). Ultimately, the elected official would be martyring him or herself to a cause. Nobody is going to even dare (or waste time to) take a whip count on it for at least 20 years.
Assuming it reaches the Senate, there will be a line of 40+ senators trying to take the hero filibuster in order to combat the "drug problem in America" and look tough on crime. Since they have to act based on a larger and probably more moderate constituency, there is a miniscule chance that 60 senators will approve. Look at a list of the 100 senators right now and I can assure you that you won't hit 10 senators who would even consider it. Also, remember that more than a quarter of all senators are probably considering a presidential bid in the future and this will surely kill that chance, something that they're not willing to do.
In the miraculous chance that it actually makes it to the Oval, any president even remotely considering their legacy or reelection will auto-veto it. By the way, just to give some perspective, over the last 4 administrations, there has been a 7% success rate in overriding vetoes. Reelection will be impossible since this will spark another WillieHorton-like vicious attack. A lame duck president might be willing to sign it (I doubt he would anyways) but once again it would never get there.
I'm personally undecided regarding the issue and the morality behind it. However, I do think it is a monumental waste of time arguing its legalization. It won't happen for many many years, if ever. Also, all of the speculative numbers I provided were REALLY generous. Sorry if this sounded lecture-y but really there are better things to argue about than legalization of marijuana.
You also have to consider that marijuana won't be legalized because pharmaceutical companies won't be able to profit from it because they can't patent plants. If there was some way the corporations of America could profit from it, it would be legalized already.
On April 03 2011 12:36 a176 wrote: California's marijuana bill was perhaps the best written marijuana bill I've seen.
...
it was voted 54% no, 46% yes.
It was literally that close to passing. Such is the times we live in.
I hope you know that Obama vs McCain ended 53%-46% and was considered a landslide. An 8 point defeat is not "close" to passing.
To those arguing federal legalization of marijuana, there is close to 0% chance that it will happen in the next 25 years (that being a very conservative and generous number). America is way too socially conservative at this point to even begin considering legalizing marijuana on a federal level. Look at our Congress where ultimately nearly every decision is based on getting reelected.
Every super-liberal Democrat in the House working out of a safe district who steps up and votes in favor of it will have a huge target on their back. They will face against mobilization and fundraising on an unprecedented scale in their next election as conservative money starts flowing into the district from the outside. Even someone from leadership like Pelosi or CVH might risk their seats if they co-sponsored a bill like that. That doesn't even begin to consider the fact that any chance of higher office would be shattered (Senate for Reps, President for Senators, reelection for Presidents). Ultimately, the elected official would be martyring him or herself to a cause. Nobody is going to even dare (or waste time to) take a whip count on it for at least 20 years.
Assuming it reaches the Senate, there will be a line of 40+ senators trying to take the hero filibuster in order to combat the "drug problem in America" and look tough on crime. Since they have to act based on a larger and probably more moderate constituency, there is a miniscule chance that 60 senators will approve. Look at a list of the 100 senators right now and I can assure you that you won't hit 10 senators who would even consider it. Also, remember that more than a quarter of all senators are probably considering a presidential bid in the future and this will surely kill that chance, something that they're not willing to do.
In the miraculous chance that it actually makes it to the Oval, any president even remotely considering their legacy or reelection will auto-veto it. By the way, just to give some perspective, over the last 4 administrations, there has been a 7% success rate in overriding vetoes. Reelection will be impossible since this will spark another WillieHorton-like vicious attack. A lame duck president might be willing to sign it (I doubt he would anyways) but once again it would never get there.
I'm personally undecided regarding the issue and the morality behind it. However, I do think it is a monumental waste of time arguing its legalization. It won't happen for many many years, if ever. Also, all of the speculative numbers I provided were REALLY generous. Sorry if this sounded lecture-y but really there are better things to argue about than legalization of marijuana.
You also have to consider that marijuana won't be legalized because pharmaceutical companies won't be able to profit from it because they can't patent plants. If there was some way the corporations of America could profit from it, it would be legalized already.
No, it won't. The reasons are listed above.
How are pharmaceutical companies going to push it? By offering money for campaigns. If you are even in a position to co-sponsor or even support a marijuana bill, you won't be needing money for reelection and pandering to the pharmaceuticals is a waste of your time. On the other hand, all the money in the world won't win you a campaign in 99% of districts if your opponent is attacking your voting record for being pro-marijuana.
The U.S. Federal Government isn't a big conspiracy with strings being pulled by companies. It comes down to elections and this is one subject where pharmaceuticals will have little to no pull.
On April 03 2011 16:09 craz3d wrote: You also have to consider that marijuana won't be legalized because pharmaceutical companies won't be able to profit from it because they can't patent plants. If there was some way the corporations of America could profit from it, it would be legalized already.
Anyone can grow there own cannabis, thats almost communism. Can't have that.
On April 03 2011 16:09 craz3d wrote: You also have to consider that marijuana won't be legalized because pharmaceutical companies won't be able to profit from it because they can't patent plants. If there was some way the corporations of America could profit from it, it would be legalized already.
They can and have patented plants. All they have to do is genetically modify them first. It's been done with Soy beans already. Just google Monsanto.
On April 03 2011 15:51 PhiGgoT wrote: It's ridiculous that YOU a med student is going around here saying shit like "acute psychosis" and "delusions" from weed lol, please, please do not be my doctor if I ever need one. I use to smoke tons of weed for 4 years straight and never once have I "hallucinated" or had any psychosis or whatever term you want to define it as. The only place where I can see you having a point is "thought disorder (lol btw)". I had some thought disorder ( when your mind just wanders) which pretty much went away in a week (understandably) after quitting. and yes there is no way to measure any "delusions" or "psychosis", but i know from personal experience that everything youve been spewing out of that mouth makes it sound much worst than it is. any symptoms or side affects one might have are pretty much non factors from long term smoking of weed (unless we are talking like decades here then who knows..) even then I know people that have been smoking for more than that and are still fine.
I dont really see why people want weed to be legal, i remember being 13 and 14 running around stores with friends picking up bottles and shit, pretty much just doing it wrong and being stupid. Maybe its easier to say this in cali but weed is practically nothing here even if you dont have a card, you might get a fine if you're stupid enough to get pulled over with it on you or something. But my point is, why would you want your kids to have easy access to it? It certainly isn't anything kids should be doing because it makes *most* people lazy (some people actually do better on it) If you wanna smoke it you still can, and if you dont mind your kids smoking it dont you atleast want to introduce it to them the correct way yourself instead of running around with their friends or so?
In the end I think the laws are in place to protect the youth. The adults can do whatever they want
You really don't have a clue how easy it is to get cannabis or any illegal drug do you? As we speak i could make 1 call and get absolutely anything delivered within 30 minutes all because i know a number. I could for instance give these numbers to a couple teenagers tell them my name and they would now be able to get anything they want as long as they have money, as you see unlike regulated drugs dealers don't give a shit how old you are.
On April 03 2011 15:51 PhiGgoT wrote: It's ridiculous that YOU a med student is going around here saying shit like "acute psychosis" and "delusions" from weed lol, please, please do not be my doctor if I ever need one. I use to smoke tons of weed for 4 years straight and never once have I "hallucinated" or had any psychosis or whatever term you want to define it as. The only place where I can see you having a point is "thought disorder (lol btw)". I had some thought disorder ( when your mind just wanders) which pretty much went away in a week (understandably) after quitting. and yes there is no way to measure any "delusions" or "psychosis", but i know from personal experience that everything youve been spewing out of that mouth makes it sound much worst than it is. any symptoms or side affects one might have are pretty much non factors from long term smoking of weed (unless we are talking like decades here then who knows..) even then I know people that have been smoking for more than that and are still fine.
I dont really see why people want weed to be legal, i remember being 13 and 14 running around stores with friends picking up bottles and shit, pretty much just doing it wrong and being stupid. Maybe its easier to say this in cali but weed is practically nothing here even if you dont have a card, you might get a fine if you're stupid enough to get pulled over with it on you or something. But my point is, why would you want your kids to have easy access to it? It certainly isn't anything kids should be doing because it makes *most* people lazy (some people actually do better on it) If you wanna smoke it you still can, and if you dont mind your kids smoking it dont you atleast want to introduce it to them the correct way yourself instead of running around with their friends or so?
In the end I think the laws are in place to protect the youth. The adults can do whatever they want
It's because weed would be a lot harder to get for kids if it were legal. Instead of some shady dealer selling kids weed cause he doesn't care, you'd have stores refusing sales to minors as well as high fines/jail time for people supplying minors with mj
8 Pages of people writeing "someone somewhere did something that PROVES..." but noone links sources.... so can´t realy see how your so called "prooff is something more then a joke. Personally, never done drugs, never wanted them either. I drinks about 4-5 beers a year. but i realy do believe its your life and as long as they allow cigarettes i dont feel they should ban other kinda addictive stuff. So i hope that cigarettes become illegal sone..
On April 03 2011 15:51 PhiGgoT wrote: It's ridiculous that YOU a med student is going around here saying shit like "acute psychosis" and "delusions" from weed lol, please, please do not be my doctor if I ever need one. I use to smoke tons of weed for 4 years straight and never once have I "hallucinated" or had any psychosis or whatever term you want to define it as. The only place where I can see you having a point is "thought disorder (lol btw)". I had some thought disorder ( when your mind just wanders) which pretty much went away in a week (understandably) after quitting. and yes there is no way to measure any "delusions" or "psychosis", but i know from personal experience that everything youve been spewing out of that mouth makes it sound much worst than it is. any symptoms or side affects one might have are pretty much non factors from long term smoking of weed (unless we are talking like decades here then who knows..) even then I know people that have been smoking for more than that and are still fine.
I dont really see why people want weed to be legal, i remember being 13 and 14 running around stores with friends picking up bottles and shit, pretty much just doing it wrong and being stupid. Maybe its easier to say this in cali but weed is practically nothing here even if you dont have a card, you might get a fine if you're stupid enough to get pulled over with it on you or something. But my point is, why would you want your kids to have easy access to it? It certainly isn't anything kids should be doing because it makes *most* people lazy (some people actually do better on it) If you wanna smoke it you still can, and if you dont mind your kids smoking it dont you atleast want to introduce it to them the correct way yourself instead of running around with their friends or so?
In the end I think the laws are in place to protect the youth. The adults can do whatever they want
Lol? I don't care what you smoke or how often you smoke it. If you come to me complaining of sickness, I'll treat you. A doctor's job is to treat illness and advise you on how to live your life, not enforce it. Key thing is, the patients come to us. We don't go to them. Do what ever you want with your life, I honestly don't care.
edit: And just because you personally haven't hallucinated or had delusions whilst smoking weed, it means it doesn't happen? LOL! I know plenty of people who have smoked weed and reported these symptoms. I've smoked myself and had it happen, on multiple occasions. Once I was with my friends, and we were walking through the park and I thought some one was chasing us. I also thought parked cars were moving and leaving a slow-motion time trail of their previous movements. I was experiencing an episode of acute drug-induced psychosis. I also have many other friends who smoke weed all the time and are hardly affected by it. It does different things to different people. If you don't like the word "psychosis", fine, I don't care. If you think "psychosis" means murdering babies and being a bad, evil person, that's your fault for not understanding what the word means.
On April 03 2011 07:27 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote: that MJ has been linked to triggering a psychosis or paranoid episodes in people who are sensitive for it, that's also hard to deny.
marijuana in high doses does cause acute psychosis along with numerous other drugs
The % of getting dementia later in life from marijuana has proven in studies to be very very low, like 1-2% higher then a person who never smoked pot, might be just a coincidence since the % is so small.
In psychiatric studies, I think that anything below 5% is an allowed statistic deviation(dunno how it's called in english. it's a deviation that's well within a statistic boundary, like saying "50 years, give or take five years" hope that makes more sense now), meaning it's pretty much there just to say "yeah, so we proved that there are no ill effects, but people still don't believe us, so we're putting this here to make them think that they're right."
On April 03 2011 15:51 PhiGgoT wrote: It's ridiculous that YOU a med student is going around here saying shit like "acute psychosis" and "delusions" from weed lol, please, please do not be my doctor if I ever need one. I use to smoke tons of weed for 4 years straight and never once have I "hallucinated" or had any psychosis or whatever term you want to define it as.
I know somebody who smoked two packs a day and didn't get lung cancer. Anecdotes are evidence guys.
On April 03 2011 08:08 Kaonis wrote: To the stoners: Do you -really- want to see marijuana legalized? Think about it: once it is, the government will have to regulate it. And tax it. And a company will come along to distribute it. And they'll decide how much they charge for it. Which will be a lot. And anyone caught with their own will be considered a thief.
I'd just prefer it to be decriminalized, not "legalized".
On April 03 2011 07:22 zalz wrote: Cannabis could cure everything known to man and people would still not want to see it legalized.
This report once agains shows that the stuff isn't just harmless, it's even beneficial. The stigma however is just too great, an entire generation has been brought up on the notion that weed makes you want to kill your family.
Atleast it's semi-legal in my country, that still leaves it up in the air and very easy to ban. I don't even use the stuff and i still want to see police do real police work rather then going after people that smoke weed whilst child-porn cases are left on the shelves due to understaffing.
You're completely out of your mind if you think child-porn cases are under-enforced. In the grand scheme of societal harm, they are likely the most disproportionately high-priority crimes in any system of law. Think of all the meth labs, weed plantations, work camps and slave labor in the world and then stop to think about the people that put together child porn to make money. Oh wait, you can't? That's right, nobody makes money from producing child porn and no actual children are really at risk as we speak. It's illegal and stigmatized so much that people don't wanna touch or be associated with it so it's a problem that will never grow.
Domestic abuse and sexual predators are a real problem make no mistake about that but there is no child porn industry in the same sense as drugs constitute an industry. Largely an imaginary evil.
For your information, a worldwide childporn ring has just been uncovered. Key people got nabbed all over the world. Not quite like the depraved uncle taking some nasty pictures. More like a syndicate. Also not quite imaginary.
At the very least, this leaves the Feds in a tough spot with marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic/drug.
Best unintentional pun I've read all day!
From the personal experience of a close relative who's life was drastically improved by the benefits of medicinal marijuana; people are far too hasty to dismiss it and over emphasize it's detrimental effects. Especially when you consider it alongside other legal substances such as nicotine and alcohol.
Cannot stand people who are completely against drugs when never actually tried them themselves, and I mean ACTUALLY tried them. More than once. For different reasons, in different situations, in different quantities.
I smoked tonnes of weed for years. It made be better at a lot of things (including coping with things emotionally and more importantly, obtaining a rational view of the world we live in), and to say 'worse at others' is a personal cop-out. Life throws things at you whether you are high or not, and if you are high you can normally take it and deal with it.
People need to realise that a person's relationship with marijuana is a completely symbiotic one. Marijuana neither adds or subtracts from a person's intelligence, mentality or persona. It simply gets them high. I am talking here about actual marijuana use, not a sixteen year old smoking a joint at a party and getting completely paralysed by laughter. To real smokers, a bong has a similar affect to a cigarette. It's not huge, it's calming and subtle, even sharpens focus and increases concentration.
The only thing is, it costs too much money. The people posting here who are anti-marijuana have the same mindset as 75-year-old Christian ladies.
Wait, no, there are probably 75-year-old Christian ladies who have the common sense to know that anyone can do whatever the hell they want. Especially when it's something as harmless as marijuana.
On April 03 2011 12:56 sikyon wrote: Why are people so eager for drugs to be legalized?
Because it's our right.
Says who? Rights are debatable things. Saying you have a right to something is merely stating your personal opinion unless it is some sort of practical legal discussion.
What the hell is your point? Are you trying to imply with a straight face that the right to control your own body is debatable? Are you THAT gung-ho about imposing your own morals onto us? Please spare me; the government does it enough to me already.
Most governmental decisions about drugs are not based on science, but based on winning votes from the majority of people who would take offence at the legalisation of something that they perceive as immoral. Take a look at the Professor David Nutt debacle that occurred here in the UK.
On April 03 2011 16:01 redtooth wrote: To those arguing federal legalization of marijuana, there is close to 0% chance that it will happen in the next 25 years (that being a very conservative and generous number). America is way too socially conservative at this point to even begin considering legalizing marijuana on a federal level. Look at our Congress where ultimately nearly every decision is based on getting reelected.
I'm convinced that Supreme Court is one of the very few things that we got correct.
On April 03 2011 13:38 UisTehSux wrote: I just don't think that we need another substance legalized that, if used irresponsibly, lessens an individuals potential. If everyone was smart enough to maintain control and not use in excesses, than I believe it would be legalized and would not have a problem with it. But when ever my peers talk about legalization of weed, they all fantasize about smoking their brains out and not doing anything for weeks. Aka : Being worthless.
USA, 1933 I just don't think that we need another substance legalized that, if used irresponsibly, lessens an individuals potential. If everyone was smart enough to maintain control and not use in excesses, than I believe it would be legalized and would not have a problem with it. But when ever my peers talk about legalization of alcohol, they all fantasize about drinking their brains out and not doing anything for weeks. Aka : Being worthless
You guys do realize that this is one study and it may be right or wrong and it is on freaken mice right? I really don't think there will be anything that doesn't have a slight show in doing anything based on one study, that's how fragile it is. People need to redo tests many many times before they can even come to final conclusion and assuming based on this is just irrelevant. I for one do not do marijuana since I'm a law abiding citizen and I am huge on anti drugs. I am over 21 yet I have yet to drink alcohol or smoke any cigarettes or do any other freaken drugs. So I will take that 2% chance of not getting psychosis thank you very much.
On April 03 2011 15:30 LilClinkin wrote: Silmakuoppaanikinko, obviously you enjoy argument for arguments sake. No one ever said psychiatry is a precise science
Quite true, quite true, however I give it less credit than most people give it. My stance is:
A: It's a pseudo-science. B: If it's 'useful' or not is inconclusive as far as I go. Some pseudo-sciences like for instance acupuncture are still 'useful' in that it has some beneficial effects, though how this works is currently unknown. I have not yet made my mind up if psychiatry is beneficial, or even harmful to society. But in any case it's not remotely in any way even resembling a scientific approach.
but it does strive to be as scientific as possible in a field where many things cannot be quantitatively measured.
Define 'as scientific as possible'.
'as scientific as possible' to me is just scrapping any diagnosis and category as soon as you encounter a Sorites paradox, something as basic as that I expect from any science. When your theory/hypothesis encounters a contradiction like that, it's falsified in any science.
The entire point of DSM-IV and other similar classification systems are so that psychiatrist A can talk to psychiatrist B and, as much as possible, objectively construct a picture of what patient X is like.
May be, but those classifications are for a large part, cultural in nature, not scientific. Culture and politics best be kicked a thousand miles away from science. That some things are considered illnesses and others not is largely how people culturally look at them. (As a grand example homosexuality through history, or even drapetomania).
Come on, psychiatry used to make such claim as that autism could only affect white children half a century back and it continually revises its claims, can you honestly with confidence say that all the stuff it says today is not more rooted in culture than science? As an example, there's currently some debate going on within the APA if paedophilia isn't the same thing as homosexuality and not an illness but an 'orientation' (itself both words without scientific substance and purely politically motivated)
That is why it attempts to define, as precisely as possible, what terms such as 'delusion' and 'thought disorder' mean.
Precisely as possible eh?
The point is that it desperately tries to 'define' without considering the issue whether or not it exists.
It's naïve realism. Could you first perhaps consider and stop to see if it exists? Many things your senses or gut feeling tell you exist in actuality don't from scientific perspective.
Like I said before, you cannot impose a dualism on a continuum. In an actual science, people would have concluded 'Well, because there is a continuum between delusion and sanity, they don't exist as separate categories, they are the same.', even biologists will readily admit 'Well, yes, 'species', that's effectively a simplification of the real thing to keep things ordered, as there is a continuum between all species, it doesn't really exist like that.'
It is an imprecise tool, to be used in conjunction with other things, in order to attempt to improve some one's quality of life.
Exactly!, it's useful, perhaps, but it's not science.
When I make my bread in the morning, that's useful, but it's not science.
Of course, there are some indications that in a lot of cases psychiatry causes more harm than good.
I also personally feel psychiatry stems from the human need and desire to classify, even if such classifications cannot be meaningfully done. It's human nature to try to classify everything and anything, it's what a human mind seems to need to keep order.
So while you can argue semantics and show that the definition of a delusion is imprecise because you could say that some people are "deluded" for having a heightened sense of self importance, thus the definition of "delusion" no longer has any relevance is pointless because psychiatry isn't concerned with treating "delusion", it is about trying to improve quality of life for a select group of people severely impaired by their mental state.
Could be, like I said, I am open to the possibility that, albeit not a science, psychiatry is still useful.
However, this debate started because someone claimed you could get a psychosis from MJ and I simply pointed out 'How can you scientifically test that if there is no hard, scientific measure of a psychosis except some subjective interpretation by a professional which can't be done in a blind manner because you can see of people if they are high?'
That's how this started, and in this case it's very much relevant if such things are scientific, or merely useful.
One of the major factors a psychiatrist considers when deciding whether to diagnose some one with a mental illness is to qualify whether, as a result of their cognitions and behaiviors, this person's mental condition is detrimental to their own life, eg. they cannot maintain a job, their relationships are breaking down, they are at risk of harming themselves or other people, etc.
In theory, yes, in practice, it also comes down a lot to 'is this person "normal"?'
A lot of people who basically have no troubles with their 'abnormalities' are diagnosed with stuff and treated for it in the end simply because it's not 'normal', especially kids with parents who are troubled that their kids aren't normal. I've had to help some kids with troubles of whom I found out quite soon that they didn't consider them troubles themselves and lived happily with them, it just wasn't 'normal'.
Indeed, on the other side of the table, my last psychiatrist pretty much agreed with the whole story I laid out here and dismissed me because she concluded that the fact that I live in social isolation doesn't hamper me in my job and my life, more the reverse and she didn't agree with other psychiatrists who felt that I should open my windows and get out more.
Thus, the point of such systems is to help guide a psychiatrist into formulating a diagnosis so that they may be able to offer treatment to patient X to improve their quality of life. Psychiatry isn't neuroscience, it doesn't seek to come up with chemical explanations to explain why the things observed are occurring. Of course, the two are intimately related, and every psychiatrist has a grounding in neuroscience as well, but there is obviously a distinct difference between the two fields.
Yes, I agree that this is the goal its set out to do and your view on its relation to neuroscience. It's also why I don't believe in many psychiatrist categories of course because they have no hard neurological component.
But like I said, in practice, it often comes to the point where people are being helped with problems they don't perceive as problems and have no troubles with but are simply forced to be 'normal'.
The most striking thing I ever saw was a kid being forced to like deserts when he didn't, the kid had autism or something, and he didn't like desert (I'm not sure the two are even related, a lot of kids don't like sweets in the end.) but normal kids like deserts eh? So he was forced to eat it, was in a clinic for young children, really strange...
To argue that there is no strict measurable instrument with which to classify what a "delusion" is, or a "thought disorder" or any other inherent bias you have against the field of psychiatry, and to then use that as a basis to discredit this entire branch of medicine which has shown to be beneficial to countless people's lives, is illogical, and I would argue, irresponsible.
I never said it wasn't beneficial, my original point was that there cannot be a scientific research done most likely about MJ causing psychosis as there is no hard objective scientific test for 'psychosis' beyond psychiatric evaluation which can't be done blindly as you can see from people if they are high.
To use it as a reason to justify that marijuana is 100% harmless and does not cause in some cases and in some people a long-term impairment in their brains' ability to function, when this has in fact been statistically measured, is ridiculous.
I never said it was harmless, got a big coffee addiction here and I'd say that even that is harmful.
All drugs have their harms and risks.
This is again a false dilemma that a lot of people work themselves in, just because I say that other things are just as harmless or more harmless doesn't mean I don't think it's harmless.
Like I said in my first post, I don't use, drink, or smoke, my hardest drugs are coffee, chocolate, sugar, and sex.
ˇWhy is the premise of justification of punishment of victimless crimes so rarely discussed? I think that is the far bigger question, on the topic. The technicals of what harm is and how harm is administered in the plants is assumes the former question already be answered, yet it is a very dubious premise indeed, given that it rejects the welfarist conclusions of accepting the concept of action
there are no go or bad drugs. only good or bad drug users.
nobody has ever died from cannabis use. there are no fact to justify the negative perception behind it. its all propoganda, hence the term, marijuana, which is mexican. The two major players in keeping it illegal were the oil companies and lumber companies. Now everythings going digital...hey, we're not dependent on paper like we used to be. Must suck to be in the lumber industry in the digital age. And the fact that they put the word "Medical" in front of the word marijauan now, somehow, makes it ok. States are SO damn broke they're trying to sell drugs WTF?!?!?! Cali hit it big, now everyone else wants a piece. I would know. I go to all the rallies, go to the legislative meetings, and i'm a medial patient myself. For those that are looking planning on a college education and do smoke, be careful. It is still federally illegal, and if you DO get arrested and charged, you will NEVER get a student loan. You can rape and murder someone though, the government will still hook you up.
the most dangerous drugs and 3rd leading cause of death in the US are prescribe by your doctor. Remember people, doctors and medial clinics are in debt too. And they also get the drugs from drug dealers. Except these guys have white jackets and have no consequence for their actions. Doctors need to push that stuff and pay off their bank loans. Sad how much influence business has in the world, yet people don't understand that business' are trying to remove the human element from it. Business is only math, but they use your emotion to get you to keep paying them. Only function of ANY business is to TAKE MONEY FROM YOU.
Here's some common sense. In America, most people believe that capitalsm is great. "Lets get rich!!!" Yet the banks give out "Strong-arm loans". does anyone know what strong armed robbery is? either way.. "ISM" is a beliefe system. "Captalize" means to take advantage of.
hmmm....the belief to take advantage of? yeah...Banks made 34 billion in overdraft fees last year from low income neighborhoods. "i know you don't have money, and you can't pay it back, but here's a loan." think about it. its some scandalous shit. They're putting everyone is SO much debt that they can't pay it back, and one day, they'll cut off the supply and everyone will have to work for free. People in the streets could teach these guys something because they have a more advanced criminal mind. These business men are actually rookies when it comes to this scandalous crap. The problem is most people blindly believe the government and whatever they tell them, yet 70% of Americans stated that they feel the US is corrupt.
but don't get me started on how poor the american education system is. 1 in 5 drop out. still leaves room for those that fail. people that don't learn HOW to use their brains, don't just "get it" when they get older.
For those still in high school, i'm sure you all know that all politician are liars. well, when you get older, somehow your thought process gets put in a box they created and you believe everything they say. its pretty sad. these guys have people destroying each other. I'm glad that admins here are conscience to inconsideration and issue warnings and temporary bans. I've had my fair share already and i try not to be so judgmental and call half these idiots idiots anymore. Sorry for the rant... One thing i will say, if you take nothing from what i typed. QUESTION EVERYTHING.
In the last 100 years people have not advanced at all, while business and technology has moved forward more than 10 fold. They like to keep us dumb so we keep thinking we need them.
People used to want to be millionaiers. Now there are billionaires. Think about that for a week and maybe people will start to realize that our concept of the value of money is only x% of what it actually is. <-math problem for anyone
$1 to $1,000,000 x 999 . move the decimal over and you the the actual pathetic percentage of what money is worth today.
On April 03 2011 07:22 zalz wrote: Cannabis could cure everything known to man and people would still not want to see it legalized.
This report once agains shows that the stuff isn't just harmless, it's even beneficial. The stigma however is just too great, an entire generation has been brought up on the notion that weed makes you want to kill your family.
Atleast it's semi-legal in my country, that still leaves it up in the air and very easy to ban. I don't even use the stuff and i still want to see police do real police work rather then going after people that smoke weed whilst child-porn cases are left on the shelves due to understaffing.
You're completely out of your mind if you think child-porn cases are under-enforced. In the grand scheme of societal harm, they are likely the most disproportionately high-priority crimes in any system of law. Think of all the meth labs, weed plantations, work camps and slave labor in the world and then stop to think about the people that put together child porn to make money. Oh wait, you can't? That's right, nobody makes money from producing child porn and no actual children are really at risk as we speak. It's illegal and stigmatized so much that people don't wanna touch or be associated with it so it's a problem that will never grow.
Domestic abuse and sexual predators are a real problem make no mistake about that but there is no child porn industry in the same sense as drugs constitute an industry. Largely an imaginary evil.
There might not be an actual child pornography industry but there is definately a child trafficing industry that is very serious and is connected to a lot the child pornography that exists on the net. I don't think you're trying to imply that we are doing too much to stop these problems but there is a reason why people take child abuse and child molestation as one of the most (if not the most) serious crimes. Because it breaks children for life.
That being said yes the "war on drugs" especially weed is extremely stigmatised and unfairly so. There have been numerous studies that show african americans being over represented in american prisons. Not because they commit more muders, not because they commit more robberies and not because they commit more white collar crimes than other ethnicities (because they don't if that point didnt come across well enough) in the US. But because the vast majority of black men in prison are there for selling drugs. Mostly weed. I find it sick that selling weed can give you more jail time than stuff that actually ruins peoples lives. Of course when there are violent gangs involved then the crime becomes more serious. But some dude dealing to make ends meet shoulnd not end up with muderers and rapists in jail.
On April 03 2011 15:51 PhiGgoT wrote: It's ridiculous that YOU a med student is going around here saying shit like "acute psychosis" and "delusions" from weed lol, please, please do not be my doctor if I ever need one. I use to smoke tons of weed for 4 years straight and never once have I "hallucinated" or had any psychosis or whatever term you want to define it as. The only place where I can see you having a point is "thought disorder (lol btw)". I had some thought disorder ( when your mind just wanders) which pretty much went away in a week (understandably) after quitting. and yes there is no way to measure any "delusions" or "psychosis", but i know from personal experience that everything youve been spewing out of that mouth makes it sound much worst than it is. any symptoms or side affects one might have are pretty much non factors from long term smoking of weed (unless we are talking like decades here then who knows..) even then I know people that have been smoking for more than that and are still fine.
I dont really see why people want weed to be legal, i remember being 13 and 14 running around stores with friends picking up bottles and shit, pretty much just doing it wrong and being stupid. Maybe its easier to say this in cali but weed is practically nothing here even if you dont have a card, you might get a fine if you're stupid enough to get pulled over with it on you or something. But my point is, why would you want your kids to have easy access to it? It certainly isn't anything kids should be doing because it makes *most* people lazy (some people actually do better on it) If you wanna smoke it you still can, and if you dont mind your kids smoking it dont you atleast want to introduce it to them the correct way yourself instead of running around with their friends or so?
In the end I think the laws are in place to protect the youth. The adults can do whatever they want
Lol? I don't care what you smoke or how often you smoke it. If you come to me complaining of sickness, I'll treat you. A doctor's job is to treat illness and advise you on how to live your life, not enforce it. Key thing is, the patients come to us. We don't go to them. Do what ever you want with your life, I honestly don't care.
edit: And just because you personally haven't hallucinated or had delusions whilst smoking weed, it means it doesn't happen? LOL! I know plenty of people who have smoked weed and reported these symptoms. I've smoked myself and had it happen, on multiple occasions. Once I was with my friends, and we were walking through the park and I thought some one was chasing us. I also thought parked cars were moving and leaving a slow-motion time trail of their previous movements. I was experiencing an episode of acute drug-induced psychosis. I also have many other friends who smoke weed all the time and are hardly affected by it. It does different things to different people. If you don't like the word "psychosis", fine, I don't care. If you think "psychosis" means murdering babies and being a bad, evil person, that's your fault for not understanding what the word means.
Sure anything can happen, i mean crazy people can hallucinate off coffee, you can believe what you want LOL. Of course shit happens on weed, it is still a DRUG after all, but the magnitude of the side affects are so small that are pretty much negligible. So im sorry that you smoked and thought some parked car was chasing you but that doesnt mean that you can come around here using such heavy words like "psychosis" and then call anyone who doesn't agree with you an idiot lol. And yes a doctor's job is to treat you and advise you how to live your life, so then why are you here just saying shit that is just pretty much just far from the truth? More importantly you are giving bad advice.
IMO weed (amongst other things) can be used to heighten one's potential if used correctly, and many people are still on the fence about it in this thread. it's sad that people like this will probably never even try it once and have their own opinions because of people like you that pretty much just spew bull shit out the mouth about things you have no idea about. and please do not treat me if I come to you LOL.
On April 03 2011 07:22 zalz wrote: Cannabis could cure everything known to man and people would still not want to see it legalized.
This report once agains shows that the stuff isn't just harmless, it's even beneficial. The stigma however is just too great, an entire generation has been brought up on the notion that weed makes you want to kill your family.
Atleast it's semi-legal in my country, that still leaves it up in the air and very easy to ban. I don't even use the stuff and i still want to see police do real police work rather then going after people that smoke weed whilst child-porn cases are left on the shelves due to understaffing.
You're completely out of your mind if you think child-porn cases are under-enforced. In the grand scheme of societal harm, they are likely the most disproportionately high-priority crimes in any system of law. Think of all the meth labs, weed plantations, work camps and slave labor in the world and then stop to think about the people that put together child porn to make money. Oh wait, you can't? That's right, nobody makes money from producing child porn and no actual children are really at risk as we speak. It's illegal and stigmatized so much that people don't wanna touch or be associated with it so it's a problem that will never grow.
Domestic abuse and sexual predators are a real problem make no mistake about that but there is no child porn industry in the same sense as drugs constitute an industry. Largely an imaginary evil.
There might not be an actual child pornography industry but there is definately a child trafficing industry that is very serious and is connected to a lot the child pornography that exists on the net. I don't think you're trying to imply that we are doing too much to stop these problems but there is a reason why people take child abuse and child molestation as one of the most (if not the most) serious crimes. Because it breaks children for life.
No, they do because it's a moral hysteria. Seriously, there is no thing as inflated as child pornography, the amount of cost put into it with respect to the amount of victims is produces is ridiculous.
The amount of child rape that leads to pornography is pretty insignificant compared to child rape as a whole. The fast majority of child rape does not lead to recorded images. If you want to combat child rape,rounding up people who have child porn on their PC's is certainly not the way to go.
That being said yes the "war on drugs" especially weed is extremely stigmatised and unfairly so. There have been numerous studies that show african americans being over represented in american prisons. Not because they commit more muders, not because they commit more robberies and not because they commit more white collar crimes than other ethnicities (because they don't if that point didnt come across well enough) in the US. But because the vast majority of black men in prison are there for selling drugs. Mostly weed. I find it sick that selling weed can give you more jail time than stuff that actually ruins peoples lives. Of course when there are violent gangs involved then the crime becomes more serious. But some dude dealing to make ends meet shoulnd not end up with muderers and rapists in jail.
Got a stat on that? It's pretty interesting.
Anyway, I think the majority of legal stuff is ultimately hysteria. The majority of deaths in the US is still caused by drowning and heart related diseases. If you're worried about 'American lives at risk' Mrs. Palin, might want to go after McDonald's and not after Mr. Assange.
On April 03 2011 07:22 zalz wrote: Cannabis could cure everything known to man and people would still not want to see it legalized.
This report once agains shows that the stuff isn't just harmless, it's even beneficial. The stigma however is just too great, an entire generation has been brought up on the notion that weed makes you want to kill your family.
Atleast it's semi-legal in my country, that still leaves it up in the air and very easy to ban. I don't even use the stuff and i still want to see police do real police work rather then going after people that smoke weed whilst child-porn cases are left on the shelves due to understaffing.
You're completely out of your mind if you think child-porn cases are under-enforced. In the grand scheme of societal harm, they are likely the most disproportionately high-priority crimes in any system of law. Think of all the meth labs, weed plantations, work camps and slave labor in the world and then stop to think about the people that put together child porn to make money. Oh wait, you can't? That's right, nobody makes money from producing child porn and no actual children are really at risk as we speak. It's illegal and stigmatized so much that people don't wanna touch or be associated with it so it's a problem that will never grow.
Domestic abuse and sexual predators are a real problem make no mistake about that but there is no child porn industry in the same sense as drugs constitute an industry. Largely an imaginary evil.
There might not be an actual child pornography industry but there is definately a child trafficing industry that is very serious and is connected to a lot the child pornography that exists on the net. I don't think you're trying to imply that we are doing too much to stop these problems but there is a reason why people take child abuse and child molestation as one of the most (if not the most) serious crimes. Because it breaks children for life.
No, they do because it's a moral hysteria. Seriously, there is no thing as inflated as child pornography, the amount of cost put into it with respect to the amount of victims is produces is ridiculous.
The amount of child rape that leads to pornography is pretty insignificant compared to child rape as a whole. The fast majority of child rape does not lead to recorded images. If you want to combat child rape,rounding up people who have child porn on their PC's is certainly not the way to go.
That being said yes the "war on drugs" especially weed is extremely stigmatised and unfairly so. There have been numerous studies that show african americans being over represented in american prisons. Not because they commit more muders, not because they commit more robberies and not because they commit more white collar crimes than other ethnicities (because they don't if that point didnt come across well enough) in the US. But because the vast majority of black men in prison are there for selling drugs. Mostly weed. I find it sick that selling weed can give you more jail time than stuff that actually ruins peoples lives. Of course when there are violent gangs involved then the crime becomes more serious. But some dude dealing to make ends meet shoulnd not end up with muderers and rapists in jail.
Got a stat on that? It's pretty interesting.
Anyway, I think the majority of legal stuff is ultimately hysteria. The majority of deaths in the US is still caused by drowning and heart related diseases. If you're worried about 'American lives at risk' Mrs. Palin, might want to go after McDonald's and not after Mr. Assange.
"African Americans comprise only 12.2 percent of the population and 13 percent of drug users, they make up 38 percent of those arrested for drug offenses and 59 percent of those convicted of drug offenses causing critics to call the war on drugs the "New Jim Crow."'
On April 03 2011 07:22 zalz wrote: Cannabis could cure everything known to man and people would still not want to see it legalized.
This report once agains shows that the stuff isn't just harmless, it's even beneficial. The stigma however is just too great, an entire generation has been brought up on the notion that weed makes you want to kill your family.
Atleast it's semi-legal in my country, that still leaves it up in the air and very easy to ban. I don't even use the stuff and i still want to see police do real police work rather then going after people that smoke weed whilst child-porn cases are left on the shelves due to understaffing.
You're completely out of your mind if you think child-porn cases are under-enforced. In the grand scheme of societal harm, they are likely the most disproportionately high-priority crimes in any system of law. Think of all the meth labs, weed plantations, work camps and slave labor in the world and then stop to think about the people that put together child porn to make money. Oh wait, you can't? That's right, nobody makes money from producing child porn and no actual children are really at risk as we speak. It's illegal and stigmatized so much that people don't wanna touch or be associated with it so it's a problem that will never grow.
Domestic abuse and sexual predators are a real problem make no mistake about that but there is no child porn industry in the same sense as drugs constitute an industry. Largely an imaginary evil.
There might not be an actual child pornography industry but there is definately a child trafficing industry that is very serious and is connected to a lot the child pornography that exists on the net. I don't think you're trying to imply that we are doing too much to stop these problems but there is a reason why people take child abuse and child molestation as one of the most (if not the most) serious crimes. Because it breaks children for life.
No, they do because it's a moral hysteria. Seriously, there is no thing as inflated as child pornography, the amount of cost put into it with respect to the amount of victims is produces is ridiculous.
The amount of child rape that leads to pornography is pretty insignificant compared to child rape as a whole. The fast majority of child rape does not lead to recorded images. If you want to combat child rape,rounding up people who have child porn on their PC's is certainly not the way to go.
That being said yes the "war on drugs" especially weed is extremely stigmatised and unfairly so. There have been numerous studies that show african americans being over represented in american prisons. Not because they commit more muders, not because they commit more robberies and not because they commit more white collar crimes than other ethnicities (because they don't if that point didnt come across well enough) in the US. But because the vast majority of black men in prison are there for selling drugs. Mostly weed. I find it sick that selling weed can give you more jail time than stuff that actually ruins peoples lives. Of course when there are violent gangs involved then the crime becomes more serious. But some dude dealing to make ends meet shoulnd not end up with muderers and rapists in jail.
Got a stat on that? It's pretty interesting.
Anyway, I think the majority of legal stuff is ultimately hysteria. The majority of deaths in the US is still caused by drowning and heart related diseases. If you're worried about 'American lives at risk' Mrs. Palin, might want to go after McDonald's and not after Mr. Assange.
"African Americans comprise only 12.2 percent of the population and 13 percent of drug users, they make up 38 percent of those arrested for drug offenses and 59 percent of those convicted of drug offenses causing critics to call the war on drugs the "New Jim Crow."'
So basically, they are arrested more while using the same, probably because they are being hunted down more because of stereotypes? That's the basic idea?
Psychosis, along with all mental disorders are technically hard to diagnose, and does depend on the doctor/method used to diagnose. Personally I think the only real way to diagnose psychotic illnesses is through observing behavior over a period of time. Mental/psychotic illnesses aren't very well understood either. There are theories, but you have to remember a lot of these theories are made because of administration of certain drugs, for example we know dopamine and serotonin, specifically the 5ht2a receptor, play a role in schizophrenia because antagonists of d/5ht receptors reduce psychotic symptoms.
There's no denying that marijuana can cause psychotic symptoms, those being paranoia, delusions. Is someone who is having a panic attack for no reason after smoking weed psychotic? I suppose that would actually depend on the person diagnosing. Personally I don't think so. I think weed can cause said symptoms that may resemble a psychosis like state, but it will go away after the drug is done with the brain.
You're not going to get schizophrenia from smoking marijuana. Maybe depression or an anxiety order is possible, but that's hard to say for sure because people with depression/anxiety may abuse cannabis because of their depression/anxiety.
i don't use anything but i do think they should legalize it. Think about how much money they could raise with taxes! i mean come on they could raise so much money and stop spending so much on trying to control it.
On April 04 2011 00:47 SeokHY wrote: Only function of ANY business is to TAKE MONEY FROM YOU.
You mean apart from providing a service? Businesses don't magically take your money, you give it to them in return for a service or goods. If busnisses are to cease existing, what would happen to the world? I'm not trying to advocate the rock solid stone cold capitalism that is the USA, but businesses in general and some form of capitalism does strike me as both a good idea and something necessary.
On April 04 2011 00:47 SeokHY wrote: One thing i will say, if you take nothing from what i typed. QUESTION EVERYTHING.
I'm questioning you and your expertise on this area. What do you know about people only thinking inside some magical conspiracy theory box? What makes you more enlightened than others? The fact that you believe so strongly in, and yes I am placing these words in your mouth, something that cannot be described as anything less than a social prison makes me question your grip on reality. If you don't like the society you live in maybe you should investigate the idea of emigrating.
Lastly, I'll leave you with a little thought nugget. Society (in general, all countries) isn't perfect and nowhere near a utopia - but if you're going to replace it you better be damn sure that you can present an idea that's better than what is already in place. So, how should it be done? Planned economy like North Korea?
Edit: As far as cannabis goes, as this was a bit off topic, I don't think this really changes anything at all. I will say it's interesting though and it might lead to some debate.
I'm in my 3rd year of med school and I've been surprised to learn quite a few interesting things about the medical aspect of cannibinoids. I'll leave the debate on the socio-economic mumbo jumbo to you guys, but here is what i know:
1) They are actually anti-tumor agents in that they can signal deranged or mutated cells to commit suicide. This can stop the growth of tumors before they become invasive and cancerous.
2) Cannibinoids are increasingly seen as very useful in patients with neuropathic or functional pain, and the reason for this is not that they provide superior analgesia but rather they come with fewer side effects than many of the commonly prescribed medications such as NSAIDs, opioids, TCA's, etc etc etc.
3) Cannabis is actually on a very small list of drugs that does not have teratogenic effects. AKA pregnant women who smoke pot do not have children with malformations or intrinsic birth defects. Which is pretty amazing considering many of the legalized drugs (ie - alcohol, tobacco) definitely do have a detrimental effect on the unborn fetus.
However, as some people have stated they do come some negative side effects just like any drugs. Most notably that although cannabis may not cause lung cancer, it most definitely causes chronic bronchitis. Thats defined as basically having a productive cough for more than 3 months consistently in a period of 2 years, and I'm sure most people who smoke pot would probably not argue this. Also, the previous poster mentioned an increase risk for psychologic symptoms like schizophrenia. This is absolutely correct, and the earlier one starts smoking weed the more likely these things may come to manifest. I think one textbook said someone younger than 18 who smokes marijuana is 3-5x more likely to develop schizophrenia than the average.
Still though the benefits may outweigh the risks in patients with chronic debillitating diseases, which is why states are beginning to legalize it for these patients.
This is an interview with some UCLA doc who is on the leading edge of marijuana research if you are interested.
On April 04 2011 12:05 chonkyfire wrote: Silma is actually right.
wot? Didn't you said I was full of it the last time?
Psychosis, along with all mental disorders are technically hard to diagnose, and does depend on the doctor/method used to diagnose. Personally I think the only real way to diagnose psychotic illnesses is through observing behavior over a period of time. Mental/psychotic illnesses aren't very well understood either. There are theories, but you have to remember a lot of these theories are made because of administration of certain drugs, for example we know dopamine and serotonin, specifically the 5ht2a receptor, play a role in schizophrenia because antagonists of d/5ht receptors reduce psychotic symptoms.
Well, the point is, everyone knows that for some people the drugs work, for others they don't, for some, some work, for some none work.
The case that is often put forth is 'What if things like autism or depression or schizophrenia can actually have a billion different causes depending on the person? What if each case of schizophrenia is a neurologically completely different thing which just has superficially similar symptoms?'
Some people would say, for something to be called an illness it must have a single, materialistic, identifiable cause.
There's no denying that marijuana can cause psychotic symptoms, those being paranoia, delusions. Is someone who is having a panic attack for no reason after smoking weed psychotic? I suppose that would actually depend on the person diagnosing. Personally I don't think so. I think weed can cause said symptoms that may resemble a psychosis like state, but it will go away after the drug is done with the brain.
I don't know people who get these symptoms from MJ seem to be naturally inclined to be some-what angsty and suspicious people. The kind of people who are more prone to a psychosis in general.
You're not going to get schizophrenia from smoking marijuana. Maybe depression or an anxiety order is possible, but that's hard to say for sure because people with depression/anxiety may abuse cannabis because of their depression/anxiety.
Might also be the same with psychosis of course?
Maybe people just hunger for MJ when they are about to get psychotic?
Contrary to common sense, Cannibas really is an undiscovered fountain of youth that offers cures to nearly everything form alhiezmer's, to heart disease, to chicken pox! The government is trying to suppress this vital knowledge and spread gross lies saying that cannibas is unhealthy and has adverse affects on people.
On April 04 2011 17:10 JamesJohansen wrote: Contrary to common sense, Cannibas really is an undiscovered fountain of youth that offers cures to nearly everything form alhiezmer's, to heart disease, to chicken pox! The government is trying to suppress this vital knowledge and spread gross lies saying that cannibas is unhealthy and has adverse affects on people.
I actually know someone who tried Cannabis once and after that he became a transsexuall gay who molested children - true story.
On April 04 2011 12:14 staplestf2 wrote: i don't use anything but i do think they should legalize it. Think about how much money they could raise with taxes! i mean come on they could raise so much money and stop spending so much on trying to control it.
Indeed, if they legalize it it won't be because alcohol and tobacco - much more harmless - are legal, but because there are thousands to make selling marijuana.
I mean Law enforcment is a gold mine, but my guess is that cannabis crops could be a whole news industry.
On April 04 2011 12:14 staplestf2 wrote: i don't use anything but i do think they should legalize it. Think about how much money they could raise with taxes! i mean come on they could raise so much money and stop spending so much on trying to control it.
but my guess is that cannabis crops could be a whole news industry.
I'm guessing you mean new industry. If so you are correct, hemp was the 2nd cash crop in the US before WW2. Hemp, the non-psychoactive version of MJ, got outlawed alongside MJ. It's basically the same plant without the THC.
1937 Federal law Bans marijuana:The first 2 copies of the Declaration of Independence were printed on Hemp! Benjamin Franklin used Hemp to start Americas first paper mills. It was once legal and one of the largest crops in the world. The majority of fabrics, lighting oil, medicines, paper, and fiber. Hemp was touted as a billion dollar crop in the 19th century and its unparalleled universality made it a target of other sources. It produced more than 5000 products from its thread and 25000 from its cellulose including dinamite and cellophane.
On April 03 2011 11:01 Keitzer wrote: Medical use = perfectly fine (for me) Used for *getting high* = waste of time AND money
Seems a bit unfair if you do this for Cannabis but not for Alcohol.
Every time I read threads like this something inside me gets a bit antsy and wants to discuss the subject with actual scientific reports and not those silly monkey tests they did back in the day.
But then I realize this isn't the thread to talk about it and I'm happy where I live.
On April 03 2011 10:51 mordk wrote:In science, one study means absolutely nothing.
That, dear sir, is a blatant lie. Do the leg work, be meticulous and your study will mean a lot more than absolutely nothing. Things get more complicated when statistics are involved, as they often are in medical studies. But do the statistics right and your study will have an impact.
EDIT: At least the small amount of studies shown are listed on Pubmed. Also.. look at the authors. Many are made by the same team/people. Do they have any special interest in making this happen?
Scientific studies often require specialists and study specific instrumentation. If a group is focused on cannabinoid research you shouldn't be surprised to find most of their papers are on the subject. It's like saying Einstein had a secret agenda because he only published physics papers.
Hmmm.. maybe more than absoultely nothing... Let's say it means very little. Unless it's something like the Framingham. And we know this is nothing like that. And even then, the evidence from the framingham spawned multiple studies, which is actually where it's value relies.
You're just interpretating the second statement wrong:
1. It's OK if most of their papers are related to the subject, many people do that. That doesn't mean a conflict of interest doesn't exists and shouldn't be investigated. This has happened tons of times.
2. I'm not saying they DEFINITELY HAVE a conflict of interest, haven't researched that. I'm saying it could be there and should be ruled out.
This thing has happened so many times it's crazy. Farmaceutical companies finance studies ALL THE TIME, which make their products seem so much better than the rest. Many times it's not true, and has been proven wrong later on by thorough investigation.
When people say that "one study means nothing", they mean that a study needs to be reproducible or else it is not scientific. The fact that there have been smatterings of experiments suggesting the benefits of marijuana does not prove anything, but it does mean it warrants serious government-sponsored studies (ones that are not backed by lobbyists). The amount of scientific study on the subject is laughable considering the implications and how widespread marijuana usage is.
(other thoughts, not necessarily related to the above poster): The only reason weed is illegal is because of a cultural movement of the 30's backed by a political smear campaign on marijuana that ignored scientific studies. It used to be a taxed commodity before that, so lets not demonize the effects of weed. For years and years it was a non-issue in this country.
The reason marijuana remains illegal is because of the threat of hemp as an industry. It shouldn't be a surprise that there are lobbyists with an invested interest in keeping weed illegal. They used to fund bogus studies, and while that is less common today, they still point to those bogus studies during arguments (as mentioned before, the study pumping monkeys with 30 blunts worth of weed). The funny thing is that the type of Cannabis that would be used industrially is not viable as a recreational drug.
Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa var. sativa is the variety grown for industrial use, while C. sativa subsp. indica generally has poor fibre quality and is primarily used for production of recreational and medicinal drugs. The major difference between the two types of plants is the appearance and the amount of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) secreted in a resinous mixture by epidermal hairs called glandular trichomes, although they can also be distinguished genetically.[14] Oilseed and fibre varieties of Cannabis approved for industrial hemp production produce only minute amounts of this psychoactive drug, not enough for any physical or psychological effects. Typically, hemp contains below 0.3% THC, while cultivars of Cannabis grown for marijuana can contain anywhere from 6 to over 20%.[15]
People are misinformed on the subject and there are people who want them to remain that way. For example, pharmaceutical companies that produce THC "substitutes" in the lab make LOADS of money from this drug. Its expensive to produce (it takes something like 23 chemical processes) and for some patients it is a necessity to buy. It is morally bankrupt that we want people to break the bank over a drug that can be obtained naturally at a fraction of the cost.
Edit: Also! I forgot to mention prisons! The prison industry is probably the most fucked up industry our government supports. So many private prisons are businesses literally propped up on the amount of prisoners they hold. Marijuana offenses make up a solid portion of people in prisons (I'm looking for the statistic but I can't find one that singles out marijuana users from other drug charges).
I don't want to imply that there is some kind of "conspiracy" going on, but there are a lot of people who have selfish reasons for wanting the ban on marijuana to continue.
On April 04 2011 12:05 chonkyfire wrote: Silma is actually right.
wot? Didn't you said I was full of it the last time?
I was suffering from marijuana induced psychosis at the time, and wasn't understanding what you were trying to say.
Well, the point is, everyone knows that for some people the drugs work, for others they don't, for some, some work, for some none work.
The case that is often put forth is 'What if things like autism or depression or schizophrenia can actually have a billion different causes depending on the person? What if each case of schizophrenia is a neurologically completely different thing which just has superficially similar symptoms?'
Some people would say, for something to be called an illness it must have a single, materialistic, identifiable cause.
This is true. You have to remember though there is no way to cure mental illness. The only thing you can really do is recognize symptoms and attempt to treat it. There are possibly lots of different factors that are involved. A lot of mental illness might just be structural abnormalities causing the brain to operate in ways out of the ordinary. For example, illnesses like schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder don't start to develop until early adult hood because the brain is still reaching maturity. Both of those illnesses can be considered psychotic, or I should say have the potential to produce psychotic symptoms. Schizophrenia is obvious, but a manic bipolar person can also begin to lose touch with reality resulting in bizarre behavior.
I don't know people who get these symptoms from MJ seem to be naturally inclined to be some-what angsty and suspicious people. The kind of people who are more prone to a psychosis in general.
I know lots of people who will not smoke marijuana because they genuinely do not like it at all. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was because they had terrible anxiety or paranoia. I also think people really underestimate the power of THC specifically. It's a pretty powerful drug that can really warp your mind, and a sober person observing someone who is faded beyond belief, might consider the high person a little disconnected, but that's just the drug not an illness.
]Might also be the same with psychosis of course?
Maybe people just hunger for MJ when they are about to get psychotic?
This is probably the case. People with illnesses like bipolar disorder/schizophrenia have a way higher substance abuse rate than the rest of the population. Of course "psychotic" people have used marijuana. They've probably used many drugs, and probably abuse alcohol too. It's self medication, and marijuana/alcohol are affordable, easily accessible drugs to self medicate with
On April 04 2011 17:10 JamesJohansen wrote: Contrary to common sense, Cannibas really is an undiscovered fountain of youth that offers cures to nearly everything form alhiezmer's, to heart disease, to chicken pox! The government is trying to suppress this vital knowledge and spread gross lies saying that cannibas is unhealthy and has adverse affects on people.
I actually know someone who tried Cannabis once and after that he became a transsexuall gay who molested children - true story.
I had a psychiatrist try to tell me that marijuana causes homosexuality, and he knew a guy who killed himself because he started smoking pot and "turned homosexual" on his wife so he couldn't have sex with her. It was a little out there.
On April 04 2011 21:12 EdaPoe wrote: ...Since when is alcohol and tobacco less harmful than marijuana?
Since the beginning of time. you trollin bro? Look at the kill counts.
Only thing bad about marijauna is that effects on the body and especially nerves and the brain have not truly been studied enough or in a proper manner. The effects clearly aren't huge, but we really need to know what they are.
On April 03 2011 12:56 sikyon wrote: Why are people so eager for drugs to be legalized?
Because it's our right.
Says who? Rights are debatable things. Saying you have a right to something is merely stating your personal opinion unless it is some sort of practical legal discussion.
What the hell is your point? Are you trying to imply with a straight face that the right to control your own body is debatable? Are you THAT gung-ho about imposing your own morals onto us? Please spare me; the government does it enough to me already.
Yes, it is debatable, laws are written by humans who debate, and very often the law comes down on the side of you being forced to or not being able to do various things with your body. Should a deadbeat dad be forced to use his body for labor to provide for a child (child support)? That is a clear case of law mandated use of a body; there are thousands of these. You could probably obnoxiously repeat he has a right to use his body however he wants in that case too.
Attempts to generalize legalization of drug use usually fall flat; they cannot really be generalized without a hundred exceptions popping up. Well, attempts to generalize everything to that degree usually fall apart... What we are talking about is a very narrow prohibition of certain behaviors.
The concept of "Imposing my evil Christian morals" (I know you didn't say that, but that version is more common on other subjects in general) is another example of a failed generalization. Most, if not every law involve a moral or ethical judgement that is enforced across everybody. A thief could claim anti-theft laws are everyone else imposing their moral view onto him. Maybe a food manufacturer can be angry that society is imposing food safety laws on his business based on moral thoughts about peoples' rights to clean food or reasonable safety or whatever it is. Libertarians can complain about their negative (liberty) rights conflicting with everyone elses positive (claim) rights.
You are likely not opposed to legally mandated use or forbidden use of a body or imposing morals, you are opposed to this specific law. You could very strongly fall on one side, sure. For example, I am damn near a free speech absolutist when I am not in a fascist mood. Sometimes even when i am in a fascist mood.
The point here is saying you have an abstract right to be able to do one thing or another therefor you are correct is probably not the best path to take. I am trying to help you, I'd like to see the drug war ended too, sort of. Hold on the assumptions. It is just a bad method of convincing people of anything.
Need to leave some room for nuances, man. Ain't going anywhere otherwise.
Before you try to label psychiatry, psychiatric diseases and the entire field, please for the love of god just have a peripheral understanding of it...
Reading this thread is like watching two kindergarden kids discussing international politics... Their discussion is a waste of time, filled with wrong "facts", littered with their subjective opinions, backed up by "because my dad says so" and would be hilarious if the risk of someone believing they actually know what they talk about wasn't present...
On April 04 2011 21:12 EdaPoe wrote: ...Since when is alcohol and tobacco less harmful than marijuana?
Only thing bad about marijauna is that effects on the body and especially nerves and the brain have not truly been studied enough or in a proper manner. The effects clearly aren't huge, but we really need to know what they are.
?
We do know how marijuana effects the body. The endocannabinoid system was discovered because of cannabis.
On April 04 2011 21:12 EdaPoe wrote: ...Since when is alcohol and tobacco less harmful than marijuana?
Since the beginning of time. you trollin bro? Look at the kill counts.
Only thing bad about marijauna is that effects on the body and especially nerves and the brain have not truly been studied enough or in a proper manner. The effects clearly aren't huge, but we really need to know what they are.
Wait.. What? Alcohol and tobacco is more harmful then Marijuana.. I'll use your point, look at the kill counts..
Not only is this news old hat, but it's terrible old-hat. Cannabinoids are not the cancer-curing miracle drugs they are made out to be, and any research I or other biochemists have come across is far too shaky to prove anything.
I have nothing against someone who smokes marijuana just because of it, but don't try and act like it is actually beneficial to your health. Yes, it is medicinal, if you're in horrid pain, which I doubt anyone here playing Starcraft really is.
On April 05 2011 06:20 Tankbusta wrote: Not only is this news old hat, but it's terrible old-hat. Cannabinoids are not the cancer-curing miracle drugs they are made out to be, and any research I or other biochemists have come across is far too shaky to prove anything.
I have nothing against someone who smokes marijuana just because of it, but don't try and act like it is actually beneficial to your health. Yes, it is medicinal, if you're in horrid pain, which I doubt anyone here playing Starcraft really is.
Please feel free to help educate us; illustrate to us a glaring error in one of the cited references and studies that downplay's the NCI's conclusions.
On April 05 2011 06:20 Tankbusta wrote: Not only is this news old hat, but it's terrible old-hat. Cannabinoids are not the cancer-curing miracle drugs they are made out to be, and any research I or other biochemists have come across is far too shaky to prove anything.
I have nothing against someone who smokes marijuana just because of it, but don't try and act like it is actually beneficial to your health. Yes, it is medicinal, if you're in horrid pain, which I doubt anyone here playing Starcraft really is.
Please feel free to help educate us; illustrate to us a glaring error in one of the cited references and studies that downplay's the NCI's conclusions.
It's not about errors, it's about circumstantiel evidence... This is like trying to prove that i.e. a car is green by showing that it is not red.... It opens the possibility that the car might be green, but in actuality all it really shows is that the car is not green...
All that has been shown is that in certain mice and regarding certain tumors it might have an effect. Do you know how many stage 1 drugs you could say this for? I'm pretty sure I read an article regarding regular painkillers stating the same back in theory of science as an example of how one should always be aware of pseudo-parametres and their validity...
EDIT: I do realise my example isn't the best, but seriously, this is like entrylevel university stuff - don't conclude outside of what is possible by your data. And that is what a lot of people in this thread tries to do....
On April 05 2011 06:20 Tankbusta wrote: Not only is this news old hat, but it's terrible old-hat. Cannabinoids are not the cancer-curing miracle drugs they are made out to be, and any research I or other biochemists have come across is far too shaky to prove anything.
I have nothing against someone who smokes marijuana just because of it, but don't try and act like it is actually beneficial to your health. Yes, it is medicinal, if you're in horrid pain, which I doubt anyone here playing Starcraft really is.
Please feel free to help educate us; illustrate to us a glaring error in one of the cited references and studies that downplay's the NCI's conclusions.
It's not about errors, it's about circumstantiel evidence... This is like trying to prove that i.e. a car is green by showing that it is not red.... It opens the possibility that the car might be green, but in actuality all it really shows is that the car is not green...
All that has been shown is that in certain mice and regarding certain tumors it might have an effect. Do you know how many stage 1 drugs you could say this for? I'm pretty sure I read an article regarding regular painkillers stating the same back in theory of science as an example of how one should always be aware of pseudo-parametres and their validity...
EDIT: I do realise my example isn't the best, but seriously, this is like entrylevel university stuff - don't conclude outside of what is possible by your data. And that is what a lot of people in this thread tries to do....
by your logic, no one should consume any food ever for health benefits as supplements that contain the same vitamins and nutrients can take their place. people obviously don't do that. you're arguing semantics.
the study wasn't outright declaring, SMOKE WEED. the study is illustrating the cannaboids found in cannabis plants may have benefitial health effects. that is all. whether you injest these substances via smoking, vaporization, or pills, whatever.
On April 05 2011 06:20 Tankbusta wrote: Not only is this news old hat, but it's terrible old-hat. Cannabinoids are not the cancer-curing miracle drugs they are made out to be, and any research I or other biochemists have come across is far too shaky to prove anything.
I have nothing against someone who smokes marijuana just because of it, but don't try and act like it is actually beneficial to your health. Yes, it is medicinal, if you're in horrid pain, which I doubt anyone here playing Starcraft really is.
Please feel free to help educate us; illustrate to us a glaring error in one of the cited references and studies that downplay's the NCI's conclusions.
It's not about errors, it's about circumstantiel evidence... This is like trying to prove that i.e. a car is green by showing that it is not red.... It opens the possibility that the car might be green, but in actuality all it really shows is that the car is not green...
All that has been shown is that in certain mice and regarding certain tumors it might have an effect. Do you know how many stage 1 drugs you could say this for? I'm pretty sure I read an article regarding regular painkillers stating the same back in theory of science as an example of how one should always be aware of pseudo-parametres and their validity...
EDIT: I do realise my example isn't the best, but seriously, this is like entrylevel university stuff - don't conclude outside of what is possible by your data. And that is what a lot of people in this thread tries to do....
by your logic, no one should consume any food ever for health benefits as supplements that contain the same vitamins and nutrients can take their place. people obviously don't do that. you're arguing semantics.
the study wasn't outright declaring, SMOKE WEED. the study is illustrating the cannaboids found in cannabis plants may have benefitial health effects. that is all. whether you injest these substances via smoking, vaporization, or pills, whatever.
No he was saying don't use this as an excuse for habitual marijuana use.
On April 04 2011 21:12 EdaPoe wrote: ...Since when is alcohol and tobacco less harmful than marijuana?
Since the beginning of time. you trollin bro? Look at the kill counts.
Only thing bad about marijauna is that effects on the body and especially nerves and the brain have not truly been studied enough or in a proper manner. The effects clearly aren't huge, but we really need to know what they are.
Wait.. What? Alcohol and tobacco is more harmful then Marijuana.. I'll use your point, look at the kill counts..
Pah, you have no evidence for that man, how do you know what the kill counts are, you're not god!
Wasn't one of the reasons it couldn't be legalized in prop 19 because of high driving, like you couldn't necessarily prove if someone was high at that given point, but only for the past 28 days or something?
On April 04 2011 21:12 EdaPoe wrote: ...Since when is alcohol and tobacco less harmful than marijuana?
Since the beginning of time. you trollin bro? Look at the kill counts.
Only thing bad about marijauna is that effects on the body and especially nerves and the brain have not truly been studied enough or in a proper manner. The effects clearly aren't huge, but we really need to know what they are.
Wait.. What? Alcohol and tobacco is more harmful then Marijuana.. I'll use your point, look at the kill counts..
Pah, you have no evidence for that man, how do you know what the kill counts are, you're not god!
Wasn't one of the reasons it couldn't be legalized in prop 19 because of high driving, like you couldn't necessarily prove if someone was high at that given point, but only for the past 28 days or something?
There's tons of evidence bro. Nobody has ever overdosed on marijuana - it's nearly impossible. Also I can assure you that high driving is much safer than drunk driving, although still unsafe. Depending on the person and how the weed affects them, it's possible to drive perfectly while high. My friend does it all the time and he even drives well enough when he's high that I'm comfortable sitting in the passenger seat. I'm a very cautious person but he's given me no reason not to trust his high driving abilities.
On April 03 2011 07:18 Sufficiency wrote: What are the side effects of cannabis?
well being happiness generally being a chill dude/dudette
That is why the Man don't want you to have it, because if you are a happy and a chill dude you are not going to buy what the corporate fat cats are trying to sell you. This would mean the corporate fat cats would not have any money to pay off the Man. That would mean the Man would loose his power meaning everybody would become free and permanently oust the fat cats.
On April 04 2011 21:12 EdaPoe wrote: ...Since when is alcohol and tobacco less harmful than marijuana?
Since the beginning of time. you trollin bro? Look at the kill counts.
Only thing bad about marijauna is that effects on the body and especially nerves and the brain have not truly been studied enough or in a proper manner. The effects clearly aren't huge, but we really need to know what they are.
Wait.. What? Alcohol and tobacco is more harmful then Marijuana.. I'll use your point, look at the kill counts..
Pah, you have no evidence for that man, how do you know what the kill counts are, you're not god!
Wasn't one of the reasons it couldn't be legalized in prop 19 because of high driving, like you couldn't necessarily prove if someone was high at that given point, but only for the past 28 days or something?
There's tons of evidence bro. Nobody has ever overdosed on marijuana - it's nearly impossible. Also I can assure you that high driving is much safer than drunk driving, although still unsafe. Depending on the person and how the weed affects them, it's possible to drive perfectly while high. My friend does it all the time and he even drives well enough when he's high that I'm comfortable sitting in the passenger seat. I'm a very cautious person but he's given me no reason not to trust his high driving abilities.
I'm aware, kinda taking the piss of the guy I quoted but evidently wasn't obvious enough :p
And your point still doesn't really answer anything I was asking either
That third link is really extensive, but they all point to the same thing. No statistically significant difference in driving ability while under the influence of marijuana. Some of the studies had them smoking hard too. One of them said that some of the subjects smoked 4 joints of medium grade marijuana (apparently the pack of joints was available and they chose to smoke however much they desired, the dosages were recorded after). Even those people still performed well under a variety of circumstances.
On April 04 2011 21:12 EdaPoe wrote: ...Since when is alcohol and tobacco less harmful than marijuana?
Only thing bad about marijauna is that effects on the body and especially nerves and the brain have not truly been studied enough or in a proper manner. The effects clearly aren't huge, but we really need to know what they are.
?
We do know how marijuana effects the body. The endocannabinoid system was discovered because of cannabis.
I'm talking about long term affects of habitual use. Definitely has not been studied in depth.
On April 04 2011 21:12 EdaPoe wrote: ...Since when is alcohol and tobacco less harmful than marijuana?
Since the beginning of time. you trollin bro? Look at the kill counts.
Only thing bad about marijauna is that effects on the body and especially nerves and the brain have not truly been studied enough or in a proper manner. The effects clearly aren't huge, but we really need to know what they are.
Wait.. What? Alcohol and tobacco is more harmful then Marijuana.. I'll use your point, look at the kill counts..
That's what I said. Don't disagree with me when we share the same opinion -_-.
On April 04 2011 21:12 EdaPoe wrote: ...Since when is alcohol and tobacco less harmful than marijuana?
Since the beginning of time. you trollin bro? Look at the kill counts.
Only thing bad about marijauna is that effects on the body and especially nerves and the brain have not truly been studied enough or in a proper manner. The effects clearly aren't huge, but we really need to know what they are.
Wait.. What? Alcohol and tobacco is more harmful then Marijuana.. I'll use your point, look at the kill counts..
Pah, you have no evidence for that man, how do you know what the kill counts are, you're not god!
Wasn't one of the reasons it couldn't be legalized in prop 19 because of high driving, like you couldn't necessarily prove if someone was high at that given point, but only for the past 28 days or something?
There's tons of evidence bro. Nobody has ever overdosed on marijuana - it's nearly impossible. Also I can assure you that high driving is much safer than drunk driving, although still unsafe. Depending on the person and how the weed affects them, it's possible to drive perfectly while high. My friend does it all the time and he even drives well enough when he's high that I'm comfortable sitting in the passenger seat. I'm a very cautious person but he's given me no reason not to trust his high driving abilities.
High driving is much better than drunk driving. Drunk driving kills someone every 15 minutes.
On April 03 2011 08:08 Kaonis wrote: To the stoners: Do you -really- want to see marijuana legalized? Think about it: once it is, the government will have to regulate it. And tax it. And a company will come along to distribute it. And they'll decide how much they charge for it. Which will be a lot. And anyone caught with their own will be considered a thief.
Except 50 million growers would dive all over the opportunity to crash into that market, and the price of it would fall through the floor.
That third link is really extensive, but they all point to the same thing. No statistically significant difference in driving ability while under the influence of marijuana. Some of the studies had them smoking hard too. One of them said that some of the subjects smoked 4 joints of medium grade marijuana (apparently the pack of joints was available and they chose to smoke however much they desired, the dosages were recorded after). Even those people still performed well under a variety of circumstances.
on related note, i drive much safer when i'm high. by habit i drive no more than 5mph above speed limit.
and to add, i've had 4 close calls and two were while i was high, i was able to avoid accidents because i was able to react, i was high.
all 4 close calls were not my fault, im very aware of my surroundings while driving, i was able to avoid accidents because i treat all cars around me as potential threats.
it all depends on the driver.
i'm an advocate of much more stricter driving standards (driving school mandatory, one should know how to drive on tarmac and snow, how to lose control and regain control of the vehicle, etc.).
There are over the counter drugs with mile long warning labels. There are prescription drugs that have side effects. Marijuana should be a prescription drug with side effects written on its container. Slander and propaganda stemming from the war on drugs is the prime reason this is not happening. Marijuana is like any other drug with a side effect except it gets you high when smoked. What about Perkaset and Vicoden that definatly have potential to give you a high, those are legal *with a prescription*. People in politics must start to view the world in a way that they are not trying to benefit themselves or enforce their own philosophies.
On April 05 2011 06:20 Tankbusta wrote: Not only is this news old hat, but it's terrible old-hat. Cannabinoids are not the cancer-curing miracle drugs they are made out to be, and any research I or other biochemists have come across is far too shaky to prove anything.
I have nothing against someone who smokes marijuana just because of it, but don't try and act like it is actually beneficial to your health. Yes, it is medicinal, if you're in horrid pain, which I doubt anyone here playing Starcraft really is.
Please feel free to help educate us; illustrate to us a glaring error in one of the cited references and studies that downplay's the NCI's conclusions.
It's not about errors, it's about circumstantiel evidence... This is like trying to prove that i.e. a car is green by showing that it is not red.... It opens the possibility that the car might be green, but in actuality all it really shows is that the car is not green...
All that has been shown is that in certain mice and regarding certain tumors it might have an effect. Do you know how many stage 1 drugs you could say this for? I'm pretty sure I read an article regarding regular painkillers stating the same back in theory of science as an example of how one should always be aware of pseudo-parametres and their validity...
EDIT: I do realise my example isn't the best, but seriously, this is like entrylevel university stuff - don't conclude outside of what is possible by your data. And that is what a lot of people in this thread tries to do....
by your logic, no one should consume any food ever for health benefits as supplements that contain the same vitamins and nutrients can take their place. people obviously don't do that. you're arguing semantics.
the study wasn't outright declaring, SMOKE WEED. the study is illustrating the cannaboids found in cannabis plants may have benefitial health effects. that is all. whether you injest these substances via smoking, vaporization, or pills, whatever.
No he was saying don't use this as an excuse for habitual marijuana use.
Thank you chonkyfire, I almost lost faith in humanity there...
An Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled that the federal medical marijuana program is unconstitutional, giving the government three months to fix the problem before pot is effectively legalized.
In an April 11 ruling, Justice Donald Taliano found that doctors across the country have “massively boycotted” the medical marijuana program and largely refuse to sign off on forms giving sick people access to necessary medication.
As a result, legitimately sick people cannot access medical marijuana through appropriate means and must resort to illegal actions.
Doctors’ “overwhelming refusal to participate in the medicinal marijuana program completely undermines the effectiveness of the program,” the judge wrote in his ruling.
“The effect of this blind delegation is that seriously ill people who need marijuana to treat their symptoms are branded criminals simply because they are unable to overcome the barriers to legal access put in place by the legislative scheme.”
Taliano declared the program to be invalid, as well as the criminal laws prohibiting possession and production of cannabis. He suspended his ruling for three months, giving Ottawa until mid-July to fix the program or face the prospect of effectively legalizing possession and production of cannabis.
The judge’s decision comes in a criminal case involving Matthew Mernagh, 37, of St. Catharines who suffers from fibromyalgia, scoliosis, seizures and depression.
Marijuana is the most effective treatment of Mernagh’s pain. But despite years of effort, he has been unable to find a doctor to support his application for a medical marijuana licence.
Mernagh resorted to growing his own cannabis and was charged with producing the drug.
Taliano found doctors essentially act as gatekeepers to the medical marijuana program but lack the necessary knowledge to adequately give advice or recommend the drug. He also found that Health Canada has made “no real attempt to deal with this lack of knowledge.”
Taliano said the issue is Canada-wide.
Twenty-one patients from across the country testified in the case, saying they were rejected by doctors a total of 113 times.
One Alberta patient was refused by 26 doctors; another in Vancouver approached 37 physicians without finding a single one to sign off on the form.
Patients also face lengthy delays — as long as nine months — in having their medical marijuana applications processed by Health Canada.
“The body of evidence from Mr. Mernagh and the other patient witnesses is troubling,” Taliano wrote. “The evidence of the patient witnesses, which I accept, showed that patients have to go to extraordinary lengths to acquire the marijuana they need.”
Lawyer Alan Young, a longtime advocate of marijuana legalization, said the ruling is a step in the right direction.
“It’s significant because it’s a Superior Court ruling which has binding effect across the province,” Young said.
“By enacting a dysfunctional medical program the government now has to pay the high cost of losing the constitutional authority to criminalize marijuana.”
He said the real test, however, will be whether the judgment stands up in the Ontario Court of Appeal.
“If the government is not successful on appeal, they are going to be caught between a rock and a hard place because they don’t have an alternative program in mind,” he said. “They don’t have a plan B. They’re in trouble.”
The medical profession has been wary of the medical marijuana program since it came into effect in August 2001.
On May 7, 2001, the Canadian Medical Association wrote a letter to the federal health minister expressing concerns with recommending a drug that has had little scientific evidence to support its medicinal benefits.
“Physicians must not be expected to act as gatekeepers to this therapy, yet this is precisely the role Health Canada had thrust upon them,” the letter stated.
tldr: The medical marijuana program in canada is a failure. An individual suffering from numerous ailments tried for months to find a doctor to approve their medical marijuana application but was rejected at all cases; he eventually resorted to grow his own and was charged with growing the plant. In criminal court the judge learned of his plight, along with several other individuals who also testified that they too could not find doctors to sign off.
Because the government program exists but is virtually unusable by those its meant to serve, the judge has deemed it unconstitutional and has given the gov't until July to fix it, otherwise the judge will rule in favor of abolishing current marijuana laws so these individuals can get their marijuana and not be prosecuted.
On April 03 2011 08:08 Kaonis wrote: To the stoners: Do you -really- want to see marijuana legalized? Think about it: once it is, the government will have to regulate it. And tax it. And a company will come along to distribute it. And they'll decide how much they charge for it. Which will be a lot. And anyone caught with their own will be considered a thief.
Except 50 million growers would dive all over the opportunity to crash into that market, and the price of it would fall through the floor.
Plus I won't have to deal with shady/unreliable dealers
On April 13 2011 14:08 KingTony wrote: Sativa is so much better than Indica... makes you a better person too. Indica = couch lock, get nothing done. Sativa = Hella brain stimulus.
Hate to break this to you but the vast majority of weed grown in the US are hybrid strains. If you think you're getting a pure "sativa" or pure "indica" strain, you're probably not.
Some of the strains with the highest recorded THC content have been "indicas" anyways, so yeah. Stoner mythology is bullshit
On April 13 2011 14:08 KingTony wrote: Sativa is so much better than Indica... makes you a better person too. Indica = couch lock, get nothing done. Sativa = Hella brain stimulus.
Hate to break this to you but the vast majority of weed grown in the US are hybrid strains. If you think you're getting a pure "sativa" or pure "indica" strain, you're probably not.
Some of the strains with the highest recorded THC content have been "indicas" anyways, so yeah. Stoner mythology is bullshit
You're right. That was stupid of me to say that. I merely meant to say that I like Sativa dominant grows better. Thanks for not making me look like a douche, lol. I feel like I can do more stuff on Sativa dominant strains. Indica just puts me in a slump and makes me want to put a movie in (which can be good at times).
On April 03 2011 08:08 Kaonis wrote: To the stoners: Do you -really- want to see marijuana legalized? Think about it: once it is, the government will have to regulate it. And tax it. And a company will come along to distribute it. And they'll decide how much they charge for it. Which will be a lot. And anyone caught with their own will be considered a thief.
Except 50 million growers would dive all over the opportunity to crash into that market, and the price of it would fall through the floor.
Plus I won't have to deal with shady/unreliable dealers
On April 13 2011 16:08 eu.exodus wrote: some of the replies in this thread are shocking to say the least.
Weed causing psychosis? Wut? Weed being more dangerous than alcohol and ciggarettes? Wut? Were those sarcastic posts maybe? I really dont get it.
Have any of the people condemning weed ever smoked it before? Dont always believe everything you hear.
Take it from someone who tried just about every drug with the exeption of heroin and has been drug free for 3 years. Weed isnt shit.
Weed IS the shit. Theres only 2 reasOns why someone does drugs. To increase pleasure or decreAse Pain or both. The only people who ever talk shit about weed that I've ever met, never tried it. "Herb is a plaaaaant." Wait, does that count as 2 or 3 reasons?
if people like weed so much why not immigrate to The Netherlands? Into the liberal city of Amsterdam =D you actually got a choice in what kind of weed, a weed store here is like a candy store in america, So much choice! and ofcourse like 1th/10th the cost i heard about insane prices of like 50 dollar for like 5 gram while you can get 5 gram for 10 dollar (12 euro) here, maybe smoke some with the cops, pretty fun lolz
On April 13 2011 16:45 Warf wrote: if people like weed so much why not immigrate to The Netherlands? Into the liberal city of Amsterdam =D you actually got a choice in what kind of weed, a weed store here is like a candy store in america, So much choice! and ofcourse like 1th/10th the cost i heard about insane prices of like 50 dollar for like 5 gram while you can get 5 gram for 10 dollar (12 euro) here, maybe smoke some with the cops, pretty fun lolz
Wait what you're serious? I'm in amsterdam regularly and I pay 7 euros a gramme.. White widow btw
On April 03 2011 12:19 Hunter_001 wrote: Here is a video that discusses some of the more popular myths regarding the effects of marijuana ( i post this because it seems that there is a fair bit of misunderstanding when it comes to these effects). The second video is by the same author, where he discusses some of the complaints that viewers had wit the first that will most likely appear in this thread as well. Please note that i didn't make the videos, and that these discuss the negative effects
Could anybody comment on the contents of these videos? I used to believe marijuana was nearly harmless and that apart from a increased chance of psychological diseases and some damage to the lungs if you smoke it, it was all propaganda and 30's silly lab results, but these results mentioned in the video seem to be pretty scary. [Don't worry, before starting to use MJ consistently I'd have researched it a little more than that]. As I understand a large portion of it is from the smoking but according to the researches, there are many harmful consistencies in MJ that work even if the weed is baked or consumed otherwise. That even includes formidable withdrawal effects.
On April 03 2011 07:16 dANiELcanuck wrote: At the very least, this leaves the Feds in a tough spot with marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic/drug.
It should be noted that marijuana is actually a DEA Schedule II drug, not Schedule I, this puts it on the same footing as Ritalin, Morphine, Dilaudid, Methadone, Percocet, and others...
Also of interest is that cocaine is a Schedule II drug, as it has local vasoconstrictive properties (it's sometimes used to minimize blood loss when providing stitches (together with an anesthetic). It's hardly used anymore, however, because of all the legal hoops one has to jump through to gain access to it.
if people like weed so much why not immigrate to The Netherlands? Into the liberal city of Amsterdam =D you actually got a choice in what kind of weed, a weed store here is like a candy store in america, So much choice! and ofcourse like 1th/10th the cost i heard about insane prices of like 50 dollar for like 5 gram while you can get 5 gram for 10 dollar (12 euro) here, maybe smoke some with the cops, pretty fun lolz
I have visited Amsterdam twice in the past 2 years (and yes, it's awesome) but you cannot purchase 5grams for just 12euros. The prices had not really changed in the 10-12month gap between trips, with top grade strains being priced at 15euros for 1 gram. The very cheapest low quality strains are usually around 25euros for 5grams. Just wanted to clear that up.
On April 03 2011 07:16 dANiELcanuck wrote: At the very least, this leaves the Feds in a tough spot with marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic/drug.
It should be noted that marijuana is actually a DEA Schedule II drug, not Schedule I, this puts it on the same footing as Ritalin, Morphine, Dilaudid, Methadone, Percocet, and others...
Also of interest is that cocaine is a Schedule II drug, as it has local vasoconstrictive properties (it's sometimes used to minimize blood loss when providing stitches (together with an anesthetic). It's hardly used anymore, however, because of all the legal hoops one has to jump through to gain access to it.
What? The CSA lists it as schedule I, as it always has been.
On April 03 2011 07:22 solidbebe wrote: This though doesn't grant everyone some free pass to use cannabis now (for pleasure)without any form of moral/legal trouble. People who use cannabis regularly don't use it as 'medicine' but as a drug. And there is no need to take a cure if you don't get sick in the first place ( on the contrary to popular belief, almost every case of cancer could have been prohibited easily ). I just think that people will use this as an excuse for using cannabis.
How about people who drink coffee? People who use alcohol? People who eat sugar? People who visit dating agencies with the purpose to fall in love.
All of these are drugs that are addictive and alter one's perception of reality. The latter possibly one of the worst, have you ever seen how distorted one's perception of reality (the other person) is when he or she is in love? And how drastic the effects of kicking off from it can be? How deluded some people can become by it?
Ban love?
Drugs are everywhere, in every food, when we play sports, when we play StarCraft, when we drink coffee, when we have sex, it's everywhere. So ehh, better not eat any more chocolate any more, we all know it's basically a mild drug that's addictive.
+1 I read once that when you fall in love your brain responds in a manner that is similar to one who is high on opiates. I feel it is far better to teach people responsible use and give them the knowledge and tools to make their own decisions than to try to set laws that dictate their behavior.
On April 03 2011 12:19 Hunter_001 wrote: Here is a video that discusses some of the more popular myths regarding the effects of marijuana ( i post this because it seems that there is a fair bit of misunderstanding when it comes to these effects). The second video is by the same author, where he discusses some of the complaints that viewers had wit the first that will most likely appear in this thread as well. Please note that i didn't make the videos, and that these discuss the negative effects
Could anybody comment on the contents of these videos? I used to believe marijuana was nearly harmless and that apart from a increased chance of psychological diseases and some damage to the lungs if you smoke it, it was all propaganda and 30's silly lab results, but these results mentioned in the video seem to be pretty scary. [Don't worry, before starting to use MJ consistently I'd have researched it a little more than that]. As I understand a large portion of it is from the smoking but according to the researches, there are many harmful consistencies in MJ that work even if the weed is baked or consumed otherwise. That even includes formidable withdrawal effects.
How real are these?
True AND False.
I think the guy shouldn't comment on it no matter if he thinks he's just doing something to be non-biased, because he hasn't been on the other side of the coin, so obviously he is biased...
However, he is speaking truth in certain parts. Pot isn't good for your lungs if you smoke it, however, it doesn't guarantee lung cancer. Percentages like that are honestly just scare tactics in my eyes, because through my personal experience, I've seen people who've never smoked get lung cancer, and people who smoked packs a day till they were very old and never get cancer. It may irritate your asthma, and you can develop asthma from it I'm sure.. however, both of these things happen without marijuana in the picture as well.
Mental disorders? They are usually already there or already developing. Marijuana can definitely trigger schizophrenia and other disorders I do believe, however, such people shouldn't be using the drugs. As far as addiction goes... YES a somewhat physical addiction does occur for some people, but that can happen for anything. There's a TV show called "My Strange Addiction"... people are addicted to some weird, crazy, shit... literally ADDICTED... anything can become addicting, and physical withdrawals might happen, but it's not going to kill you. A heroin addict has it much, much, worse with the withdrawal symptoms and addiction.
Also, when he talks about the accidents and driving... I've never been in an accident and I am a daily cannabis user. I actually learned with my mother while I was high... However, I do know a bunch of sober people who crash all the time. Why? Maybe because they can't get a grip on their mind at all, and they were thinking about what's on TV that night or some bull shit and crashed--while the marijuana user might have had total control of his surroundings and situation, and been more consciously aware of what was going on around him.....Hell, old people cause more accidents than marijuana users....oh and DRUNK PEOPLE? People dont seem to know their limits.. they blame the drugs for causing the accidents, but if these people cannot handle themselves and understand what kind of state they are in, there's no excuse. You always know when you can and can't drive. All I can say is I know when I can and can't drive a vehicle, and I also know how dangerous it is to be behind one and how fast some people drive. Shouldn't blame a drug for that. Hell, even prescription medications say "Do not drive or operate machinery", but you're still allowed to take those drugs right? And it alllll worksss outttttt...
He liked to point out a lot of negative. There are other studies out there that are being published that do show that it has positive benefits too, aka Original Post. What about the positive effects?
Mental stimulation, creativity, strength to overcome the ego, ablitity to quiet the mind.....or how music sounds amazing and feels amazing and you start to learn to be able to become quite empathic, feeling everyone and everything around you.... and more conscious....?
Marijuana does not make the person..whatever label you want to put on that person... Lazy, Forgetful, Asshole... whatever it is, they were already that before they used marijuana..
On April 03 2011 12:19 Hunter_001 wrote: Here is a video that discusses some of the more popular myths regarding the effects of marijuana ( i post this because it seems that there is a fair bit of misunderstanding when it comes to these effects). The second video is by the same author, where he discusses some of the complaints that viewers had wit the first that will most likely appear in this thread as well. Please note that i didn't make the videos, and that these discuss the negative effects
Could anybody comment on the contents of these videos? I used to believe marijuana was nearly harmless and that apart from a increased chance of psychological diseases and some damage to the lungs if you smoke it, it was all propaganda and 30's silly lab results, but these results mentioned in the video seem to be pretty scary. [Don't worry, before starting to use MJ consistently I'd have researched it a little more than that]. As I understand a large portion of it is from the smoking but according to the researches, there are many harmful consistencies in MJ that work even if the weed is baked or consumed otherwise. That even includes formidable withdrawal effects.
How real are these?
these videos certainly have merit. the things you should consider when watching this video is if the benefits of personal marijuana use outweigh the cons, and if the statistics that measure weed consumption by joints per day (pretty heavy smoking) will be relevant to you. lists such as the withdrawal effects are aggregates, listing separate symptoms that people do not often experience simultaneously.
if you are interested in trying weed, i would suggest looking up the effects of light marijuana usage and experimentation - these will be much less intimidating, and perhaps convince you to experience the most appealing and unquantifiable benefits of the drug firsthand (happiness, creativity, the typical stoner lists).
On April 03 2011 12:19 Hunter_001 wrote: Here is a video that discusses some of the more popular myths regarding the effects of marijuana ( i post this because it seems that there is a fair bit of misunderstanding when it comes to these effects). The second video is by the same author, where he discusses some of the complaints that viewers had wit the first that will most likely appear in this thread as well. Please note that i didn't make the videos, and that these discuss the negative effects
Could anybody comment on the contents of these videos? I used to believe marijuana was nearly harmless and that apart from a increased chance of psychological diseases and some damage to the lungs if you smoke it, it was all propaganda and 30's silly lab results, but these results mentioned in the video seem to be pretty scary. [Don't worry, before starting to use MJ consistently I'd have researched it a little more than that]. As I understand a large portion of it is from the smoking but according to the researches, there are many harmful consistencies in MJ that work even if the weed is baked or consumed otherwise. That even includes formidable withdrawal effects.
How real are these?
True AND False.
I think the guy shouldn't comment on it no matter if he thinks he's just doing something to be non-biased, because he hasn't been on the other side of the coin, so obviously he is biased...
However, he is speaking truth in certain parts. Pot isn't good for your lungs if you smoke it, however, it doesn't guarantee lung cancer. Percentages like that are honestly just scare tactics in my eyes, because through my personal experience, I've seen people who've never smoked get lung cancer, and people who smoked packs a day till they were very old and never get cancer. It may irritate your asthma, and you can develop asthma from it I'm sure.. however, both of these things happen without marijuana in the picture as well.
Mental disorders? They are usually already there or already developing. Marijuana can definitely trigger schizophrenia and other disorders I do believe, however, such people shouldn't be using the drugs. As far as addiction goes... YES a somewhat physical addiction does occur for some people, but that can happen for anything. There's a TV show called "My Strange Addiction"... people are addicted to some weird, crazy, shit... literally ADDICTED... anything can become addicting, and physical withdrawals might happen, but it's not going to kill you. A heroin addict has it much, much, worse with the withdrawal symptoms and addiction.
Also, when he talks about the accidents and driving... I've never been in an accident and I am a daily cannabis user. I actually learned with my mother while I was high... However, I do know a bunch of sober people who crash all the time. Why? Maybe because they can't get a grip on their mind at all, and they were thinking about what's on TV that night or some bull shit and crashed--while the marijuana user might have had total control of his surroundings and situation, and been more consciously aware of what was going on around him.....Hell, old people cause more accidents than marijuana users....oh and DRUNK PEOPLE? People dont seem to know their limits.. they blame the drugs for causing the accidents, but if these people cannot handle themselves and understand what kind of state they are in, there's no excuse. You always know when you can and can't drive. All I can say is I know when I can and can't drive a vehicle, and I also know how dangerous it is to be behind one and how fast some people drive. Shouldn't blame a drug for that. Hell, even prescription medications say "Do not drive or operate machinery", but you're still allowed to take those drugs right? And it alllll worksss outttttt...
He liked to point out a lot of negative. There are other studies out there that are being published that do show that it has positive benefits too, aka Original Post. What about the positive effects?
Mental stimulation, creativity, strength to overcome the ego, ablitity to quiet the mind.....or how music sounds amazing and feels amazing and you start to learn to be able to become quite empathic, feeling everyone and everything around you.... and more conscious....?
Marijuana does not make the person..whatever label you want to put on that person... Lazy, Forgetful, Asshole... whatever it is, they were already that before they used marijuana..
One man's truth is another man's scare tactic. Smoking it increases the risk of lung cancer. End of. No guarantee you'll get it, just like someone can smoke for 80 years and never develop lung cancer, but the threat is real.
Dono if anyone already mentiond this cause i only read the first page but, a 2 year study on a animal specis that lives for 2- 4years also the specis have difrent type of receptors in the neurons compared to humans.
Also cannabis damages the receptors in the brain which is not good for the progresion of society
And cancer is a mutation in a group of cells, i hardly think a chemical substance that stimulates the brain can stop the cell's from mutating cause it has nothing to do with the brain in the first place.
my greatest fear is that marijuana apologetics, itself a backlash of programs such as D.A.R.E, will in turn create its own backlash as people realize that weed isn't 100% completely safe as commonly stated. gaming might be an apt comparison, in that research suggests consequences ranging from games breeding violent sociopaths with zero attention span to the development of altruistic, critical thinking and cooperative players. from [/u]our[u] perspective, the players, it's fun, engaging, and a social vehicle. use your judgment.
my personal anecdotal testament is that weed has so far improved my quality of life vastly. whether or not it continues to do so or if i end up regretting these past few years, i'll have to see. just like anything else!
There's literally thousands of long term pot smokers in the US alone. I'm sure if there was some actual significant effect of use, there would be no shortage of studies showing it. But there aren't, and the negative effects are benign at best. Physical withdrawals are limited to waiting for you serotonin levels to normalize and only last a week or two at most (and are managed by OTC sleep aids).
And no, I don't care about your anecdote about some unemployed pothead you know.
On April 23 2011 04:16 Offhand wrote: There's literally thousands of long term pot smokers in the US alone. I'm sure if there was some actual significant effect of use, there would be no shortage of studies showing it. But there aren't, and the negative effects are benign at best. Physical withdrawals are limited to waiting for you serotonin levels to normalize and only last a week or two at most (and are managed by OTC sleep aids).
And no, I don't care about your anecdote about some unemployed pothead you know.
On April 23 2011 04:16 Offhand wrote: There's literally thousands of long term pot smokers in the US alone. I'm sure if there was some actual significant effect of use, there would be no shortage of studies showing it. But there aren't, and the negative effects are benign at best. Physical withdrawals are limited to waiting for you serotonin levels to normalize and only last a week or two at most (and are managed by OTC sleep aids).
And no, I don't care about your anecdote about some unemployed pothead you know.
Didn't realize you were a doctor.
Didn't realize you had to be a doctor to experience "weed withdrawal".
I think this is great news that they found something that possibly could help cancer patients. Now they just have to find a good way to use it. But i must say that it would be better if the decriminalized marijuana. The tax money that goes into preventing cannabis could be used on much more important things.
I have Crohn's disease and i've always had a bad stomach wich hurt. I was sceptic that cannabis would help me but one day when i was in amsterdam i tried it. For the first time in 5 years my stomach didn't hurt, i wasn't worried and i could just relax. It felt like i was in heaven for 2 hours, not because of the high itself but because my symptoms went away. I've not used cannabis after that though because it's illegal in Sweden.
Too bad you cannot get it for medical reasons in Sweden. The politics are so retarded about this subject. + Show Spoiler +
Tim Meadows will tell you the dangers of marijuana. + Show Spoiler +
In all seriousness, the study that came out simply reaffirmed a similar study done nearly 40 years ago that received minimal publicity. This isn't knew, but it's good that some light is being shed on the study.
Alcohol and cannabis are two completely different beasts. Alcohol is potentially addictive and damaging to your health, just like cigarettes. Even if cannabis was habit-forming and health detrimental, those conditions alone should not be enough to prevent it from being taxed and regulated.
The United States spends way too much money on punishing nonviolent drug offenders, the vast majority of which are cannabis consumers. If we are serious about cutting spending and strengthening the economy, taxation and regulation of cannabis is a step in the right direction.
I don't care if they legalize it or not, but IMO they need an easy and efficient way to detect if someone is on it (the pot equivalent of a breathalizer). Not sure if that is possible. I already know way too many idiots who think it's alright to drive completely stoned. Whether you choose to believe it or not, you are driving with a handicap and are putting yourself and others at risk :/
On April 23 2011 05:48 Kantutan wrote: I don't care if they legalize it or not, but IMO they need an easy and efficient way to detect if someone is on it (the pot equivalent of a breathalizer). Not sure if that is possible. I already know way too many idiots who think it's alright to drive completely stoned. Whether you choose to believe it or not, you are driving with a handicap and are putting yourself and others at risk :/
On April 23 2011 05:48 Kantutan wrote: I don't care if they legalize it or not, but IMO they need an easy and efficient way to detect if someone is on it (the pot equivalent of a breathalizer). Not sure if that is possible. I already know way too many idiots who think it's alright to drive completely stoned. Whether you choose to believe it or not, you are driving with a handicap and are putting yourself and others at risk :/
Eating a meal at mcdonalds is more of a handicap...
Basically, it has always struck me as odd that despite having perfectly legal methods of sensory alteration, people insist on seeking out the illegal ones.
But it doesn't strike you odd that people don't want to pump themselves full of chemicals with side effects worse than the problem they're seeking treatment for in the first place?
Find one case of someone dying due to use of cannabis. I'd take my chances in being the first one if it meant I could cure or treat an illness with something that grows out of the ground instead of something that was brewed up in a laboratory by someone wearing a white lab coat.
This thread wasn't supposed to be on legal vs illegal or recreation vs medicinal. Maybe there are people you know that this information could help. I know it's hard to believe but there are genuinely good people out there that only want to help others.
A somewhat long video of real people claiming it helped them overcome more illnesses than cancer. I grew up a couple hours from these people, they're real people and the stories are real.
I did a quick google on it, and people have died due to marijuana. .
I did a quick google on it, and say you are completely talking out your ass.
Cannabis (safety of cannabis) "Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals (rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug—about 5,000 times more than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer examination these proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of vomit that could not be directly attributed to cannabis (House of Lords Report, 1998). By comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive."
Source: Iversen, Leslie L., PhD, FRS, "The Science of Marijuana" (London, England: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 178, citing House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, "Cannabis — The Scientific and Medical Evidence" (London, England: The Stationery Office, Parliament, 1998).
(no deaths induced by marijuana) An exhaustive search of the literature finds no deaths induced by marijuana. The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death.
Source: Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), available on the web at http://www.samhsa.gov/ ; also see Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A. Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999), available on the web at http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/; and US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition" (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 57.
EPT
please let me clarify.
![[image loading]](http://www.marijuanavaporizer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/volcano-vaporizer.jpg)
