Drugs vs Alcohol: What's Better for You?

[Civilized]

The flaw here seems to be your experience with those addicted to other drugs. What you've described is similar to the "functional" alcoholic, or other addicts who are still managing to hide their addiction.

If you read the article by Dr Andrew Weil in my post above, you'll see the difference between a chronic cannabis user and an alcoholic is that the alcoholic can only compensate their motor skills etc up to a limit that is below their sober ability, while chronic users of cannabis are able to compensate 100% as far as objective lab tests are concerned, according to Dr Weil's article above.

What you describe is, in fact, the definition of addiction. The user no longer gets the pleasurable effect from the same amount of "drug"

No, that's not what Moe said. He specifically said:

After you do this for a while, the whole "whoa man" effect wears off. You're still high-- you don't build resistance in the same way as other drugs like heroin, which essentially stop working, so the user must keep increasing his dosage

and instead, experience more negative effects when they are not taking it...they take more to counteract the negative effects just to feel "normal", and need more to feel the positive effects.

Ok, but this effect is arguably much more pronounced in the chemical dependence saga of caffeine, alcohol, and processed foods.

But, I do not want them putting others at risk of developing cancer or being exposed to the drug just by walking into a room filled with smoke.

Do you know of any studies that have been done to show that second hand mj smoke can cause cancer? Although it may seem "logical" to you, remember that mj is a particularly effective expectorant (this is one of the oldest medical uses, along with treating pain and loss of appetite) and there're arguments that THC itself inhibits the development of lung cancer:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4946.html"

Harvard University researchers have found that, in both laboratory and mouse studies, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cuts tumor growth in half in common lung cancer while impeding the cancer's ability to spread. The compound "seems to have a suppressive effect on certain lines of cancer cells," explained Dr. Len Horovitz, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

Also the eating and vaporizing the cannabis can reduce the carcinogens, and the reason these methods are not as common as smoking are arguably due to the artificial rarity of cannabis i.e. smoking drugs is often the most potent way to ingest small amounts.

The glaucoma arguments are far less convincing. There are perfectly good medications available to treat glaucoma without the mind-altering side effects of marijuana.

But if some people find all the side effects of mj to be positive, and they are more functional than an alcoholic who has even 1 drink / night (according to Dr Weil in the article above), then clearly mj is the ideal medicine for whatever ails them, from glaucoma, to over-active brain and epilepsy, chronic pain and loss of appetite, depression, boredom, lack of creativity, certain types of sexual dysfunction, too much ambition for the life that is accessible to them (seriously, this is a big driver of cannabis use in the developing world, put in a positive way cannabis can make a person more comfortable with the life that they have been dealt), and anything other reason they want to use it, as long as their doctor has talked with them and granted them a license.

 

[Kronos5253]

Just a quick one here, it is not up to someone to prove something doesn't exist, you must prove it does (I don't like wikipedia so it means nothing to me although I will look at the sources at the bottom you claim). It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove something doesn't exist.

I'm doing no more than asking her to provide sufficient evidence to support her claims, because as it stands right now they are nothing more than opinions.

If I told you the big bang wasn't true, you would expect me to produce sufficient legitimate information that appropriately supports my claim to prove that what I'm saying is correct. That is nothing more than what I'm asking of her.

 

[moe darklight]

...

If the stoners you know always act like stoners and really are heavy smokers, then it's a cultural thing, or they're just immature people. Some of my friends are into the whole hippy thing so they act a certain way.

And anyone who smokes pot less than once a day will still act goofy when they are high. The kind of heavy pot smoker that I'm talking about smokes pot more than once a day.

The people I know don't act goofy stoned or sober (and there are a lot of them: my high school, even by Hamilton standards, is considered a stoner high school. We would smoke pot [or worse] during breaks outside in open daylight). And anyone who smokes more than once a day and acts like that is essentially acting, or it's a pot-culture thing.

I'm not dismissing the fact that alcoholics learn to hide their addiction. (And I do know alcoholics and addicts of all sorts; heck, my best friend just went to rehab last summer.) But the damage that is done once the drug catches up with them is much more significant than that of pot. You can see it happening, right before your eyes as an alcohol or coke addict slowly loses grip with who they are, they start acting erratically, they have fits of anger or depression, until there is a point when they just fall apart. This just doesn't happen with pot. Stoners plateau at their level of consumption and addiction and don't get any worse. Maybe they won't win the next award for exemplary achievement, but they don't become a complete wreck.

This is the public image of the stoner: that he is lazy. And that's pretty much the truth. A stoner has less motivation to do things. But they don't become the wreck that the alcoholic is. A stoner can be a parent and an employee and go about his business the rest of his life, whereas an alcoholic or coke addict's problem eventually catches up and it all comes crumbling down.

Of course, there are varying levels of alcoholism, and some are able to remain relatively functional for a longer time. We could start classifying, but for the sake of argument I'm using the extremes of both cases, the people who drink / smoke pot every day at least once, to showcase the difference between one and the other.

 

[russ_watters]

To medicate, for pain relief, help in relaxation and removal of anxiety, increase of appetite (to help with cachexia, anorexia, etc). There are many uses for it other then just getting "high".

All of those involve getting high.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the public image of the stoner: that he is lazy. And that's pretty much the truth. A stoner has less motivation to do things. But they don't become the wreck that the alcoholic is. A stoner can be a parent and an employee and go about his business the rest of his life...

I'd say an employer and a social worker would object to the idea that a lazy, unmotivated person would make a good employee and parent.

 

[russ_watters]

In other words, people who use cannabis regularly can function at 100% capacity when under the influence of their normal dose (which can be easily ten times smaller than Russ' "smoke a whole joint").

That doesn't make any sense - if "the influence" has no influence, why would people do it?

All I really see there is that the more you smoke, the higher your tolerance gets so the more you need to smoke to ge the same high. That shouldn't be much of a revalation.

In any case, that article isn't all that compelling - he doesn't cite any actual evidence for those claims you quoted, so it isn't any better than a post on a random internet forum.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If the stoners you know always act like stoners and really are heavy smokers, then it's a cultural thing, or they're just immature people. Some of my friends are into the whole hippy thing so they act a certain way.

And anyone who smokes pot less than once a day will still act goofy when they are high. The kind of heavy pot smoker that I'm talking about smokes pot more than once a day.

The people I know don't act goofy stoned or sober (and there are a lot of them: my high school, even by Hamilton standards, is considered a stoner high school. We would smoke pot [or worse] during breaks outside in open daylight). And anyone who smokes more than once a day and acts like that is essentially acting, or it's a pot-culture thing.

I'm not dismissing the fact that alcoholics learn to hide their addiction. (And I do know alcoholics and addicts of all sorts; heck, my best friend just went to rehab last summer.) But the damage that is done once the drug catches up with them is much more significant than that of pot. You can see it happening, right before your eyes as an alcohol or coke addict slowly loses grip with who they are, they start acting erratically, they have fits of anger or depression, until there is a point when they just fall apart. This just doesn't happen with pot. Stoners plateau at their level of consumption and addiction and don't get any worse. Maybe they won't win the next award for exemplary achievement, but they don't become a complete wreck.

This is the public image of the stoner: that he is lazy. And that's pretty much the truth. A stoner has less motivation to do things. But they don't become the wreck that the alcoholic is. A stoner can be a parent and an employee and go about his business the rest of his life, whereas an alcoholic or coke addict's problem eventually catches up and it all comes crumbling down.

Of course, there are varying levels of alcoholism, and some are able to remain relatively functional for a longer time. We could start classifying, but for the sake of argument I'm using the extremes of both cases, the people who drink / smoke pot every day at least once, to showcase the difference between one and the other.

Yes, honestly, I have known people that smoked at least once a day unless they couldn't get their hands on any. My cousin claimed to not be able to sleep unless she smoked a bowl before bed. And all of the people I have known (with the one exception I mentioned) who smoked at least once a day had the hallmarks of a stoner. It wasn't an act, or a matter of stoner culture, they were just unable to not act this way unless they really tried. Have you heard of the hallmark 'stoner laugh'? The only people I could not determine were stoners were the ones who did not smoke all the time.

Alcoholics don't always become complete wrecks. It has more or less been determined that there is a genetic component to aloholism and that not all people are subject to the same extremes of alcoholism. A person can drink every day of their life and not suffer any greater side effects than the standard physical errosion that comes along with heavy drinking.

Cocaine, I agree, is certainly a different story.

 

[moe darklight]

All of those involve getting high.

Just like you can have one or two drinks to relax, you can have a few tokes and not get very stoned. Very low amounts of alcohol do significantly decrease mental functions and reflexes, yet few would argue that there's anything wrong with having a couple of drinks over the weekend if done responsibly. Why are drugs any different?

So the person smokes pot to get high. What I'm asking for is what makes "being high" intrinsically bad enough so as to prohibit people from doing so. Mountain climbing is much more dangerous than doing a hit of LSD if the necessary precautions are taken (having a sitter, etc.)-- so why should it be illegal? it's an activity like any other, and there are risks, but it's also possible to do it responsibly.

The question of addiction and drug use are related but not the same issue. Not all drug users are addicts. Nobody here would argue that addiction isn't bad, but that's not an issue that is resolved by putting people in jail and saying "drugs are bad" and that's that; it's an issue that is resolved through education, research, and honest discussions.

I'd say an employer and a social worker would object to the idea that a lazy, unmotivated person would make a good employee and parent.

I know many people who smoke pot and are wonderful parents and employees. As far as heavy smokers (again, there is a difference between an addict and a user), they may not aspire to much in life, but they still can make good responsible parents.

As far as alcoholics, however... from personal experience, at least, I can't think of any alcoholic who's problem hasn't seeped into his personal life in a way that hinders his ability to take care of his kids.

I wouldn't wish an alcoholic parent on anyone. My dad had one, and I've met others. My friend was telling me a couple of months ago about how she remembers pretending with her brother when they were kids that her mom was "acting funny" as a joke, so they could cope with her mom's alcoholic behavior, about how the dishes were on the sink for weeks and nothing was taken care of, or her fits of rage and depression. A stoner parent may not be optimal, but they will do what they have to do as a parent (unless, of course, they're just sh**ty parents).

... My cousin claimed to not be able to sleep unless she smoked a bowl before bed. ...

Insomnia is one of the withdrawals from pot. You start relying on the burnout to fall asleep.

As to the rest, of course there is no black or white, there are varying degrees of use and different people react differently to any drug.

 

[Civilized]

That doesn't make any sense - if "the influence" has no influence, why would people do it?

For them it is just harmless fun, it puts them in a good mood and it doesn't impair them. They do it because it's fun, relaxing, or whatever other things people say about recreation in general. The thing that Dr Andrew Weil is trying to educate us about in the article, is that these people are not being objectively impaired by cannabis, therefore they are having fun without getting "messed up."

All I really see there is that the more you smoke, the higher your tolerance gets so the more you need to smoke to ge the same high. That shouldn't be much of a revalation.

No, you haven't understood the point. As Dr Andrew Weil states, "Even while high they are not objectively impaired." Calling them "high" means that they are at their full desired dosage of the drug, and the 'revelation' is that even when they have ingested their desired and regular dosage, and achieved their desired effect of being stoned, that they are not objectively impaired. Therefore stoned does not imply impaired for a regular user, according to Dr Weil.

In any case, that article isn't all that compelling - he doesn't cite any actual evidence for those claims you quoted, so it isn't any better than a post on a random internet forum.

Dr Weil is this guy, from TV:

He has appeared on Oprah, Larry King live, etc, so say what you want about these TV doctor-personalities but he is one of the most famous so I think his statements carry a little more weight than a 'random internet post.' Also, the article is an excerpt from one of his published books about health, and so the reference is the strength of his reputation.

 

[binzing]

All of those involve getting high.

And your point is what exactly?

One hit vs. ten hits DOES result in a different level of high, with a different level of impairment.

If it works, use it! If its not for you, you don't have to.

 

[binzing]

No, you haven't understood the point. As Dr Andrew Weil states, "Even while high they are not objectively impaired." Calling them "high" means that they are at their full desired dosage of the drug, and the 'revelation' is that even when they have ingested their desired and regular dosage, and achieved their desired effect of being stoned, that they are not objectively impaired. Therefore stoned does not imply impaired for a regular user, according to Dr Weil.

Exactly. SWIM (someone who isn't me ; ) ) can regularly use marijuana in very small amounts (less than a full "hit") and achieve the desired level of "high" that allows SWIM to eat more, be happier, and pay more attention and be more productive in class as well as other effects such as increased enjoyment of music and higher creativity.

SWIM can also use larger amounts in the other settings, generally with friends, and have a good, safe, enjoyable time.

Further, SWIM can abstain for weeks or months, with no negative effects because SWIM is not reliant upon marijuana, as those that abuse it ("potheads") in general are.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, you haven't understood the point. As Dr Andrew Weil states, "Even while high they are not objectively impaired." Calling them "high" means that they are at their full desired dosage of the drug, and the 'revelation' is that even when they have ingested their desired and regular dosage, and achieved their desired effect of being stoned, that they are not objectively impaired. Therefore stoned does not imply impaired for a regular user, according to Dr Weil.

The general concept has been around. Its generally accepted that if you learn to do something in a certain "state of mind" your ability to preform said task will be best under the same circumstances as you learned it. This goes for any "altered" state of mind including simple stress. My friend who is a congnitive science major after reading about this did his own little experiment where he would drink martinis while studying and then have a martini before going into class or his exams.

The problem here is that this does not cancel out the general debilitation of the substance being used. Basic motor skills are one thing but what of critical thinking and the ability to determine approriate action in an unexpected situation? Just because you have driven while stoned and are used to it doesn't mean you will be able to determine appropriate reactions to unexpected situations that arise while driving as well as if you were sober.

There is also the problem that you need to acclimate yourself to driving while stoned in order to be obtain such a proficiency. So the first, second, third time ect that you drive while stoned you will be just as dibilitated as any other person who has not done this while stoned in which case you are still theoretically endangering yourself and others in order to supposedly be capable of not doing so in the future.

 

[Pupil]

The problem here is that this does not cancel out the general debilitation of the substance being used. Basic motor skills are one thing but what of critical thinking and the ability to determine approriate action in an unexpected situation? Just because you have driven while stoned and are used to it doesn't mean you will be able to determine appropriate reactions to unexpected situations that arise while driving as well as if you were sober.

There is also the problem that you need to acclimate yourself to driving while stoned in order to be obtain such a proficiency. So the first, second, third time ect that you drive while stoned you will be just as dibilitated as any other person who has not done this while stoned in which case you are still theoretically endangering yourself and others in order to supposedly be capable of not doing so in the future.

Legalize Cannabis and tell people not to drive.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Legalize Cannabis and tell people not to drive.

Lol... well I am for the legalization of marijuana. I even gave a presentation in high school to this effect. Would you believe it that in California nearly my entire class voted for legalization? ;-)

And not driving while stoned is certainly preferable.

 

[cristo]

If the stoners you know always act like stoners and really are heavy smokers, then it's a cultural thing, or they're just immature people.

This, like everything else you've written, is opinion stated as fact. I'd like to see some evidence to back up your point that stoners don't always act like stoners (whatever that even means). Note that anecdotes are not accepted as proof, especially not in this instance since you are predominantly talking about high school kids who will act about anything to stay popular!

Regarding your point that cannabis addicts make "wonderful" parents, aside from the fact that, again, it is a sweeping generalisation extrapolated from, presumably, one or two cases, it cannot be true in general. Anyone who is addicted to something is not going to be as good a parent as they would be without their addiction, simply because when you are addicted to something it has to come first. When you are a parent you have to put your children first a lot of the time: you cannot claim that an addict can do this.

Would you believe it that in California nearly my entire class voted for legalization?

Yeah, there's a reason kids don't make laws!

 

[Civilized]

Anyone who is addicted to something is not going to be as good a parent as they would be without their addiction, simply because when you are addicted to something it has to come first. When you are a parent you have to put your children first a lot of the time: you cannot claim that an addict can do this.

Does the need to eat meals or sleep interfere with parenting? Or put another way, would eating and sleep as little as possible make someone a better parent? No, because sleep and food make us have more patience to do a better job parenting, and so the time that we spend procuring food etc makes us better parents. Cannabis can also increase a parents patience (as could booze, or any other treat) and more patience often makes for a better parent.

 

[moe darklight]

This, like everything else you've written, is opinion stated as fact. I'd like to see some evidence to back up your point that stoners don't always act like stoners (whatever that even means). Note that anecdotes are not accepted as proof, especially not in this instance since you are predominantly talking about high school kids who will act about anything to stay popular!

Regarding your point that cannabis addicts make "wonderful" parents, aside from the fact that, again, it is a sweeping generalisation extrapolated from, presumably, one or two cases, it cannot be true in general. Anyone who is addicted to something is not going to be as good a parent as they would be without their addiction, simply because when you are addicted to something it has to come first. When you are a parent you have to put your children first a lot of the time: you cannot claim that an addict can do this.
Yeah, there's a reason kids don't make laws!

I said addicts make wonderful parents? I don't think I'm the one making sweeping generalizations here.

[...]

The question of addiction and drug use are related but not the same issue. Not all drug users are addicts. Nobody here would argue that addiction isn't bad, but that's not an issue that is resolved by putting people in jail and saying "drugs are bad" and that's that; it's an issue that is resolved through education, research, and honest discussions.
I know many people who smoke pot* and are wonderful parents and employees. As far as heavy smokers (again, there is a difference between an addict and a user), they may not aspire to much in life, but they still can make good responsible parents.

As far as alcoholics, however... from personal experience, at least, I can't think of any alcoholic who's problem hasn't seeped into his personal life in a way that hinders his ability to take care of his kids.
[...]

Clearly, I didn't say addicts make wonderful parents. There is a difference between an addict and someone who on rare occasions uses drugs. And yes, there is nothing that stops an occasional drug user from being a wonderful parent. Do you have any information to contradict this?

As far as the addict; I wouldn't wish an addict as a parent on anyone, but if I had to choose between a pot addict and an alcoholic, I'd choose the former in a heartbeat. My only point is that addiction to pot doesn't impair the addict to a point where he can't take care of his child's basic needs.

Please refrain from assuming you know what my argument is or what I stand for or who I am, as people always do when discussing drugs. "Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves."

I've pointed out the instances where what I've said comes from personal experience. I've never argued that addiction is not a serious issue. I've pointed out time and again to the serious side effects and consequences of heavy use.

If you're going to argue as to why drugs should be illegal, or exactly what is wrong with responsible drug use, then make your statement, don't just label me as a teenage stoner, neither of which I am: I haven't done any drugs in years, and I'm 22 and been out of high school for a while now. The people I've referred to are in their 20's and even 50's.

The truth is that I've never heard a compelling argument, other than "drugs are bad and if you drive while stoned you kill people la la la I can't hear you" coming from the other side. Yes, people misuse drugs and do stupid things. A kid I went to school with died because his friend was high and drove onto oncoming traffic on the highway (she, the driver, survived). Tragic, but not the drug's fault; it's her fault for misusing the drug. People misuse knives, matches, cars, guns, ladders, rocks, fireworks, etc. etc. all the time and do equally stupid things. You can't outlaw stupidity, but you can educate people to make informed decisions.

 

[antimatroid]

Interesting thread, what are people's opinions on Marijuana being a gateway drug?

This is purely out of my experience, but I would agree that it is, only that it's an implication of the law and how we educate people, rather than the substance itself.

Throughout school children are taught that drugs are bad, and they lump them all into one category. When one eventually gives into peer pressure and tries marijuana, they realize it isn't so bad and begin to wonder how much of a lie everything else told to them was.

Clearly this isn't so bad if they then go on to try mdma, lsd or mushrooms, but there are plenty of other illicit substances which can be really damaging to ones body, and pose serious risks to overdosing etc.?

Also another thing, a lot of people who smoke weed on a regular basis also mix it with tobacco, obviously bringing in the health implications of that with it. I think a lot of people who claim to be addicted to marijuana would find they are more likely addicted to tobacco, and if any marijuana addiction a rather mild one.

What about smoking it through a bong or a joint as well? Clearly one smokes less through a bong to get the desired affect, I have no idea however though which is considered to be more of a health risk (if any difference).

Additionally, although this may not be the case for everyone, many underage people (I'm assuming most people agree it's a sociel desire to prevent children from using substances) can attain marijuana easier than they can alcohol, even get it delivered to them wherever at almost any time of day, often without any added delivery cost. Surely legalising would assist in preventing this.

 

[dyosa]

both are addictive and as one takes in more...adding more to whatever amount is taken then the more addiction there is. and finally that person would wake-up and realize their dependency on it but it will be too late.

 

[darkwood]

Right, I'm putting this here first to get some general opinions and if it eventually gets moved to a biology/medical section, that would be good.

Basically there has been a lot of debate between my housemates about whether or not cannabis and marijuana are better for you to consume than alcohol. Now I know nothing about these drugs so my questions are:
1. Is there evidence showing they are no worse than alcohol or even less damaging than alcohol? As many claims by my housemates are that cannabis and marijuana are less damaging to the body and less adictive than alcohol.
2. Do you think they should be classified as illegal? What are your views on the drugs (perhaps even a few more than just those three)?

As I say initially, although I would like claims to have evidence behind them I will accept general opinions to get things going and get an overall view of the situation.

Your question has too many unknowns and to create a question like this is inviting a mass response due to the simple fact that alcohol and marijuana have physical and mental effects that differ for everyone of us and what one person truly believes may be right for his experiences but not the next persons, studies now suggest alcohol dependency among abuses has genetic links and has been seen that alcoholism runs in some families, this is also the case with marijuana with most users finding memory problems etc but their is a group of people that can end up with mental illness with regular use so their is no right answer to this question unless you knew what genetic traits to look for and screen everyone first.

 

[JaredJames]

Dr Weil is this guy, from TV:

He has appeared on Oprah, Larry King live, etc, so say what you want about these TV doctor-personalities but he is one of the most famous so I think his statements carry a little more weight than a 'random internet post.' Also, the article is an excerpt from one of his published books about health, and so the reference is the strength of his reputation.

Just one thing on the last statement there, now I am NOT discrediting this guy, I don't know who he is, but just because he has appeared on Oprah etc. does not make his statements any more reliable than an internet forum. Tom Cruise has been on Oprah (even acted like a prat on there if I remember rightly) and you don't see people claiming his statements on Scientology being claimed as 'carrying weight' and 'better than a forum' by scientists just because he has been on there.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5883772879840922003
for those who haven't seen mr cruise going mad. good watch.

 

[cristo]

Clearly, I didn't say addicts make wonderful parents.

This is your exact statement:

I know many people who smoke pot and are wonderful parents and employees. As far as heavy smokers (again, there is a difference between an addict and a user), they may not aspire to much in life, but they still can make good responsible parents.

As far as alcoholics, however... from personal experience, at least, I can't think of any alcoholic who's problem hasn't seeped into his personal life in a way that hinders his ability to take care of his kids.

If you're not talking about someone who is addicted to cannabis, then your statement is extremely biased, since you are comparing someone who occasionally smokes cannabis with an alcoholic (i.e. someone who is addicted to alcohol). Let's try and make fair comparisons that aren't loaded with bias, shall we?

As far as the addict; I wouldn't wish an addict as a parent on anyone, but if I had to choose between a pot addict and an alcoholic, I'd choose the former in a heartbeat.

Again, that's a personal opinion.

Please refrain from assuming you know what my argument is or what I stand for or who I am, as people always do when discussing drugs. "Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves."

I have no emotions for the issue: I really don't care whether people want to smoke cannabis or not, I'm simply trying to ensure that an unbiased discussion is taking place.

If you're going to argue as to why drugs should be illegal

Again, I'm not arguing anything. However, it should be noted that one doesn't need to make an argument as to whether drugs should be illegal, since that has already been decided. If one wants anything to change, one needs to put forward an argument for that change.

or exactly what is wrong with responsible drug use, then make your statement, don't just label me as a teenage stoner, neither of which I am: I haven't done any drugs in years, and I'm 22 and been out of high school for a while now. The people I've referred to are in their 20's and even 50's.

It doesn't matter how old you are now if you are discussing experiences that happened when you were in school, c.f.

The people I know don't act goofy stoned or sober (and there are a lot of them: my high school, even by Hamilton standards, is considered a stoner high school. We would smoke pot [or worse] during breaks outside in open daylight).

 

[Kronos5253]

1) I hear a lot of supported evidence as to why cannabis should be legalized, and about the positive effects of cannabis, but so far, in this entire discussion, the only things I've seen that contradict this evidence is all opinion. I have seen no links, no sources, no cites, nothing that contraditcs this aside from personal experience or opinions stated as fact.

2) CANNABIS IS NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE

3) Cristo, you may not care either way, and you may be trying to ensure that an unbiased discussion is taking place and I truly appreciate that, but you have said nothing toward everyone who is opposing cannabis without providing legitimate sources, and are only stating opinions as fact. You have a lot to say to those who do the opposite and support cannabis use though. If it's going to be unbiased, then it involves those opposing it as much as those supporting. I would really like to see this as an unbiased discussion, but so far it's been biased towards those opposing it, because you have yet to have them provide sufficient evidence for their claims.

4) CANNABIS IS NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE

5) CANNABIS IS NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE

 

[cristo]

I would really like to see this as an unbiased discussion, but so far it's been biased towards those opposing it, because you have yet to have them provide sufficient evidence for their claims.

To some extent, that's because that is how science works: anyone who wishes to challenge the mainstream view must provide evidence for this. Cannabis is illegal, thus anyone who wishes to legalise it has a case to make.

However, if you think I'm being biased in my moderation, feel free to report some posts that you think need to be justified (use the red button to the left that says "report").I also would hope that most people know that cannabis is not physically addictive, but note that psychological addiction is also a form of addiction.

 

[Kronos5253]

To some extent, that's because that is how science works: anyone who wishes to challenge the mainstream view must provide evidence for this. Cannabis is illegal, thus anyone who wishes to legalise it has a case to make.

Agreed agreed, but does the mainstream view state that cannabis should be illegal? From what I can tell it seems fairly 50-50 (which makes for a great discussion, btw!).

 

[russ_watters]

And your point is what exactly?

My point was that unlike with alcohol, you don't smoke pot for any reason other than getting high. That's all, but that's a significant difference between pot and alcohol, where it is possible to drink without getting drunk.

One hit vs. ten hits DOES result in a different level of high, with a different level of impairment.

Yes, I understand that.

 

[russ_watters]

For them it is just harmless fun, it puts them in a good mood and it doesn't impair them. They do it because it's fun, relaxing, or whatever other things people say about recreation in general.

Could you describe, in detail, what the actual effects are? What do they feel that "puts them in a good mood"? What do they feel that feels "fun"?

The thing that Dr Andrew Weil is trying to educate us about in the article, is that these people are not being objectively impaired by cannabis, therefore they are having fun without getting "messed up."

Has that article been published in a respected medical/science journal? It doesn't read like a scientific paper.

 

[Kronos5253]

What do they feel that "puts them in a good mood"?

An increased release of dopamine in their brain.

 

[Kronos5253]

My point was that unlike with alcohol, you don't smoke pot for any reason other than getting high.

That's a very narrow-minded view of it, in my opinion.

1) People with ADD or ADHD smoke cannabis because it relaxes them and increases their ability to concentrate and results in more functionality as a person because of the diminished effects of their ADD/ADHD.

2) Doctors in Europe suggest that pregnant mothers take 1-2 hits of cannabis if they feel nauseated. It helps with morning sickness. (Please note, with the average person, 1-2 hits does NOT get you high, any more than 1-2 beers for the average person doesn't get them drunk). They also suggest that after they have the child, they smoke some to help with postpartum.

3) The only benefit that comes from drinking alcohol is in very low doses, and that's just because of the good carbs in it, specifically beer. And really that's only if you're looking for carbs in your diet, like people looking to build muscle or have a workout routine. Otherwise alcohol is pointless, and provides no benefit to your body. And the process of getting drunk destroys your body, so even being buzzed is bad for you. Your intake of alcohol is more than your liver can digest, which is part of what creates that feeling of being "drunk".

4) Before you even say that cannabis diminishes short-term memory, give me a cited source that proves this claim is true. Otherwise that's just an opinion.

:)

 

[wildman]

I don't smoke or drink or go with girls who do...

However, I do mountain climb. It is a dangerous sport and I know several people who have died or been injured in the mountains. So should mountain climbing be made illegal to protect me from myself? If not, why should Pot-Heads be protected from themselves?