Drugs vs Alcohol: What's Better for You?

[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?

 

[wildman]

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



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.

Don't do that with alcohol! Alcohol cases birth defects. That is not true of cannabis.

 

[Kronos5253]

That is certainly true, but incomplete. What I am saying is that the first or second or third drink won't take you to "intoxication" (in other words, above the legal limit) with what percentage of alcohol in the drink? I'm pretty sure that the first or second drink of Everclear will get you "intoxicated" and over the legal limit, whereas the first joint will, if done correctly. It is my understanding that if done properly, the first hit (much less entire joint) gets you to "intoxication".

You're understanding is severely incorrect. Do you have any personal experience with cannabis? By which I mean have you ever smoked it? I'm going to assume not because otherwise you'd know that. "If done correctly" the first hit you'll feel, but you will not be "intoxicated". Also, depending on your tolerance and the quality of the cannabis, you can smoke an entire joint and not be intoxicated. You're assuming that all cannabis has the same level of THC in it to get you high, in which case you are very mistaken.

With alcohol, somewhere around two drinks gets you to "influence" and 5 "intoxication" (highly individual dependent, of course), according to DUI/DWI laws*. No one smokes pot because they like the taste, unlike with alcohol or cigarettes. Intoxication is the only purpose and only proper result of using it.

*This varies widely from state to state. Some states have "driving under the influence" and "driving while intoxicated". Others drop "driving while intoxicated", but afaik, even these still have multiple levels: they drop the different terminology and just have tiered levels of DUI, which for practical purposes means the same thing. For clarity, I'm differentiating between "influence" and "intoxication" the same way state laws do. The point is, there is a minimum dose that you have to take before you'll end up running afoul of DUI law.

And you're able to make this sweeping generalization... How exactly? What proof do you have that no one smokes it because they like the taste? I'm currently 22 (and have presently quit smoking cannabis), but I've been smoking since I was 14. I LOVE the taste of cannabis, as much as I do any of the foods that I enjoy. My wife is the same way, and so are all of the friends that I have that smoke. And so are most of the friends that she has that smoke. You're claim is entirely unsupported. In which case your point that intoxication being the only purpose and proper result of using it being incorrect. I smoke because I enjoy it, same as those on here that drink. Once I feel like I'm getting to my desired point of intoxication, I stop and have a cigarette, because smoking the cigarette quickens the time delay for the intoxication to "hit" you. I don't just keep smoking, because that's a waste, only irresponsible smokers do that, because they're unaware that you can only get so high. I know my limit.

 

[binzing]

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. Yes, I understand that.

The point is you seem to be biased against any positive effects from the consumption of marijuana, which defeats the purpose of trying to have a discussion if you're not going to have an open mind to it.

 

[dx]

It should also be noted that it is extremely easy to get too drunk (even fatal amounts), while it is not possible to get too high (it is virtually impossible to consume a fatal amount of pot). Even far less than fatal amounts of alcohol can put you in a very dangerous state both to yourself and others, whereas this doesn't happen with marijuana.

 

[Civilized]

Until someone provides contrary evidence from a peer reviewed scientific study, I don't want to see anymore claims about mj smoke causing cancer, because I refute them with this study by Dr Tashkin at UCLA:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html"

http://www.counterpunch.com/gardner07022005.html"

Dr. Donald Tashkin Marijuana Lung Cancer Study Pt 1 of 2
(youtube)

It turns out that if you restrict yourself only to peer reviewed medical literature, the evidence shows that cannabis is good for the human brain, not bad for it:

van der Stelt M, Veldhuis WB, Bar PR, Veldink GA, et al. "Neuroprotection by Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active compound in marijuana, against ouabain-induced in vivo excitotoxicity." J Neurosci. 2001; 21(17):6475-6479.

Marsicano G, Goodenough S, Monory K, Hermann H, et al. "CB1 cannabinoid receptors and on-demand defense against excitotoxicity." Science. Oct 3, 2003; 302(5642):84-88.

Knoller N, Levi L, Shoshan I, Reichenthal E, et al. "Dexanabinol (HU-211) in the treatment of severe closed head injury: a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial." Crit Care Med. Mar 2002; 30(3):548-554.

Shen M, Piser TM, Seybold VS, Thayer SA. "Cannabinoid receptor agonists inhibit glutamatergic synaptic transmission in rat hippocampal cultures." J Neurosci. Jul 15, 1996; 16(14):4322-4334.

Mechoulam R, Panikashvili D, Shohami E. "Cannabinoids and brain injury: therapeutic implications." Trends Mol Med. Feb 2002; 8(2):58-61.

Cannabis Science: Cannabinoid Derivative Protects Neurons, by R.H.B. Fishman
The Lancet, Vol 348 (No 9039) Nov 23, 1996


Cannabinoid receptor agonists inhibit glutamatergic synaptic transmission in rat hippocampal cultures, by Shen M, Piser TM, Seybold VS, Thayer SA
J Neurosci, 16(14):4322-34 1996


Protection against septic shock and suppression of tumor necrosis factor alpha and nitric oxide production by dexanabinol (HU-211), a nonpsychotropic cannabinoid, by Gallily R, Yamin A, Waksmann Y, Ovadia H, Weidenfeld J, Bar-Joseph A, Biegon A, Mechoulam R, Shohami E
J Pharmacol Exp Ther, 283(2):918-24 1997


Cannabinoid receptor agonists protect cultured rat hippocampal neurons from excitotoxicity, by Shen M, Thayer SA
Mol Pharmacol, 54(3):459-62 1998


Cannabinoids and neuroprotection in global and focal cerebral ischemia and in neuronal cultures, by Nagayama T, Sinor AD, Simon RP, Chen J, Graham SH, Jin K, Greenberg DA
J Neurosci, 19(8):2987-95 1999


Neuroprotection by Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active compound in marijuana, against ouabain-induced in vivo excitotoxicity, by van der Stelt M, Veldhuis WB, Bar PR, Veldink GA, Vliegenthart JF, Nicolay K
J Neurosci, 21(17):6475-9 2001


Cannabinoids and brain injury: therapeutic implications, by Mechoulam R, Panikashvili D, Shohami E
Trends Mol Med, 8(2):58-61 2002


Neuroprotection by the endogenous cannabinoid anandamide and arvanil against in vivo excitotoxicity in the rat: role of vanilloid receptors and lipoxygenases, by Veldhuis WB, van der Stelt M, Wadman MW, van Zadelhoff G, Maccarrone M, Fezza F, Veldink GA, Vliegenthart JF, Bar PR, Nicolay K, Di Marzo V
J Neurosci, 23(10):4127-33 2003

CB1 cannabinoid receptors and on-demand defense against excitotoxicity, by Marsicano G, Goodenough S, Monory K, Hermann H, Eder M, Cannich A, Azad SC, Cascio MG, Gutierrez SO, van der Stelt M, Lopez-Rodriguez ML, Casanova E, Schatz G, Zieglgansberger W, Di Marzo V, Behl C, Lutz B
Science, 302(5642):84-8 2003

This following article didn't find anything positive, but it set out to test whether cannabis use contributes to cognitive decline and found that it does not:

Lyketsos CG,Garrett E,Liang KY, Anthony JC.
“Cannabis use and cognitive decline in persons under 65 years of age”. American Journal of Epemiology. 1999;149(9):794-800.

"There were no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis. There were also no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use."

Scientific data about the subjective experience of a statistical sample of users:

"[URL
On Being Stoned: A Psychological Study of Marijuana Intoxication Charles T. Tart, Ph. D.[/URL]
(published as a book, not a journal)

 

[Civilized]

Personally I dislike the sort of barage of references that I gave above, because let's be honest, the people in this thread who have already made up their mind that cannabis is bad are not going to read all that, or if they do it will only be to skim for superficial criticisms that in their mind allow them to dismiss all of the evidence categorically e.g. 'Dr Weil? Pshh, if it's not in a peer reviewed study it is completely meaningless.' With this barrier in mind, I am going to disect a particular report by the http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/uk_lords_report/IndexOfReport.shtml" :

The acute toxicity of cannabis and the cannabinoids is very low; no-one has ever died as a direct and immediate consequence of recreational or medical use (DH QQ 219223). Official statistics record two deaths involving cannabis (and no other drug) in 1993, two in 1994 and one in 1995 (HC WA 533, 21 January 1998); but these were due to inhalation of vomit. Animal studies have shown a very large separation (by a factor of more than 10,000) between pharmacologically effective and lethal doses.

In contrast the LD50 for alcohol for my body weight is less than some of the sizes of alcohol containers which are sold at the store. Therefore the corresponding factor in the case of alcohol is $10^0$ or $10^1$ instead of $10^4$ in the case of cannabis, and therefore I would say that cannabis is 3-4 orders of magnitude safer than alcohol. Every year college students die from binge drinking, personally I consider these deaths to be especially tragic. If we can get these kids to cut their drinking by consuming other safer drugs at these parties (that make them go to sleep), then I think we should.

The occurrence of an "amotivational syndrome" in long-term heavy cannabis users, with loss of energy and the will to work, has been postulated. However it is now generally discounted (van Amsterdam Q 503); it is thought to represent nothing more than ongoing intoxication in frequent users of the drug (RCPsych p 283).

In other words, after cannabis use is discontinued the demotivated person will find their motivation returns.

It is therefore clear that cannabis causes psychological dependence in some users, and may cause physical dependence in a few. The Department of Health sum up the position thus (p 45, cp Edwards Q 28): "Cannabis is a weakly addictive drug but does induce dependence in a significant minority of regular cannabis users."

Remember, this thread is about comparing cannabis to alcohol, so "weakly addictive" is a point in favor of cannabis over alcohol.

The Independent Drug Monitoring Unit conducted a survey of 1,333 regular cannabis users who attended a major pop festival in Britain in the summer of 1994 (p 231). The majority were daily cannabis users with an average consumption of about 24.8g of cannabis resin per month. Respondents gave highly positive subjective ratings to cannabis (as opposed to negative subjective ratings to solvents, cocaine and heroin). More than 60 per cent believed that cannabis had been of benefit to their physical or mental health. They would prefer that the law was more liberal, but a majority (70 per cent) did not think that they would use more if it was.

How many alcoholics would report the bold statement to such a study? Sure it's easy to say such people are delusional, but even major alcoholics are not usually under the delusion that alcohol had been a benefit to their mental and physical health. The same goes for hard drug users, how many cocaine, heroin, etc addicts will after years of heavy use report that their drug "had been of benefit to their physical or mental health." I think you would be hard pressed to find such a positive recommendation for coffee, everyone drinks coffee in theoretical physics but anecdotally reports in small talk suggest that it is considered a guilty pleasure i.e. good for our work maybe, but not for our health.

cannabis is arguably less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco (e.g. RCGP p 281, Kendall p 268).

 

[moe darklight]

1) 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).

2) 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.

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

Are you even reading what I wrote?

1) I was not comparing an alcoholic to an occasional smoker. First I pointed out that there's nothing that stops an occasional smoker from being a wonderful parent. Then I made the comparison between the heavy smoker and alcoholic.

2) No. This is the case in the realm of science. But this is about laws. If a law is stupid, and there is no scientific evidence to back it up, then it shouldn't be a law anymore.
Is there any study that shows that moderate use of cannabis or mushrooms poses anyone such a threat as to justify their illegal status? Because I can find studies about the positive effects of moderate use.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v2175688r1w4862x/"
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/featpeyote/?searchterm=magic mushrooms"
There's also erowid.org for all sorts of links (some sources are dubious, but it's sort of a wiki focused on psychoactives) or shroomery.org-- there are thousands of testimonial experiences on all drugs; negative and positive.

Articles on the positive effects of responsible drug use, either based on a good personal experience or on scientific research, are quite easy to find. Where are the studies that say otherwise? the studies that justify a billions-of-dollars illegal drug trade backed by war, gangs, and death; a war on drugs that doesn't work; hundreds of thousands of people in jail; criminal records... etc. etc.?

It's called the justice system. It's there to keep people safe, it's there to ensure justice. Therefore on it lies the burden of justifying these laws. On it lies the burden of justifying why a couple of kids should not be allowed to go on a hike, eat a bunch of mushrooms, laugh for a couple of hours, and go back home (responsible users always have a sitter, which is exactly what it sounds like-- a babysitter: on hallucinogens one essentially has the capacity for decision making and risk assessment of a small child-- so no, they won't all get lost and die, or go on killing sprees because a tree fairy told them to).

If, as hard as it is for these people to get clearance to do it, there already is research out there that shows positive or just neutral effects to responsible drug use with some of these illegal drugs, and there isn't any on the negative effects of it, and people want to do them; why is it illegal?
If, as someone showed before, legalizing them signifficantly reduces the cases of overdose and tranmission of disease from harder drugs, why are they still illegal?
If gangs are funded by drugs, and it's a billions of dollars industry that is responsible for countless deaths, why are they still illegal?
The burden is on them to justify why they should be illegal, not on us-- that facts are on our side already.

3) Again, you're clearly not reading or not wanting to read what I said: yes, some of my experiences were based on high school. None of these kids are still in high school. Some of my experiences involve people who are in their 40's and 50's.

 

[Moonbear]

Anyone doing an honest search of the peer-reviewed literature would be aware of the numerous reports of cannabis addiction/dependence.

Also, keep in mind that just because a receptor has been NAMED because a compound in an illicit drug binds to it, that does not mean it is the primary function of that receptor. Do not confuse the normal, physiological function of a receptor with the pharmacological effects imparted when substances are ingested or inhaled that bind to that receptor and disrupt its normal function. If the drug were not capable of interacting with a receptor, it would have no effect beyond that of non-specific toxicity. The comments I see here trying to defend cannabis use because of the presence of the cannabinoid receptors are only demonstrating the lack of education of those posters in the topics of neuroscience and pharmacology.

Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2009 Apr;203(3):511-7. Epub 2008 Nov 12.
Intermediate cannabis dependence phenotypes and the FAAH C385A variant: an exploratory analysis.
Schacht JP, Selling RE, Hutchison KE.

University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA. Joseph.Schacht@colorado.edu

RATIONALE: Cannabis dependence is a growing problem among individuals who use marijuana frequently, and genetic differences make some users more liable to progress to dependence. The identification of intermediate phenotypes of cannabis dependence may aid candidate genetic analysis. Promising intermediate phenotypes include craving for marijuana, withdrawal symptoms after abstinence, and sensitivity to its acute effects. A single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the gene encoding for fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) has demonstrated association with substance use disorder diagnoses, but has not been studied with respect to these narrower phenotypes. FAAH is an enzyme that inactivates anandamide, an endogenous agonist for CB(1) receptors (to which Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol binds). CB(1) binding modulates mesocorticolimbic dopamine release, which underlies many facets of addiction. OBJECTIVES: The SNP, FAAH C385A (rs324420), was examined to determine whether its variance was associated with changes in craving and withdrawal after marijuana abstinence, craving after cue exposure, or sensitivity to the acute effects of marijuana. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty daily marijuana users abstained for 24 h, were presented with a cue-elicited craving paradigm and smoked a marijuana cigarette in the laboratory. RESULTS: C385A variance was significantly associated with changes in withdrawal after abstinence, and happiness after smoking marijuana in the predicted directions, was associated with changes in heart rate after smoking in the opposite of the predicted direction, and was not associated with changes in craving or other acute effects. CONCLUSIONS: These data lend support to some previous association studies of C385A, but suggest that further refinement of these intermediate phenotypes is necessary.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Addiction. 2008 Aug;103(8):1391-8.
Genetic and environmental contributions to nicotine, alcohol and cannabis dependence in male twins.
Xian H, Scherrer JF, Grant JD, Eisen SA, True WR, Jacob T, Bucholz KK.

Research Service, St Louis Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), St Louis, MO 63106, USA. hong.xian@va.gov

AIMS: To compute the common and specific genetic and environmental contributions to nicotine dependence (ND) alcohol dependence (AD) and cannabis dependence (CD). DESIGN: Twin model. PARTICIPANTS: Data from 1874 monozygotic and 1498 dizygotic twin pair members of the Vietnam Era Twin Registry were obtained via telephone administration of a structured psychiatric interview in 1992. MEASUREMENTS: Data to derive life-time diagnoses of DSM-III-R ND, AD and CD were obtained via telephone administration of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule. FINDINGS: The best-fitting model allowed for additive genetic contributions and unique environmental influences that were common to all three phenotypes. Risks for ND and AD were also due to genetic and unique environmental influences specific to each drug. A specific shared environmental factor contributed to CD. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the life-time co-occurrence of ND, AD and CD is due to common and specific genetic factors as well as unique environmental influences, and vulnerability for CD is also due to shared environmental factors that do not contribute to ND and AD. The majority of genetic variance is shared across drugs and the majority of unique environmental influences are drug-specific in these middle-aged men. Because differences between models allowing for specific genetic versus shared environment were small, we are most confident in concluding that there are specific familial contributions-either additive genetic or shared environment-to CD.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Addiction. 2008 Aug;103(8):1361-70.
Adolescent cannabis users at 24 years: trajectories to regular weekly use and dependence in young adulthood.
Swift W, Coffey C, Carlin JB, Degenhardt L, Patton GC.

National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia. w.swift@unsw.edu.au

AIMS: To examine the association between cannabis use by 18 years and problematic cannabis use at 24 years, considering possible mediating and confounding factors. DESIGN: Ten-year representative prospective study with data from six time-points in adolescence (mean age 14.9-17.4 years) and two in young adulthood (mean age 20.7 and 24.1 years) SETTING: Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Inception cohort of 1943 secondary school students (95.6% response rate), with 1520 (78% of adolescent participants) interviewed in the final wave. MEASUREMENTS: Participants reported frequency of cannabis use for the past 6 months at each time-point in adolescence (age 14-17 years). Cannabis exposure was defined as: maximum frequency of use (occasional, weekly, daily), number of waves of use (1 or 2; 3-6) and first wave of use (early use: first waves 1-3). Young adult (24 years) outcomes were: weekly+ cannabis use and DSM-IV cannabis dependence, referred to collectively as problematic use. FINDINGS: Of those interviewed at age 24 (wave 8), 34% had reported cannabis use in adolescence (waves 1-6), 12% at a level of weekly or more frequent use; 37% of these adolescent cannabis users were using at least weekly at wave 8, with 20% exhibiting dependence. Persistent adolescent cannabis and tobacco use as well as persistent mental health problems were associated strongly with problematic cannabis use at 24 years, after adjustment for potential confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: Heavy, persistent and early-onset cannabis use were all strongly predictive of later cannabis problems. Even so, occasional use was not free of later problems. Where there was co-occurring tobacco use or persistent mental health problems, risks for later problem cannabis use was higher.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

J Drug Educ. 2008;38(2):97-107.
Quality of web-based information on cannabis addiction.
Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, Zullino D.

Division of Substance Abuse, Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland. yasser.khazaal@hcuge.ch

This study evaluated the quality of Web-based information on cannabis use and addiction and investigated particular content quality indicators. Three keywords ("cannabis addiction," "cannabis dependence," and "cannabis abuse") were entered into two popular World Wide Web search engines. Websites were assessed with a standardized proforma designed to rate sites on the basis of accountability, presentation, interactivity, readability, and content quality. "Health on the Net" (HON) quality label, and DISCERN scale scores were used to verify their efficiency as quality indicators. Of the 94 Websites identified, 57 were included. Most were commercial sites. Based on outcome measures, the overall quality of the sites turned out to be poor. A global score (the sum of accountability, interactivity, content quality and esthetic criteria) appeared as a good content quality indicator. While cannabis education Websites for patients are widespread, their global quality is poor. There is a need for better evidence-based information about cannabis use and addiction on the Web.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Addiction. 2008 Oct;103(10):1671-7. Epub 2008 Aug 14.

Ammonia release from heated 'street' cannabis leaf and its potential toxic effects on cannabis users.
Bloor RN, Wang TS, Spanel P, Smith D.

Academic Psychiatry Unit, Keele University Medical School, Academic Suite, Harplands Hospital, Hilton Road, Harpfields, Stoke-on-Trent, UK. r.n.bloor@psyct.keele.ac.uk

AIMS: To use selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS) to analyse the molecular species emitted by heated 'street' cannabis plant material, especially targeting ammonia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Samples of 'street' cannabis leaf, held under a UK Home Office licence, were prepared by finely chopping and mixing the material. The samples were then heated in commercially available devices. The air containing the released gaseous compounds was sampled into the SIFT-MS instrument for analysis. Smoke from standard 3% National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) cannabis cigarettes was also analysed. FINDINGS: For 'street' cannabis, ammonia was present in the air samples from the devices at levels approaching 200 parts per million (p.p.m.). This is compared with peak levels of 10 p.p.m. using NIDA samples of known provenance and tetrahydrocannabinol content (3%). Several other compounds were present at lower levels, including acetaldehyde, methanol, acetone, acetic acid and uncharacterized terpenes. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of the risks of inhaling the smoke directly from burning cannabis has led to the development of a number of alternative methods of delivery, which are claimed to be safer than direct smoking. Ammonia at toxic levels is produced from heating 'street' cannabis in these commercially available devices. Thus, the use of these devices to deliver 'street' cannabis is now open to question and further research is needed to investigate their safety.

PMID: 18705690 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Addiction. 2008 Oct;103(10):1678-86. Epub 2008 Aug 14.Click here to read
Marijuana withdrawal and craving: influence of the cannabinoid receptor 1 (CNR1) and fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) genes.
Haughey HM, Marshall E, Schacht JP, Louis A, Hutchison KE.

University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.

AIM: To examine whether withdrawal after abstinence and cue-elicited craving were associated with polymorphisms within two genes involved in regulating the endocannabinoid system, cannabinoid receptor 1 (CNR1) and fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH). Two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the CNR1 (rs2023239) and FAAH (rs324420) genes, associated previously with substance abuse and functional changes in cannabinoid regulation, were examined in a sample of daily marijuana smokers. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 105 students at the University of Colorado, Boulder between the ages of 18 and 25 years who reported smoking marijuana daily. MEASUREMENTS: Participants were assessed once at baseline and again after 5 days of abstinence, during which they were exposed to a cue-elicited craving paradigm. Outcome measures were withdrawal and craving collected using self-reported questionnaires. In addition, urine samples were collected at baseline and on day 5 for the purposes of 11-nor-9-carboxy-Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-COOH) metabolite analysis. FINDINGS: Between the two sessions, THC-COOH metabolite levels decreased significantly, while measures of withdrawal and craving increased significantly. The CNR1 SNP displayed a significant abstinence x genotype interaction on withdrawal, as well as a main effect on overall levels of craving, while the FAAH SNP displayed a significant abstinence x genotype interaction on craving. CONCLUSIONS: These genetic findings may have both etiological and treatment implications. However, longitudinal studies will be needed to clarify whether these genetic variations influence the trajectory of marijuana use/dependence. The identification of underlying genetic differences in phenotypes such as craving and withdrawal may aid genetically targeted approaches to the treatment of cannabis dependence.

PMID: 18705688 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

[Kronos5253]

Anyone doing an honest search of the peer-reviewed literature would be aware of the numerous reports of cannabis addiction/dependence.

Also, keep in mind that just because a receptor has been NAMED because a compound in an illicit drug binds to it, that does not mean it is the primary function of that receptor. Do not confuse the normal, physiological function of a receptor with the pharmacological effects imparted when substances are ingested or inhaled that bind to that receptor and disrupt its normal function. If the drug were not capable of interacting with a receptor, it would have no effect beyond that of non-specific toxicity. The comments I see here trying to defend cannabis use because of the presence of the cannabinoid receptors are only demonstrating the lack of education of those posters in the topics of neuroscience and pharmacology.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Sounds like a lot of vague statistics to me.

First one:

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty daily marijuana users abstained for 24 h, were presented with a cue-elicited craving paradigm and smoked a marijuana cigarette in the laboratory. RESULTS: C385A variance was significantly associated with changes in withdrawal after abstinence, and happiness after smoking marijuana in the predicted directions, was associated with changes in heart rate after smoking in the opposite of the predicted direction, and was not associated with changes in craving or other acute effects. CONCLUSIONS: These data lend support to some previous association studies of C385A, but suggest that further refinement of these intermediate phenotypes is necessary.

Inconclusive.

Second one:

FINDINGS: The best-fitting model allowed for additive genetic contributions and unique environmental influences that were common to all three phenotypes. Risks for ND and AD were also due to genetic and unique environmental influences specific to each drug. A specific note: specific shared environmental factor contributed to CD. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the life-time co-occurrence of ND, AD and CD is due to common and specific genetic factors as well as unique environmental influences, and vulnerability for CD is also due to shared environmental factors that do not contribute to ND and AD. The majority of genetic variance is shared across drugs and the majority of unique environmental influences are drug-specific in these middle-aged men. Because differences between models allowing for specific genetic versus shared environment were small, we are most confident in concluding that there are specific familial contributions-either additive genetic or shared environment-to CD.

Still only a theory. Not legitimate proof. That's their BELIEF.

Third one:

MEASUREMENTS: Participants reported frequency of cannabis use for the past 6 months at each time-point in adolescence (age 14-17 years). Cannabis exposure was defined as: maximum frequency of use (occasional, weekly, daily), number of waves of use (1 or 2; 3-6) and first wave of use (early use: first waves 1-3). Young adult (24 years) outcomes were: weekly+ cannabis use and DSM-IV cannabis dependence, referred to collectively as problematic use. #1) I'm confused on this, so I'm not sure how to react to it, but does that mean that using cannabis more than once a weeks is referred to as problematic use? If so, see point 2. FINDINGS: Of those interviewed at age 24 (wave 8), 34% had reported cannabis use in adolescence (waves 1-6), 12% at a level of weekly or more frequent use; 37% of these adolescent cannabis users were using at least weekly at wave 8, with 20% exhibiting dependence. Persistent adolescent cannabis and tobacco use as well as persistent mental health problems were associated strongly with problematic cannabis use at 24 years, after adjustment for potential confounding factors. What kind of adjustment would they have to make on that?? CONCLUSIONS: Heavy, persistent and early-onset cannabis use were all strongly predictive of later cannabis problems. #2) So, depending on if point #1 is what I think it is, does that mean that early use of cannibus lead to smoking more of it later in your life, as in more than once a week? If so, that sounds like a "duh!" statement to me. Even so, occasional use was not free of later problems. Where there was co-occurring tobacco use or persistent mental health problems, risks for later problem cannabis use was higher.

From what I understand of that (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm not sure I entirely understand that one), it sounds like they were already biased against cannabis use, setting problematic use as weekly+. In which case I don't see that as a legitimate study. Bias' should be excluded in experimentation from a scientific standpoint (as much as is possible at least).

Fourth one:

J Drug Educ. 2008;38(2):97-107.
Quality of web-based information on cannabis addiction.
Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, Zullino D.

Division of Substance Abuse, Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland. yasser.khazaal@hcuge.ch

This study evaluated the quality of Web-based information on cannabis use and addiction and investigated particular content quality indicators. Three keywords ("cannabis addiction," "cannabis dependence," and "cannabis abuse") were entered into two popular World Wide Web search engines. Websites were assessed with a standardized proforma designed to rate sites on the basis of accountability, presentation, interactivity, readability, and content quality. "Health on the Net" (HON) quality label, and DISCERN scale scores were used to verify their efficiency as quality indicators. Of the 94 Websites identified, 57 were included. Most were commercial sites. Based on outcome measures, the overall quality of the sites turned out to be poor. A global score (the sum of accountability, interactivity, content quality and esthetic criteria) appeared as a good content quality indicator. While cannabis education Websites for patients are widespread, their global quality is poor. There is a need for better evidence-based information about cannabis use and addiction on the Web.

That supports our point, not yours... So I'm confused as to why you'd even put that on there. All it really says is that you can't rely on what you read on the internet regarding cannibus dependence, addiction, and abuse. That's a "duh!" statement to me too.

Fifth one:

Addiction. 2008 Oct;103(10):1671-7. Epub 2008 Aug 14.

Ammonia release from heated 'street' cannabis leaf and its potential toxic effects on cannabis users.
Bloor RN, Wang TS, Spanel P, Smith D.

Academic Psychiatry Unit, Keele University Medical School, Academic Suite, Harplands Hospital, Hilton Road, Harpfields, Stoke-on-Trent, UK. r.n.bloor@psyct.keele.ac.uk

AIMS: To use selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS) to analyse the molecular species emitted by heated 'street' cannabis plant material, especially targeting ammonia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Samples of 'street' cannabis leaf, held under a UK Home Office licence, were prepared by finely chopping and mixing the material. The samples were then heated in commercially available devices. The air containing the released gaseous compounds was sampled into the SIFT-MS instrument for analysis. Smoke from standard 3% National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) cannabis cigarettes was also analysed. FINDINGS: For 'street' cannabis, ammonia was present in the air samples from the devices at levels approaching 200 parts per million (p.p.m.). This is compared with peak levels of 10 p.p.m. using NIDA samples of known provenance and tetrahydrocannabinol content (3%). Several other compounds were present at lower levels, including acetaldehyde, methanol, acetone, acetic acid and uncharacterized terpenes. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of the risks of inhaling the smoke directly from burning cannabis has led to the development of a number of alternative methods of delivery, which are claimed to be safer than direct smoking. Ammonia at toxic levels is produced from heating 'street' cannabis in these commercially available devices. Thus, the use of these devices to deliver 'street' cannabis is now open to question and further research is needed to investigate their safety.

PMID: 18705690 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Of course you're going to get high levels from using the SIFT-MS machine, it allows for no mixture of outside air into it, so you're going to get a higher concentration. At least that's from what I know about the machine. With natural air being mixed in with the smoke from the cannabis you're going to get a smaller p.p.m. because the smoke will be diluted, making it less harmful.

Sixth one:

FINDINGS: Between the two sessions, THC-COOH metabolite levels decreased significantly, while measures of withdrawal and craving increased significantly. The CNR1 SNP displayed a significant abstinence x genotype interaction on withdrawal, as well as a main effect on overall levels of craving, while the FAAH SNP displayed a significant abstinence x genotype interaction on craving. CONCLUSIONS: These genetic findings may have both etiological and treatment implications. However, longitudinal studies will be needed to clarify whether these genetic variations influence the trajectory of marijuana use/dependence. The identification of underlying genetic differences in phenotypes such as craving and withdrawal may aid genetically targeted approaches to the treatment of cannabis dependence.

So basically they found out that if you're used to using something for a while, and you stop using it, you go through withdrawl symptoms. This case just so happens to be with cannabis. You could probably do that study with pretty much anything and find that you go through some type of withdrawl symptom, just because you're so used to it being there. Aside from that, it's still inconclusive because longitudinal studies will need to be done to clarify their findings.

So basically you found a bunch of incomplete studies that are either bias or are incomplete or inconclusive...

Anyone doing an honest search of the peer-reviewed literature would be aware of the numerous reports of cannabis addiction/dependence.

That are mostly all still inconclusive and need further study.

 

[Kronos5253]

[...]

In other words, after cannabis use is discontinued the demotivated person will find their motivation returns.

As an aside to that, cannabis doesn't even always demotivate people. That can vary from smoke session to smoke session, using the same cannabis. Generally that depends on the will of the individual, and the situation in which they are smoking. It even depends on the quality of the cannabis, and the clarity of the THC "crystals" that the cannabis contains.

I've personally smoked and felt compelled to build things, have intelligent conversations, clean my house, draw, write, go outside and experience the world, eat (haha), sleep, relax, look up entirely new information that I either had a question about or didn't know anything about and found the curiosity in me compelling. Generally this depends on all of the aforementioned factors. I honestly cannot say that every single time I've smoked cannabis I have had a decreased sense of motivation, because that's just flat-out not true.

 

[Kurdt]

Closed pending moderation.