is smoking weed bad? (1 Viewer)

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

Precisely.

All we're hearing in this thread is anecdotal evidence.
'Oh well I tried pot and I'm fine. My friends do pot, and they're fine. Yeah I did some other drugs but they're in no way linked to my marijuana use'

The evidence exists to suggest that despite its reputation as a pussy cat drug, that the long and short term effects of marijuana use are not pretty safe

ill say this tho...

ICE F*CKS you up..

love life... do prozacs

 

[stazi]

Precisely.

All we're hearing in this thread is anecdotal evidence.
'Oh well I tried pot and I'm fine. My friends do pot, and they're fine. Yeah I did some other drugs but they're in no way linked to my marijuana use'

The evidence exists to suggest that despite its reputation as a pussy cat drug, that the long and short term effects of marijuana use are not pretty safe

yes, but what is that evidence that you're talking about based on? anecdotal evidence from a larger sample size.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

Again, why can't drugs be on a continuum?

Doesn't food alter the chemical imbalance of the brain?

recreational = do it cos u are fucking bored
medical= cos ure sick

the problem is that foods dun tend to mess around with motor function and everyday function... see thats a problem drug

like think... take paracetamol... cos u have pain.. u can drive.. and do work = GOOD

like think..... take weed..... cos u are bored out of ure mind... u cant do shit e.g. drive.. u get the munchies.. and ur professor is wondering why the fuck u are typing about the merits of brownies = BAD..

 

[stazi]

yes but her point was "I'm just arguing that when it comes to drugs that alter the chemical balance in your brain...they can't be safe".

 

[Atonofrash]

Staz has a very valid point. just because a lot of people use majuana first it doesn't mean that it's a 'gateway' drug in that it encourages people to use other drugs, unless you also class alcohol etc in that.

yes this is anecdotal evidence (but it's so common-place that it seems anti-intuitive to completely disregard it), I know so many people who smoked a LOT of weed but by their own lights 'wouldn't touch chemical' (ie pills), and there's other people who yes, have tried weed, don't really like it heaps and don't do it regularly, but do other 'harder' drugs.

So yes, overwhelmingly people who take harder drugs probably have tried weed, and just as stas said, have probably 'tried' alcohol and cigarrettes too - becuase they're the sort of people who seek mind altering things


also, as for 'it alters the brain = bad', so does exercise. should we stop doing excercise because it releases endorphins and some people get addicted? should we stop drinking red bull and coffee? no. because they ARE relatively safe.

safe is most def a relative term.

living isn't safe. driving to work isn't safe. but it's relatively safe if you're not drunk etc.

 

[boris]

yes but her point was "I'm just arguing that when it comes to drugs that alter the chemical balance in your brain...they can't be safe".

Well they can't be? You're not disproving me at all staz, you're just pulling random shit out like 'well food causes chemical imbalances'.

A banana is not a psychostimulant. Bread is not a psychstimulant.

You cannot honestly want to argue whether food is as safe as pot because food causes chemical imbalances. They are not relative. Yes! Chocolate can alter the production of certain chemicals in the brain to make you happy. It is not a psychostimulant.

yes, but what is that evidence that you're talking about based on? anecdotal evidence from a larger sample size.

Not necessarily anecdotal, there would be a battery of tests being done on the biochemistry and MRIs to track brain development, etc. Plus follow ups.
And being a larger sample size, the results are going to be more indicative of a population sample than if you picked 10 of your friends.

Again, why can't drugs be on a continuum?

They are on a continuum. I just don't agree with it. The minute you start saying certain drugs are 'pretty safe' is the moment you open them to abuse.
Most people think alcohol is 'pretty safe' and it's the most widely abused substance of them all.

Yet people consume caffeine at a greater level in order to be more awake, as resistance goes up. You haven't applied the answer to alcohol yet, either. Is alcohol then the ultimate gateway drug?

Are you still trying to link caffeine use and drug use?

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

yes but her point was "I'm just arguing that when it comes to drugs that alter the chemical balance in your brain...they can't be safe".

I think from a medical point of view.. lik u based things on outcome..

my kid tells me he wants to try a drug...
im going to give him hash cookies.. i will beat the asian/white/black out of him if he does heroin. cos statistically he is more likely to get f*cked from it, like anyone Id prefer if he didnt.. but if they did.. id prolly start him at sumfing simple. im not going to stop him enjoying his life tho.. but i dun want him to fuck it up.

drugs for most ppl are a way of relaxing and/or coping with hard times. there are better ways so that you are more productive and sane.

the evidence for most of the lancet stuff is good case-controls studies... like large ones up to 3000 ppl.. not very anecdotal. Personal experience for myself was working in a psychiatric clinic tat detained ppl and friends.. 100-200 ppl tats anecdotal.. .

 

[boris]

Staz has a very valid point. just because a lot of people use majuana first it doesn't mean that it's a 'gateway' drug in that it encourages people to use other drugs, unless you also class alcohol etc in that.

yes this is anecdotal evidence (but it's so common-place that it seems anti-intuitive to completely disregard it), I know so many people who smoked a LOT of weed but by their own lights 'wouldn't touch chemical' (ie pills), and there's other people who yes, have tried weed, don't really like it heaps and don't do it regularly, but do other 'harder' drugs.

So yes, overwhelmingly people who take harder drugs probably have tried weed, and just as stas said, have probably 'tried' alcohol and cigarrettes too - becuase they're the sort of people who seek mind altering things


also, as for 'it alters the brain = bad', so does exercise. should we stop doing excercise because it releases endorphins and some people get addicted? should we stop drinking red bull and coffee? no. because they ARE relatively safe.

safe is most def a relative term.

living isn't safe. driving to work isn't safe. but it's relatively safe if you're not drunk etc.

I think if you guys are going to keep using the whole 'well activity x also changes the chemical balance in your brain' you guys might want to learn a little bit more of the science behind chemical imbalances and what psychostimulants do as opposed to normal activities that trigger normal responses.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

Staz has a very valid point. just because a lot of people use majuana first it doesn't mean that it's a 'gateway' drug in that it encourages people to use other drugs, unless you also class alcohol etc in that.

a gateway drug does not imply tat..

it is the first illicit/illegal drug u use...... before u use other 'riskier' ones

 

[Atonofrash]

a gateway drug does not imply tat..

it is the first illicit/illegal drug u use...... before u use other 'riskier' ones

yes but correlation does not equal causation. just because it's the first for most it doesn't mean that if that wasn't around they wouldnt have done other things, nor does it mean that doing that makes you take other drugs.

 

[Atonofrash]

I think if you guys are going to keep using the whole 'well activity x also changes the chemical balance in your brain' you guys might want to learn a little bit more of the science behind chemical imbalances and what psychostimulants do as opposed to normal activities that trigger normal responses.

I'm not saying that they're 'ok', just arguing against you saying that 'anything that changes your brain = evil'

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

as for 'it alters the brain = bad', so does exercise. should we stop doing excercise because it releases endorphins and some people get addicted? should we stop drinking red bull and coffee? no. because they ARE relatively safe.

exercise, coffee and red bull never made anyone stop turning up for work, lose their house .. or look for their next hit by selling their anus on the streets..

unfortunately.. they can kill u.. if u have an arrhythmia lik atrial fibrillation.. but u should know that right?..

safety = functional, biological and chemical 'norms'

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

correlation does not equal causation.

noone said that it was?..... they use it as a risk factor for youth at risk.

alcohol is one too... cos it increases risky behaviour after alcohol consumption..

 

[Graney]

exercise, coffee and red bull never made anyone stop turning up for work, lose their house .. or look for their next hit by selling their anus on the streets..

are we still talking about marijuana?

 

[boris]

I'm not saying that they're 'ok', just arguing against you saying that 'anything that changes your brain = evil'

Well then for the sake of semantics let's rephrase it.

We'll call the body's response to food and exercise a normal response. A normal response is anything that the body is trained and designed to deal with. Exercise releases endorphins and makes you happy. Normal response.

We'll call the response to drugs an abnormal response. It is not normal for the body and brain to have to deal with the chemicals introduced by drugs, and it is not normal for the body and brain to have to deal with the effects these drugs have on the chemical balance (amongst other things).

 

[stazi]

Well they can't be? You're not disproving me at all staz, you're just pulling random shit out like 'well food causes chemical imbalances'.

A banana is not a psychostimulant. Bread is not a psychstimulant.

You cannot honestly want to argue whether food is as safe as pot because food causes chemical imbalances. They are not relative. Yes! Chocolate can alter the production of certain chemicals in the brain to make you happy. It is not a psychostimulant.

However, your argument was that weed is UNSAFE primarily because it alters the chemical composition of your brain. You can't base your argument around that yardstick, unless this chemical imbalance is permanent and will adversely affect the person in the long term.

Not necessarily anecdotal, there would be a battery of tests being done on the biochemistry and MRIs to track brain development, etc. Plus follow ups.
And being a larger sample size, the results are going to be more indicative of a population sample than if you picked 10 of your friends.

So they got people who tried weed then monitored them via MRI scans and biochemistry measures to track them as they progressed to heroin junkies 20 years later?

They are on a continuum. I just don't agree with it. The minute you start saying certain drugs are 'pretty safe' is the moment you open them to abuse.
Most people think alcohol is 'pretty safe' and it's the most widely abused substance of them all.

It depends what the person means by 'pretty safe'. I think it's 'safe' to say that graney's context was that weed is safer than many other drugs, and when consumed responsibly and in moderation, it can be enjoyable and unlikely to cause long term damage or ill effects.

Obviously he wasn't saying "nah weed is safe brah, like you can totally smoke fifty joints a day until you throw up and pass out every day, then jump out of a window jerking off on a black chick's face, and be safe"

Are you still trying to link caffeine use and drug use?

I'm trying to link alcohol and its status as a gateway drug now. My point is that just because a drug came first, doesn't make it a gateway drug.

 

[Atonofrash]

exercise, coffee and red bull never made anyone stop turning up for work, lose their house .. or look for their next hit by selling their anus on the streets..

unfortunately.. they can kill u.. if u have an arrhythmia lik atrial fibrillation.. but u should know that right?..

safety = functional, biological and chemical 'norms'

exactly, that's why 'any brain altering substance is wrong' is a bad statement.

 

[stazi]

exercise, coffee and red bull never made anyone stop turning up for work, lose their house .. or look for their next hit by selling their anus on the streets..

unfortunately.. they can kill u.. if u have an arrhythmia lik atrial fibrillation.. but u should know that right?..

safety = functional, biological and chemical 'norms'

I sell my anus on the streets anyway..

 

[boris]

So they got people who tried weed then monitored them via MRI scans and biochemistry measures to track them as they progressed to heroin junkies 20 years later?

The samples would include a range of people. Long term users, short term users, dependence on other drugs, family history, lifestyle stresses, socioeconomic status, etc. Depending on the study and funding and the willingness of participants would depend on the duration of the study.

But yes that's one way to look at it. They'd do biochem to see how much drug was in the persons system at any time, they'd also monitor other chemicals in the body to see the effect. MRI scans is more for brain degeneration and to monitor for schizophrenia.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

are we still talking about marijuana?

well i know ive never sold my anus for banana bread... but ive heard odd things in my life