• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Marijuana Harmless?

Eos of the Eons said:
You scoff at someone getting high on a drug that induces changes to the brain on the first try. Then you demonstrate complete ignorance about the scientific method, even after an attempt to explain it to you.
Click to expand...


So what, are you calling me a liar? That's it, I'm done with this.


The great majority of smokers speak easily and fondly of their initial experience with marijuana. A number of smokers spoke in terms of two first times: the first time they tried marijuana and the first time they actually got high. It turns out that a surprisingly large number of smokers—perhaps as many as half, perhaps even more—did not get high on their initial attempt. This curious fact is one of the few aspects of marijuana use that has attracted serious thought and attention, although even here there are still unanswered questions.
Click to expand...
Another possibility, according to some researchers, is that THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is changed by an enzyme in the liver into the metabolite known as 11-hydroxy delta-9-THC; it is this metabolite, some scientists believe, rather than "raw" THC that causes the high. Since it is normally present in the body in only minute quantities, several smoking sessions may be required for the liver to start producing sufficient quantities to affect the user.
Click to expand...
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/novak/high_culture2.htm

Like I said, I don't know a single person that felt or got high the first time. You may fall into the type of person (lightweight) that is hypersensitive (0r it was laced. PCP may have similar effects that you describe). I remember in high school some kids doing stupid, bizarre things. They are such that can't handle many mood altering substances and they easily lose a grip on reality and enter into psychosis from one hit of pot. From your viewpoint, pot is evil, from mine and most others, it's recreational.

From above:

Even at relatively low doses, they found 50% of healthy volunteers began to show symptoms of psychosis.

Volunteers who already had a history of psychotic symptoms appeared to be particularly vulnerable.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you smoked PCP and chances are, you've never even tried pot.

Effects of Use

A moderate amount of PCP often causes users to feel detached, distant, and estranged from their surroundings. Numbness of the extremities, slurred speech, and loss of coordination may be accompanied by a sense of strength and invulnerability. A blank stare, rapid and involuntary eye movements, and an exaggerated gait are among the more observable effects. Auditory hallucinations, image distortion, severe mood disorders, and amnesia may also occur. In some users
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
dlorde said:
Regarding the relevance of research experiments into the effects of THC - do remember that although THC is the main active constituent, there are a number of different cannabinoids and psycho-actives in cannabis that have a large influence on the overall effects and experience of the drug. In addition, particularly in the UK, low cost 'street hash' is often adulterated with toxic fillers (don't ask), which are also likely to have an influence.

IMO, trying to generalise to real-world cannabis use and problems from experiments with pure THC is somewhere between generalising alcohol use and problems from pure ethyl alcohol, and generalising food consumption and its problems from experiments with pure chocolate cake & donuts.
Click to expand...

I agree, and so do scientists. That´s why there are (were) actually studies done that compare the effects of cannabis, THC and placebo for different medical conditions. You´ll find some of them at the link I provided in post 374. Some of them show even better effects of cannabis compared to synthesized THC. No, cuddles, no reason to argue. The reason for this is not that plant THC is superior to synthesized THC, but, as dlorde wrote, that cannabis contains a lot of other active substances that aren´t properly researched yet. If synthetic cannabis would be invented, I´d probably smoke it, given that it would be available at a reasonable price.
The price is also one of the reasons why a lot of patients prefer weed to marinol/dronabinol (synthesized THC), since the latter is much more expensive than weed, and most health insurances here don´t cover it, even when subscribed by a medical doctor. Another reason is that you need a special kind of prescription (I don´t know how to translate) like the one you´d need for legally obtaining opiates, patients are ashamed to ask for it, and doctors want to keep their surgeries (or practices?) "clean" and are therefore reluctant to prescribe it even if they know that they could actually really help someone. (anecdotal evidence only)
There are (were) also studies done with the real stuff on effects on brain function, driving abilities and so on, but since I´m supposed to work in the moment, I can´t dig them out for you.
The problem of adulteration is a different one though. That could easily be solved by legalising the stuff, therefore making official quality controls possible without putting the users at risk. As long as this is not happening, weed is probably the safer choice than hash since an experienced user can recognize parts of other plants mixed in. Or so I´ve heard…..:D
Of course it is still possible then to put not-so-easy-to-detect-substances on it, but that is not common, at least not where I live.
 
knot said:
So what, are you calling me a liar? That's it, I'm done with this.


http://www.druglibrary.org/special/novak/high_culture2.htm

Like I said, I don't know a single person that felt or got high the first time. You may fall into the type of person (lightweight) that is hypersensitive (0r it was laced. PCP may have similar effects that you describe). I remember in high school some kids doing stupid, bizarre things. They are such that can't handle many mood altering substances and they easily lose a grip on reality and enter into psychosis from one hit of pot. From your viewpoint, pot is evil, from mine and most others, it's recreational.

From above:

Sounds like you smoked PCP and chances are, you've never even tried pot.
Click to expand...

What on Earth are you talking about? Did you perhaps fail to read your own quotes?
It turns out that a surprisingly large number of smokers—perhaps as many as half, perhaps even more—did not get high on their initial attempt
Click to expand...
So, half of people do get high the first time. Now quit whining and pay attention to what people actually write.
 
I got high the first (and only time) I tried it (hash cookies - don't smoke anything, as any kind of smoke sets my asthma off).
 
Cuddles said:
So, half of people do get high the first time. Now quit whining and pay attention to what people actually write.
Click to expand...

What does "perhaps even more" actually mean to you?
 
Cuddles said:
What on Earth are you talking about? Did you perhaps fail to read your own quotes?
Click to expand...

Did you perhaps fail to read the author's name of the quote? The following quotes are sourced and is a response to the post you don't understand.

So, half of people do get high the first time. Now quit whining and pay attention to what people actually write
Click to expand...
Writing (Regurgitating) what some "paid for" biased report said, is not as honest as hearing about many years of live experiences through many different people. I have nothing to gain or lose.
 
Last edited:
I didn't get high my first time. I wonder if it was the power of suggestion, though, because a few of the people I was with had told me that "you won't get off the first time." So I was just anxious for my second time, so I could actually get high, which I did.

As for driving while stoned, I have only ever done it once. I didn't intend to, but I ended up having to drive home unexpectedly. I was very slow and cautious, but I kept forgetting where I was. I'd look around like, "oh, yeah, okay, now I have to go...what, where?" I wouldn't recommend it; I don't think it's as bad as driving drunk, but you're still impaired.

I drove once on LSD...very, very bad idea. I actually kept forgetting that I was driving!
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
What's a "profound" experience, exactly ?
Click to expand...

heh...
Well, I would say anything that you would define as "moving." (e.g., "That book really moved me")
Something which touches you on a deeper emotional level, rather than being merely entertaining. An especially good book/movie/video game can do this. Certain drugs, however, can have this effect on something as mundane as a walk to the convenience store.
 
knot said:
Writing (Regurgitating) what some "paid for" biased report said, is not as honest as hearing about many years of live experiences through many different people. I have nothing to gain or lose.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence.
"Many years of live experiences through many different people" are where most urban legends come from.

ETA: Wait, are you saying that your source is "paid for" and "biased" now? Why is it that hard to believe that someone could have a "bad trip" the first time they smoked?
 
Last edited:
Axiom_Blade said:
heh...
Well, I would say anything that you would define as "moving." (e.g., "That book really moved me")
Something which touches you on a deeper emotional level, rather than being merely entertaining. An especially good book/movie/video game can do this. Certain drugs, however, can have this effect on something as mundane as a walk to the convenience store.
Click to expand...

What's a "deeper" emotional level, exactly ?
 
Lonewulf said:
What does "perhaps even more" actually mean to you?
Click to expand...

knot said:
Did you perhaps fail to read the author's name of the quote? The following quotes are sourced and is a response to the post you don't understand.

Writing (Regurgitating) what some "paid for" biased report said, is not as honest as hearing about many years of live experiences through many different people. I have nothing to gain or lose.
Click to expand...

Seriously, what are either of you talking about. Knot claims that no-one gets high the first time they smoke weed, "scoffs", as Eos put it, at people who say that actually they did get high the first time and decides that people are calling him a liar despite the fact that no-one has done so, all they have done is point out that while he might not know anyone who got high, lots of other people do. Just in case you thought he didn't actually mean "no-one" gets high and was really only talking about his own personal experience he spouts some more garbage claiming that someone who did get high their first time must either have an allergy or have taken some other drug.

In support of all this he posted an article which very clearly stated that about half of people get high the first time they smoke weed. Yes, it may be a bit more than half or a bit less than half. So what? Knot was wrong. People do get high the first time they smoke. Live with it. I notice that to absolutely confirm that he has no clue whatsoever what he is talking about he now claims in this post that anecdotes are far superior to scientific research, although presumably this only applies to his own anecdotes since those from other people contradict him.
 
Discussion sidetracked, don´t you think?

I have a question related to the topic:

Can we trust what the anti-drug-war authorities (i.e. the DEA) say about the harmfulness of drugs? Are they an unbiased authority on these matters? Or would they lie to the public to preserve their jobs?

Who can we trust? From all the relevant studies linked in this discussion, is it true that some of them were "paid for" biased reports (as knot put it)?

Establishing the trustfulness of the sources seems quite important to me...
 
Eos of the Eons said:
I wrecked a car. The one time I tried pot. ...
Click to expand...
Anecdote, Eos.

I have quite a few of them myself. I've been in 10 or so (minor) traffic accidents, most caused by my inattention/road conditions. I was sober every time, even though I often drive after having consumed a 'reasonable' quantity of alcohol.

Using your logic, it would seem that, while you shouldn't drive when stoned, I shouldn't drive while sober!
 
Abooga said:
Discussion sidetracked, don´t you think?

I have a question related to the topic:

Can we trust what the anti-drug-war authorities (i.e. the DEA) say about the harmfulness of drugs? Are they an unbiased authority on these matters? Or would they lie to the public to preserve their jobs?

Who can we trust? From all the relevant studies linked in this discussion, is it true that some of them were "paid for" biased reports (as knot put it)?

Establishing the trustfulness of the sources seems quite important to me...
Click to expand...

Indeed. Are you implying the DEA is conducting science?

http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDAHome.html

I trust the NIH before I trust the DEA.
 
Last edited:
Why does marijuana have to be harmless before people will agree to legalize it? Most things that are legal are not harmless. Alcohol, cigarettes, sex, rock & roll, salsa dancing, . . .

Usually that is why laws are made regarding them. It is recognized that they can have a negative impact and steps are taken to mitigate the affects.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Are advocates of "legalization" for an all or nothing approach or are there some substances on the following list they would not consider appropriate for legalization?
Click to expand...

This is a really good question. No solution is satisfactory.

(Totally off the top of what's left of my head)

This might make a good conservative's stomach turn, but how about:

-weed sold in "state" stores , like alcohol in New Hampshire. have to be 18. No limits on potency, but the product is tested and identified. 6%, 12%, etc. Taxed up the wazoo.

-license issued for use of other drugs. conviction for any crime under the influence, including driving, is grounds for losing your license.

-conviction of any serious crime of violence is grounds for losing your license

-to get your license, you have to complete X hours of dreary courses where they show you horrible films full of awful images of the ravages of drugs. Testimonies from Chris Farley types ("I live in a van down by the river. Shut yer pie-hole, missy...")

-real unbiased testing to compare the relative dangers of drugs when used at X dose X many times.

-companies are allowed to fire you for bad performance on the job if you are impaired, or break the license law, but not allowed to fire you for drug use alone, because:

-insurance rates are adjusted for people who use drugs, based on some rational assessment of risk. drug users pay more, as do cigarette smokers, drinkers, etc. (This is based on some hitherto unknown drug-testing technology that can find anything in your system, and sworn testimony. It's a crime to lie about your use to the insurance company.)


I admit this is full of problems: There will be--overall--more use of these drugs. But overall, harm will be reduced, because users are savvier. Kids won't be huffing gas or glue any more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom