Is Marijuana Harmless?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You are prejudging. This is almost always a mistake...

... I have done DMT, LSD, cocaine, methaqualone, barbiturates, methedrine, and once smoked black liquid opium; I also once did X (ectasy) but didn't get much out of it.

TO ALL DRUG RELATED SCARED PEOPLE, NOT TO SCHNEIBSTER

Schneibster IMO, is one of the most knowledgeable and intelligent people in the forum, yet he have tried drugs. So, whats the contradiction here? That HE IS NOT LOST because of the use of drugs.

I have tried most of them, and in my case it was because I wanted to understand better this phenomena called "consciousness". I reached very interesting states of mind and later discontinue the use because they no longer were a source of learning.

I know several well educated, perfectly adapted people that uses drugs in recreational manners, and I also know individuals who "hate" drugs and are a lot less adapted to society.

Anyway, this is my opinion, DRUGS, per se, if used as recreacional or learning tools are really good. Used by sick people to get detached from reality is another thing, BUT THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE DRUG, but the individual.

 

[knot]

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.

Bah, no one gets high the first time. Placebo effect of a weak mind.

"and decides that people are calling him a liar despite the fact that no-one has done so" - It's moronic to arrive a such a conclusion when the statement was in fact a question.

You are hereby put on ignore.

 

[Lonewulf]

You are hereby put on ignore.

Knot has made an intriguing entrance into this forum. That would make two people put on ignore that I know of, because of simple disagreement.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Bah, no one gets high the first time. Placebo effect of a weak mind.

(drum roll)....Evidence???

As noted earlier, your own source contradicts you. I don't see why this is so important. Just admit you're wrong, and move on. Or present some counter-evidence.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Evidence? I got reaaaaly freaked out the first time I smoked pot. About 48 years ago, when paranoia was getting deep.

 

[knot]

Evidence? Because I said so.

 

[Lonewulf]

Evidence? Because I said so.

Brilliant!

 

[SteveGrenard]

It is brillant. You have to agree with and accept knot's reponse to MJ irrespective of what it is.

Case histories are an important part of medical science. They are the cornerstone of epidemiology. They may be classified as anecdote and evidence may be demanded, but they cannot be overlooked because there is none beyond the observation of the experience. One or two case histories may be anecodotal but when the numbers grow and one hears or sees or observes the same effect repeatedly then the symptoms or effects must be accepted as genuine. One death due to SARS or Flu may be an allegation or an anecdote but when there are dozens, hundreds and thousands then the tired old argument this is anecdote and requires evidence no longer applies.

There are enough people out there claiming as many negative as positive reactions to MJ to be taken seriously. There are also enough people out there with cancer, HIV/AIDS and glaucoma who have received relief from MJ to be taken seriously as well.

Legalization of over the counter, non-prescription MJ may not be the best solution because of its potential for negative reactions but approval of
prescription MJ for its positive effects in anorexia secondary to other diseases or chemo and its ability to lower intraocular pressure in glaucoma
makes it a worthwhile candidate as a prescription inhalant drug. It can be administered via MDI, this Volcano(tm) gadget or some other type of
atomizer/nebulizer using unit dosing which would enable precise administration.

References

Volcano ™

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizerstudy2.html

Metered Dose Inhaler

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...metered+dose+inhaler&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&sa=X

 

[Lonewulf]

It is brillant. You have to agree with and accept knot's reponse to MJ.

Case histories are an important part of medical science. They are the cornerstone of epidemiology. They may be classified as anecdote and evidence may be demanded, but they cannot be overlooked because there is none beyond the observation of the experience. One or two case histories may be anecodotal but when the numbers grow and one hears or sees or observes the same effect repeatedly then the symptoms or effects must be accepted as genuine. One death due to SARS or Flu may be an allegation or an anecdote but when there are dozens, hundreds and thousands then the tired old argument this is anecdote and requires evidence no longer applies.

And the anecdotal claims that marijuana got the individuals high the first time?

Look, I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, but let me go through the logic here:

1) Anecdotal evidence can become real evidence. Therefore, some forum-goer saying, "I said so!" has made a logical point.

2) Anecdotal evidence that disproves my point, <blank>

Oh, and what's the evidence that people getting high the first time are suffering a "placebo effect" on a "weak mind"? Answer: There is none. It's an opinion on a poster on a forum.

So saying, "I say so" is an epitome of arrogance, which is not unusual for Knot from what I've seen so far.

There are enough people out there claiming as many negative as positive reactions to MJ to be taken seriously. There are also enough people out there with cancer, HIV/AIDS and glaucoma who have received relief from MJ to be taken seriously as well.

I never said otherwise. But there is no need to dishonestly distort the facts. The facts stand up on their own.

Legalization of over the counter, non-prescription MJ may not be the best solution because of its potential for negative reactions but approval of
prescription MJ for its positive effects in anorexia secondary to other diseases or chemo and its ability to lower intraocular pressure in glaucoma
makes it a worthwhile candidate as a prescription inhalant drug. It can be administered via MDI, this Volcano(tm) gadget or some other type of
atomizer/nebulizer using unit dosing which would enable precise administration.

That's fine, but what does this have to do with the "placebo effect" upon a "weak mind", and "because I said so!" being a logical argument?

 

[SteveGrenard]

And the anecdotal claims that marijuana got the individuals high the first time?

It's irrelevant whether some say first time and others not. These are observations, must be considered, collected and studied. They stand or fall on basic epidemiological principles. In fact there may be three subsets of first time MJ users: those who don't get high the first time, those who do so based on the placebo effect and those who genuinely do so. Besides the do and don'ts, can you tell us how to decide in favor of the do's who do get high based on the placebo effect? Do a study comparing faux MJ with real MJ and see if the fake MJ users get high?

Look, I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, but let me go through the logic here:

1) Anecdotal evidence can become real evidence. Therefore, some forum-goer saying, "I said so!" has made a logical point.

The idea I am trying to convey is that knot's observation, personal or observed, IS a logical point. It is the only point possible when looking at this on a case history basis. Knot may not have studied this particular effect in hundreds or thousands of people but he has observed it in enough people to adopt it as genuine.

2) Anecdotal evidence that disproves my point, <blank>

Oh, and what's the evidence that people getting high the first time are suffering a "placebo effect" on a "weak mind"? Answer: There is none. It's an opinion on a poster on a forum.

Calling on a placebo effect to account for one's observations is not at all illogical if that effect could be responsible for them. This observer feels that they do. Can you specify the precise evidence you are requesting for, er, the placebo effect beyond the observations of the person making the suggestion?

So saying, "I say so" is an epitome of arrogance, which is not unusual for Knot from what I've seen so far.

It may be arrogant but it is the personal observation of the person making the observation.

I never said otherwise. But there is no need to dishonestly distort the facts. The facts stand up on their own.

What facts?

That's fine, but what does this have to do with the "placebo effect" upon a "weak mind", and "because I said so!" being a logical argument?

It was a generic argument in favor of the value of case histories based on observations which have been desparaged by the negative connotation of something being an anecdote and/or which do not present the populace with physical evidence. Such evidence may not always exist. Certainly not in this case, obviously. But that doesn't make it (necessarily) any less true.

 

[Lonewulf]

It's irrelevant whether some say first time and others not. These are observations, must be considered, collected and studied. They stand or fall on basic epidemiological principles. In fact there may be three subsets of first time MJ users: those who don't get high the first time, those who do so based on the placebo effect and those who genuinely do so. Besides the do and don'ts, can you tell us how to decide in favor of the do's who do get high based on the placebo effect? Do a study comparing faux MJ with real MJ and see if the fake MJ users get high?

So you admit that there may be some people, at the least, that get high the first time?

Then you don't agree with Knot, so I really don't get why you're arguing with me.

He stated that anyone that gets high the first time are weak people that suffer the placebo effect. He had no evidence, and then said, "because I said so" as his only evidence.

So yes, it IS relevant whether some say first time and others not.

Calling on a placebo effect to account for one's observations is not at all illogical if that effect could be responsible for them. This observer feels that they do. Can you specify the precise evidence you are requesting for, er, the placebo effect beyond the observations of the person making the suggestion?

Now you don't get how science works at all, nor skepticism. "I feel like it's placebo, therefore it's placebo" isn't scientific. Period.

What precise evidence? Simple: Double blind tests, first time users. D'uh. One gets the MJ, the other gets the placebo. That's how you negate the placebo effect.

Hell, I volunteer for the job. Never had a joint in my life, and the one exposure I had was not enough to influence me. I can be a test subject for the experiment.

What facts?

"Because I feel it is" is not a scientific argument, nor does anyone have to take it seriously. To claim "because I said so" automatically makes something true, is distorting the facts. And that's what Knot was claiming; that because he said it was true, therefore it was.

Also, I have no reason to take seriously someone that cherry picks information. "Anecdotes that support my theory are automatically true, BUT anecdotes that do not should be discarded as being weak people who are so stupid, blah blah blah..."

 

[knot]

Actually, my last responses were, in part, a statement of "I'm sick of going around and around with this, I'm done"

I thank you SteveGrenard as you are correct in your reasoning.

 

[SteveGrenard]

There is no truly objective way of determining whether or not a person is high or not high on MJ in a double blind, placebo controlled study which is any better or more reliable than the subjective responses of the experiencer in the first place.

So you do a study on first time users with some getting placebo and some getting the real stuff, and some % of both or either group says they are high and some say not. How are you objectively going to prove "high"? What physical tests will you use? I would be interested in knowing. This reminds me of the old joke that someone who tries to commit suicide by overdosing on placebo ends up thinking they are dead.

I have no idea if there are people who get high the first time since I have never observed this myself so can't say. I hold the door open to the three possibilities, which can be all be true. Knot says he did observe this and that he felt those who said they got high the first time were having a placebo effect. I accept this as perfectly reasonable and not illogical. If a person is told here is some MJ, it will make you high and then they smoke it. the power of placebo or suggestion if you will, could make them think they are high.

 

[calebprime]

Physical signs and symptoms:
red eyes
dry mouth

Behavior.
performance on tests of attention, short-term memory, word-association, etc.

Subjective reports. collect and analyze statistically.

Measure frequency of inappropriate laughter--show them Adam Sandler movies.


eta: I'm noticing a pattern here. Some people are saying: I've never touched the stuff, never known anyone who has. Could fear of the unknown be part of it?
I consider myself unqualified to discuss military matters, magicianship, mathematics (except to ask questions) because I don't know about them first hand. You?

 

[SteveGrenard]

These are physical signs, "high" = mental status. Someone who says they are high have only themselves to account for their feeling. If someone who is bradycardic is given a gelatine capsule and is told it will speed up their heart beat and then they are attached to an ECG monitor and their heart beat speeds up this is an objective measure of the placebo effect for a physical
sign.

The fact that skepticism "works" by throwing the term anecdotal at every observation in order to desparage or disprove it is true ...... but not necessarily correct. Science incorporates the collection of anecdotal data and observations into the decision making process.

PS: Anecodte: I laugh at funny movies w/o the benefit of MJ. Whats inappropriate laughter?
Laughing at a war movie where the hero dies?
Have you heard of having a morbid sense of humor?

 

[calebprime]

These are physical signs, "high" = mental status.

Behavior.
performance on tests of attention, short-term memory, word-association, etc.

Subjective reports. collect and analyze statistically.



[/B]

maybe due to my casual style you missed the middle stuff, which I've bolded here.

For a professional who has walked the talk from both sides, ask Dancing David. He at least could answer the technical question of how it could be done. I don't always agree with him, but he's used drugs himself and been a therapist of one sort or another for many years.

I just get the sense that you keep throwing up your hands.

My point is that behaviour can be tested.

To eliminate a particular placebo effect, find people who have never heard what the effects of marijuana are. Difficult but not impossible.

I may not be a scientist, but I can't believe it's that hard in principle. (My argument from ignorance...)

 

[Lonewulf]

These are physical signs, "high" = mental status. Someone who says they are high have only themselves to account for their feeling. If someone who is bradycardic is given a gelatine capsule and is told it will speed up their heart beat and then they are attached to an ECG monitor and their heart beat speeds up this is an objective measure of the placebo effect for a physical
sign.

Being "high" also involves involves mental signs, just like being drunk can not only physically impair you, but also mental impair you.

There are objective ways to set up these tests.

Also, if they are told it will speed up their heart beat to one group, but not the other, then the double blind test has already failed.

You take two groups of individuals. The two know the same as one another. Even if both groups are told that their heart will speed up, only a fraction will be affected by placebo. If both groups have the same, or near the same fraction, then being "high" is only a placebo effect.

Repeat testing with other selected individuals.

Nothing to it.

This is a rudimentary blind test. Please, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_blind_test

The fact that skepticism "works" by throwing the term anecdotal at every observation in order to desparage or disprove it is true ...... but not necessarily correct. Science incorporates the collection of anecdotal data and observations into the decision making process.

It also involves not cherry-picking your data or dismissing evidence out of hand.

 

[Belz...]

It's SUBJECTIVE.
What are you implying here? That drugs cannot make you high?

I'm not implying anything.

All I'm saying is that the use of words such as "profound" and "deep" has no meaning except as an emotional compass. I can have a "profound" experience by sweeping the floor.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, and what's the evidence that people getting high the first time are suffering a "placebo effect" on a "weak mind"?

In fact, what's the evidence that people getting high on subsequent uses of said drugs are NOT suffering a "placebo effect" on a "weak mind" ?

 

[Z]

Bah. No one ever gets high on drugs. It's all placebo effect. Because I said so. I secretly replaced every gram of coke in South Florida with powdered 100% pure Juan Valdez Columbian, and everyone still claimed that they 'got high'. Placebo. It's true because I did it and I said it's true.

Prove me wrong.