Marijuana and Mental Illness

[GeeMack]

The Bower Vine pictured in my avatar was bought from Home Depot a few years ago, clearly labelled, and is now growing in my garden. It is a perennial, as opposed to Morning Glory which is an annual plant, dying off in the winter.

Home Depot labeled it incorrectly. It is a Morning Glory, which in your area is a perennial. Ain't science grand? Oh, that's right, you'd rather rely on guessing than on a little research. Your willful ignorance and disdain for science notwithstanding, you have a Morning Glory, quite likely a hallucinogenic plant, as your avatar.

 

[Gate2501]

I'm beginning to think that science, useful as it is, is beginning to fall behind intuition when it comes to providing useful information that people can use to stay healthy. Personally, I combine my basic knowledge of science (A-level Biology, Chemistry and Physics) with observation of the natural world, and also my "gut feeling" - I do not regard this as "woo". I think that the principle of balance, for example, is fundamental in all nature and see the human body as rather like a see-saw. I think that cells "remember" what is done to them and have "withdrawal symptoms" if we take away what they get used to. This artistic, imaginary way of looking at life may sound irrational, but I don't care - it's helped me.

This is pretty much the end of the road.

You say you want to have a discussion about the science surrounding the harmful effects of MJ or lack thereof, but when it becomes apparent that scientific research on the subject is in disagreement with your personal "gut feeling" you reject it.

Maybe science will prove these intuitional thoughts to be true one day.

Weasel words.

Maybe science will prove <insert strange and irrational personal belief(s) here> one day. Eh?

 

[Aquila]

Which part of CA do you live in, do you get frosts?

Seriously, as someone who has done sample anaylsis of flowers, leaves and stems for various projects, your flower does not match any of the first seven pages on images on google for bower vine.

It sure looks like a convolvulaceae, do you have pictures of the leavs? Could you describe its habit of growth or have a picture from the side of the flower.

Does it have oblate leave growing opposite, see here:
http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plants/Bignoniaceae/Pandorea_jasminoides.html

It is not
Pandorea pandorana (wonga vine)

Nor is it clematis or trumpet vine, so whatever Home Depot had on the label is not a 'bower vine'.

They do sell Pandorea jasminoides.

Yours does look like this
http://www.tiuli.com/flowers/havalval_kafani.JPG

but without the leaves it is hard to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipomoea_indica

is a tender perrenial as I believe many of the genera/family convolvulaceae

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0804.htm#intro

Here is a picture of my plant. It does not look like the Bower Vine, Pandorea pictured at the link you cited. I've seen that plant at Home Depot and it has completely different leaves and flowers.

It does look like Ipomea Indica, as pictured on wikipedia, and I have no problem conceding that you and GeeMack are right and I do indeed have a genus of Morning Glory, hardy to my Los Angeles environment. I do remember, however, nursery-people telling me that I would only be able to grow what they called Morning Glory from seed. I have done this, and the plants were more a different shade of violet than the vine that is pictured below.

I actually chose the plant for my avatar because of the 5-pointed star pattern, which is of course common in many other flowers. I thought that it suggested a recognition of the mathematical patterns in nature.

 

[BenBurch]

Discussion Over.

 

[Dancing David]

Here is a picture of my plant. It does not look like the Bower Vine, Pandorea pictured at the link you cited. I've seen that plant at Home Depot and it has completely different leaves and flowers.

It does look like Ipomea Indica, as pictured on wikipedia, and I have no problem conceding that you and GeeMack are right and I do indeed have a genus of Morning Glory, hardy to my Los Angeles environment. I do remember, however, nursery-people telling me that I would only be able to grow what they called Morning Glory from seed. I have done this, and the plants were more a different shade of violet than the vine that is pictured below.

I actually chose the plant for my avatar because of the 5-pointed star pattern, which is of course common in many other flowers. I thought that it suggested a recognition of the mathematical patterns in nature.

it is why some of us wonks use the species and genera name like curassavica or asclepias curassavica rather than 'bloodflower, silkflower' and the like.

 

[myowninvention]

I'm beginning to think that science, useful as it is, is beginning to fall behind intuition when it comes to providing useful information that people can use to stay healthy. Personally, I combine my basic knowledge of science (A-level Biology, Chemistry and Physics) with observation of the natural world, and also my "gut feeling"

hmmm. My "gut feeling", intuition and college level science classes all told me that eating whole wheat bread was good for me.

Scientific study led to the screening I underwent that told me that, in fact, I have celiac disease, and continuing to eat wheat, among other things, could eventually kill me.

The fact of the matter is, different people react differently to different substances, and all substances we put into our body should be regarded with due caution. However, simply because wheat is toxic to me, or marijuana is dangerous for another individual, does not mean that these substances are universally dangerous for all people. This is why we rely on scientific studies; they generally have a broader scope and deeper understanding then a single individual's personal experience. In other words, while my own experience can tell me that bread is bad for me, scientific study can tell me that it is not bad for most people, that there is only a small percentage of the overall population who face risks from bread. While a broad scope scientific study will not tell you if you, spicifically, are going to react negatively to a given substance, they will tell you things like pecentages, which will show the difference between something like bread, which is toxic to only a small percentage of the population, and, say, cyanide, which is pretty universally toxic.

What studies show us is that marijuana more like the bread in my example. For some people with pre-existing conditions, it may be dangerous. People who have these conditions may find them triggered by smoking. Some peopl may be more sensitive then others. However, as scientific studies show us, it is a relitivly small portion of smokers who experience these effects.

This is why we base general oppinions on things like substances on scientific study.

 

[Aquila]

...
What studies show us is that marijuana more like the bread in my example. For some people with pre-existing conditions, it may be dangerous. People who have these conditions may find them triggered by smoking. Some peopl may be more sensitive then others. However, as scientific studies show us, it is a relitivly small portion of smokers who experience these effects.

To me, this is like saying that peanuts are only dangerous to a few children who have life-threatening allergies to peanut protein, therefore we shouldn't bother having warning labels on packets of peanuts, or on food manufactured on equipment in contact with peanuts.

Or that smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol during pregnancy only causes a small number of birth defects in these mothers' babies so we shouldn't bother with warning labels on cigarettes or alcohol.

These warning laws only came into effect after parents saw their children suffer. I sincerely hope that we do not have to wait for more adolescants to become diagnosed with mental illnesses that have been triggered by marijuana because critical thinkers on the JREF forum said that it was only a risk for a small percentage of the population.

 

[BenBurch]

Give it a rest, you lost the audience.

 

[GeeMack]

To me, [...]

Yes, but you've already demonstrated that you don't understand the process of science. You accept your subjective guessing as more valid than results obtained using the scientific method, and you hope science will one day catch up to your intuition. Opening with, "To me," certainly isn't going to lend any legitimacy to your argument.

[...] this is like saying that peanuts are only dangerous to a few children who have life-threatening allergies to peanut protein, therefore we shouldn't bother having warning labels on packets of peanuts, or on food manufactured on equipment in contact with peanuts.

And just this week I bought a couple pounds of bulk peanuts in the shell in the produce department of a large national chain grocery store. Scooped them into a plastic bag with my bare hands. There wasn't a single warning notice on even one peanut. The only sign above the bin said $1.89/pound. The cashier happily rung up the sale without mentioning any danger. Imagine that. Your analogy fails.

Or that smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol during pregnancy only causes a small number of birth defects in these mothers' babies so we shouldn't bother with warning labels on cigarettes or alcohol.

You do realize that the warning labels are not there because someone thought...

[...] science, useful as it is, is beginning to fall behind intuition when it comes to providing useful information that people can use to stay healthy. Personally, I combine my basic knowledge of science (A-level Biology, Chemistry and Physics) with observation of the natural world, and also my "gut feeling" - I do not regard this as "woo". I think that the principle of balance, for example, is fundamental in all nature and see the human body as rather like a see-saw. I think that cells "remember" what is done to them and have "withdrawal symptoms" if we take away what they get used to. This artistic, imaginary way of looking at life may sound irrational, but I don't care - it's helped me. Maybe science will prove these intuitional thoughts to be true one day.

That kind of magical thinking had nothing to do with the call for warning labels on products, any products, for any reason, ever.

These warning laws only came into effect after parents saw their children suffer. I sincerely hope that we do not have to wait for more adolescants to become diagnosed with mental illnesses that have been triggered by marijuana because critical thinkers on the JREF forum said that it was only a risk for a small percentage of the population.

These warning laws came into effect because the process of real science generated evidence to show that a genuine danger exists, not because someone with an "artistic, imaginary way of looking at life" had a wildass hunch. So here we are, almost 300 posts into this thread, and all you've provided were your arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and a study for which the findings...

[...] are considered preliminary, however, and more research is needed to confirm the work.​

The study which acknowledged that...

[...] it involved a small number of subjects. Also, five of the 14 subjects with heavy cannabis use also had a history of alcohol abuse, which may have contributed an effect. Also, it is possible that the brain abnormalities may have predisposed the subjects to drug dependence, rather than drug usage causing the brain abnormalities.​

Is that, and your incredulity, all you've got to offer? If it is you might seriously consider taking BenBurch's advice and...

Give it a rest, you lost the audience.

 

[bit_pattern]

To me, this is like saying that peanuts are only dangerous to a few children who have life-threatening allergies to peanut protein, therefore we shouldn't bother having warning labels on packets of peanuts, or on food manufactured on equipment in contact with peanuts.

Or that smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol during pregnancy only causes a small number of birth defects in these mothers' babies so we shouldn't bother with warning labels on cigarettes or alcohol.

These warning laws only came into effect after parents saw their children suffer. I sincerely hope that we do not have to wait for more adolescants to become diagnosed with mental illnesses that have been triggered by marijuana because critical thinkers on the JREF forum said that it was only a risk for a small percentage of the population.

I'd be happy for the authorities to put warning labels on marijuana were it legal

/shrugz

 

[BenBurch]

Right now, the warning would read;

May cause armed men to break down your doors and abduct you in bondage. May cause sudden loss of your employment. May prevent you from obtaining a college loan.

 

[myowninvention]

To me, this is like saying that peanuts are only dangerous to a few children who have life-threatening allergies to peanut protein, therefore we shouldn't bother having warning labels on packets of peanuts, or on food manufactured on equipment in contact with peanuts.

You will notice that these warnings simply state that the peanuts are, or may be in the product. This is so that people who already know they have. This allergy can avoid them. Nowhere will you see a peanut product that says "danger, may cause anaphylactic shock". People learn about these sensitivities and act accordingly, like an peanut allergy sufferer wil do for peanuts, or someone who reacts negativly to marijuana ought to do. I just wanted to point out that something that one person reacts negativly isn't automatically bad for everyone.

As for the ciggaretts and alchohol while pregnant, these exist because of studies which show a direct, and frequent link between these behaviors and serious birth defects. They do not exist because someone, based on intuition, decided that this felt like it was bad for pregnant women to smoke and drink.

 

[bit_pattern]

Right now, the warning would read;

May cause armed men to break down your doors and abduct you in bondage. May cause sudden loss of your employment. May prevent you from obtaining a college loan.

You forgot to mention that they might shoot your dog dead or even accidentally kill your 7 year old daughter.

 

[Aquila]

These warning laws came into effect because the process of real science generated evidence to show that a genuine danger exists, not because someone with an "artistic, imaginary way of looking at life" had a wildass hunch.

I beg to differ, but from my understanding of the history of science, the empirical testing and research often come after someone had a wildass hunch. For example, Michael Faraday, before he started playing around with magnets and electric currents, had an idea that there was a field of energy round a wire, rather like his gold wedding ring - at least this is the way that the story was told in a Nova video I have called "Einstein's Big Idea". Einstein himself started his theory of relativity in his imagination, way before he worked out the mathematical formula.

In biology, the understanding of nutrition and vitamins was only tested after people noticed that people lacking certain foods got sick - beri-beri in people lacking B vitamins found in whole grains, scurvy from lack of vitamin C in fruits etc.

Regarding marijuana - why is it that so many supporters of the drug only talk about its effects while one is high/stoned? Just as I brought up the subject of Steve Jobs' pancreatic cancer possibly being caused by a withdrawal from marijuana (a natural tumor inhibitor), why is it that none of you pot-heads talk about MJ's complete effect on the whole person over time. This is what I meant by my beginning to question science; for marijuana research to be of value, I think that it needs to stay with subjects over several years, and measure withdrawal symptoms (if any) like changes in mood, aggressiveness. Research also, IMO, needs to include women, and subjects of both genders of all ages (most of the pro-pot publicity I see on the internet seems to come from 20 something white men). Would any pregnant women like to be part of the experiment? If researchers had asked me when I was pregnant, I would probably have said no - are you going to say that I would have been acting out of irrational fear and a wildass hunch?

Just to add another thought before I give it a rest - this is from a cultural angle. I suppose I would sound hypocritical if I were to tell my children or young people not to try marijuana when I had done it myself. But, on the other hand (and this is apart from the fact that MJ is so much stronger today than in my hippie days) - you young folks live in a different world than we did back in the 1970s. It is puzzling to me why your generation would want or need that change in consciousness that seemed so necessary back in the 1960s and 70s. Marijuana then was a backdrop for civil rights, gender equality and the Vietnam War protests, with joints rolled on LP covers from home grown plants in flower pots on the roof, not supplied by drug cartels or business men with machine guns.

The psychedelic patterns some of us saw while tripped out on acid or mescalin can now be seen on a computer screen, generated by fractals. It's as though what was once in our heads has manifested in real life, through technology and artificial intelligence. Where my generation perhaps needed pot to kick us out of our parents' generation conformity and see through the falsity of religions into the purer "spiritual" teachings of the East, we can now explain so much with science and rationality - so what is the point of nebulous drug induced escapism. Isn't it going backwards?

It was probably during one of my marijuana highs 30 years ago that I originally had the idea of intuition being more useful than science. So beware all you pot smokers; see what it did to me! Better to stick with straight laced impressions from purely sense bound experience. I do worry about the kids though. I don't know if any of you have kids, but I wonder if you'd really be so blithely unconcerned if you knew that your teenager was smoking a joint of high THC marijuana every day.

 

[bit_pattern]

I wonder if you'd really be so blithely unconcerned if you knew that your teenager was smoking a joint of high THC marijuana every day.

I've been smoking pot since I was 12. My Dad smoked since he was 17. I've seen/lived the long term effects of pot, it's not that bad. Not compared to some of the legal drugs at any rate, I've seen more than half a dozen friends and family members die slow and horrible deaths becauise of tobacco... But you could ask the same question about alcohol, it comes down to parental responsibility. Don't want your kids to smoke pot? Then talk to them, educate them, be a good parent. Don't live in some fantasy world hoping that by leaving it to the state to prohibit its use the stuff will magically go away. If pot were legal kids would probably have less reason to hide it if the ARE smoking it and give the parent more of an opportunity to intervene. Nothing is solved by keeping things in the shadows and pretending they don't exist.

 

[SnnTsd]

I've seen/lived the long term effects of pot, it's not that bad. Not compared to some of the legal drugs at any rate, I've seen more than half a dozen friends and family members die slow and horrible deaths becauise of tobacco...

1. I read somewhere that pot had a higher number of toxic particles when smoked, compared to tobacco.

2. And somewhere else, I read that smoking 3 cigarettes or 10 a day don't make a big difference. The harm caused is almost equal.

If this is true, is it appropriate to demonize tobacco and praise MJ as a relative safe substance and even, according to some potheads, healthy?

 

[JFrankA]

I've been lurking on this thread but I finally have to say something.

I'm sorry, Aquila, I don't mean this as an attack, but you do sound like the next thread you're going to start is "Magnets - how the *bleep* do they work?" There is no evidence to back up your claim. Sure, science theories start with guess or intuition, but you do realize how much "gut-feeling" hypothesis are kicked to the ground compared to the ones that are not? "Gut-feeling" is just that. A feeling. An emotion.

For example, I know a whole bunch of people who have a gut feeling that god exists, that Creationism is right, that homosexual people should not marry because it will cause more people to be gay and die out the human race, or that if you wear a Knocki Foot Pad it drain the toxins out of you.

Finally, I don't smoke pot at all, I have tried it, but only five times. I don't like the feeling of being high. However, I am in favor of MJ being legal. So not all people who are pro-legalization are "pot heads". We are people who ignored "gut-feelings" and propaganda and actually looked at the science that's out there. And I know you don't want to hear this, but, in the US at least, it IS a rights issue.

 

[bit_pattern]

1. I read somewhere that pot had a higher number of toxic particles when smoked, compared to tobacco.

2. And somewhere else, I read that smoking 3 cigarettes or 10 a day don't make a big difference. The harm caused is almost equal.

If this is true, is it appropriate to demonize tobacco and praise MJ as a relative safe substance and even, according to some potheads, healthy?

It is certainly true that cannabis smoke has a greater concentration of tar than tobacco smoke, and some of the more carcinogenic compounds are found in higher concentrations. But the fact of the matter is that MJ simply does not have the same cancer profile as tobacco. In another thread recently, Alfie presented evidence showing that MJ smokers are 5 times more likely to contract lung cancer, but compare that to 23 time for tobacco. I'm not sure why it is, maybe it's because THC isn't as addictive as nicotine so users don't smoke as compulsively. Or maybe, as I've heard but aren't sure just how much truth there is to it, the phosphate fertilisers we use have radioactive isotopes in them and they are carried up through he plant and deposited on the sticky residue of the leaves, which are then burnt and inhaled directly to the smokers lung. Whatever the case may be, the evidence suggests smoking MJ is lot safer than smoking tobacco. That being said, obviously burning any organic material and inhaling gasses and particulates it gives off is going to be bad for you, there ios always going to be a risk involved. But then again, you don't HAVE to smoke MJ either. You can eat in or invest in a vaporiser which only heats the plant material up to the point that the active constituent is released without combustion. There are plenty of ways to use MJ while drastically reducing the harm it may be doing to your body. And as far as health benefits go, yes MJ has quite a number of health applications, certainly moreso than tobacco, but even they have to be weighed against the risks, as with anything.

 

[Dancing David]

You forgot to mention that they might shoot your dog dead or even accidentally kill your 7 year old daughter.

That was a warrant for a murder in the second case. Still FUBAR

 

[Dancing David]

I
Regarding marijuana - why is it that so many supporters of the drug only talk about its effects while one is high/stoned?

data, evidence?

Just as I brought up the subject of Steve Jobs' pancreatic cancer possibly being caused by a withdrawal from marijuana (a natural tumor inhibitor), why is it that none of you pot-heads talk about MJ's complete effect on the whole person over time.

More wild speculation and I agree maybe this should be in R&P, your standard of evidence is very low.

This is what I meant by my beginning to question science; for marijuana research to be of value, I think that it needs to stay with subjects over several years, and measure withdrawal symptoms (if any) like changes in mood, aggressiveness.

Well duh, the fact that the research you looked at was inconclusive means you did not look very hard.

Research also, IMO, needs to include women, and subjects of both genders of all ages (most of the pro-pot publicity I see on the internet seems to come from 20 something white men).

Wow, did you just get to the SMt forum, that is a smaple issue, maybe you should look at studies before you talk.
Large scale demographic studies show that MJ causes memeory loss.

Would any pregnant women like to be part of the experiment? If researchers had asked me when I was pregnant, I would probably have said no - are you going to say that I would have been acting out of irrational fear and a wildass hunch?

Just to add another thought before I give it a rest - this is from a cultural angle. I suppose I would sound hypocritical if I were to tell my children or young people not to try marijuana when I had done it myself. But, on the other hand (and this is apart from the fact that MJ is so much stronger today than in my hippie days) - you young folks live in a different world than we did back in the 1970s. It is puzzling to me why your generation would want or need that change in consciousness that seemed so necessary back in the 1960s and 70s.

MJ is fun for some people, no further explanation needed. You don't know much about the actual histroy of its use do you?

Marijuana then was a backdrop for civil rights, gender equality and the Vietnam War protests, with joints rolled on LP covers from home grown plants in flower pots on the roof, not supplied by drug cartels or business men with machine guns.

Um, no.

The psychedelic patterns some of us saw while tripped out on acid or mescalin can now be seen on a computer screen, generated by fractals.

Since when did they become MJ?

It's as though what was once in our heads has manifested in real life, through technology and artificial intelligence. Where my generation perhaps needed pot to kick us out of our parents' generation conformity and see through the falsity of religions into the purer "spiritual" teachings of the East, we can now explain so much with science and rationality - so what is the point of nebulous drug induced escapism. Isn't it going backwards?

R&P is that way >>>>>

It was probably during one of my marijuana highs 30 years ago that I originally had the idea of intuition being more useful than science.

It seems your current lack of use hasn't changed that at all. You just shot yourself, no one says dope makes you smarter.

So beware all you pot smokers; see what it did to me! Better to stick with straight laced impressions from purely sense bound experience. I do worry about the kids though. I don't know if any of you have kids, but I wonder if you'd really be so blithely unconcerned if you knew that your teenager was smoking a joint of high THC marijuana every day.

I tell my son, don't smoke.