New Study documents the brain damage caused by marijuana

[marplots]

Something interesting from the NIDA (http://www.drugabuse.gov/publicatio.../available-treatments-marijuana-use-disorders) :

On average, adults seeking treatment for marijuana abuse or dependence have used marijuana nearly every day for more than 10 years and have attempted to quit more than six times.

and...

Unfortunately, the success rates of treatment are rather modest. Even with the most effective treatment for adults, only about 50 percent of enrollees achieve an initial 2-week period of abstinence, and among those who do, approximately half will resume use within a year. Across studies, 1-year abstinence rates have ranged between 10 and 30 percent for the various behavioral approaches. As with other addictions, these data suggest that a chronic care model should be considered for marijuana addiction, with treatment intensity stepped up or down based on need, comorbid addictions or other mental disorders, and the availability of family and other supports.

Are they making this stuff up to support the current administration's drug policy?

 

[marplots]

I don't know how difficult is to manufacture methaqualone for a DIY enthusiast but I think it is fairly obvious that methamphetamine must be very easy to manufacture (see references to shake-n-bake). If the former is actually very difficult to manufacture, then the comparison between the two and the conclusion based on that comparison become ridiculous since the most important element of this strategy against quaaludes would have been, undoubtedly, taking them off the market. I ignore if this is the case. Maybe quaaludes are easy to manufacture, after all. I'm certainly not an organic chemist.

I think the comment is based on the same choke point for intervention -- a complex molecule precursor. So, while meth is easy to manufacture, the recipes call for ingredients that are much more difficult.

Targets then become things that are easier to hit at the chemical company level -- like red phosphorus (in one method) and pseudoephedrine (in the shake and bake method). It's not that meth cannot be made in other ways, but the technical difficulty goes way up, essentially freezing out the amateur.

On Quaaludes, as far as I know, they were never made outside of industrial operations, so that became the same type of target. Corporations, even those in other countries, are much easier to get to by way of political pressure than individuals.

 

[malicus]

Urban myth. Surveys of wide sections of the population reveal millions smoke pot. Somehow they manage to complete college, practice law, design buildings, raise kids... whatever. If the urban myth were true the country would be full of rudderless zombies.

Pretty sure I once read that smoking pot makes you eat a lot of Cheetos and THAT'S where the brain damage comes from.

I checked all the facts, it all works out.

 

[cosmicaug]

Marijuana use by its nature has a very long wash out as well, some one who smokes a lot of great weed will have THC metabolites in their system for at least thirty days.

Are you trying to imply that because of the latter (with the emphasis added) you have the former?

Because, as far as I know, it does not. The only implication of the latter is that heavy cannabis users will occasionally fail urine tests even weeks after the last day of use. It's not like as long as they have metabolites in their system they are stoned (not even a little bit).

 

[cosmicaug]

I think the comment is based on the same choke point for intervention -- a complex molecule precursor. So, while meth is easy to manufacture, the recipes call for ingredients that are much more difficult.

Targets then become things that are easier to hit at the chemical company level -- like red phosphorus (in one method) and pseudoephedrine (in the shake and bake method). It's not that meth cannot be made in other ways, but the technical difficulty goes way up, essentially freezing out the amateur.

On Quaaludes, as far as I know, they were never made outside of industrial operations, so that became the same type of target. Corporations, even those in other countries, are much easier to get to by way of political pressure than individuals.

Yeah, that was the point. Big pharma ceasing to manufacture (the apparent solution to one) and making access to various relatively commonplace chemicals very tightly controlled are not comparable. They are two different things (currently, the latter would probably fail without the cooperation of Mexico, for instance --fat chance on that).

 

[cosmicaug]

Yes, I'm relying on it to make the point. Is that a bad assumption on my part?

I'm arguing against a cause for prohibition that is US-centric. The substance being prohibited would, however, carry across into every country that regulates it because the substance is the same.

I really did not express myself well. I apologize. What I meant to ask was if, other than inasmuch as they involve specific substances being regulated which are the same in the different countries, are you really satisfied that the drug regulatory regimes around the world are independent events?

What I am understanding is that your answer is yes. I think I would disagree with your answer.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Something interesting from the NIDA (http://www.drugabuse.gov/publicatio.../available-treatments-marijuana-use-disorders) :

and...

Are they making this stuff up to support the current administration's drug policy?

No, but you have to look at the % of people affected vs the number who smoke pot every day.

From your link:

It is important to note that marijuana dependence is most prevalent among patients suffering from other psychiatric disorders, particularly among adolescent and young adult populations. 18 Also, marijuana abuse or dependence typically co-occurs with use of other drugs, such as cocaine and alcohol.

Not so clear cut when you are looking at poly-drug abuse and concurrent mental health problems.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pretty sure I once read that smoking pot makes you eat a lot of Cheetos and THAT'S where the brain damage comes from.

I checked all the facts, it all works out.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I think I mentioned this before http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21367621

 

[marplots]

I really did not express myself well. I apologize. What I meant to ask was if, other than inasmuch as they involve specific substances being regulated which are the same in the different countries, are you really satisfied that the drug regulatory regimes around the world are independent events?

What I am understanding is that your answer is yes. I think I would disagree with your answer.

Yeah, lets start fresh.
My response was to an allegation of political machinations against minorities (and I think something about the cotton business and hemp). So I started out with the challenge that if that were so, would you expect to see prohibition worldwide -- and I think not.

However, my point doesn't mean there has to be the same rationale in every country, although I think the simplest explanation is that marijuana really is harmful (or is perceived to be harmful) pretty much across the board.

I'll also grant that the situation is different in different countries. Much like alcohol (which has demonstrable harm) a cultural tradition that includes marijuana use (such as in Mexico) will produce less harsher penalties. But I could find no country where marijuana use, sale and production was legal.

What I was interested in was another explanation, other than my guess about perceived harm, that would explain the popularity of marijuana prohibition in so many disparate countries. For example, if the UN came out with a policy (driven by US wants) and other countries signed up just to go with the flow, that would be a good explanation and it would contradict my hypothesis.

Please note, I am only talking about perceived harm, not demonstrated harm. I am only measuring opinions as reflected in law.

 

[WildCat]

Something interesting from the NIDA (http://www.drugabuse.gov/publicatio.../available-treatments-marijuana-use-disorders) :


and...



Are they making this stuff up to support the current administration's drug policy?

And I bet 99% seek treatment because of a court order, not because they wanted to.

Imagine if getting caught with a beer resulted in a court order for alcohol treatment.

 

[WildCat]

Pretty sure I once read that smoking pot makes you eat a lot of Cheetos and THAT'S where the brain damage comes from.

I checked all the facts, it all works out.

Now Cheetos, that's addictive!

 

[catsmate]

This thread is about possible brain damage caused by marijuana. The evidence for that may not be conclusive, but there is no doubt that hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin and meth are both extremely addictive and destructive.

Only a naive fool would think that decriminalizing marijuana will significantly reduce the activities of Mexican drug cartels. Therefore I can only assume that those who advocate ditching the 'war on drugs' in Mexico are OK with giving these criminals free rein to flood the US with cheap hard drugs. No doubt this will significantly increase the number of addicts, increase medical costs and violent crime, and adversely affect the general economic health and welfare of the country.

Depending on your agenda, you may not consider it a bad thing to have a larger proportion of your citizens' lives being destroyed by hard drugs. It certainly wouldn't bother me, but then I am quite happy to see a weaker US. However you can bet that I am against that happening to my country.

Mexico Drug Cartels Flood Cheap Meth Into U.S.

We should, but unfortunately we don't know how to get that particular genie back into the bottle - yet. Tobacco we're working on, other 'recreational' drugs may be allowed if they can be shown to be relatively safe, but I think it will be along time before we will find a way to make drugs like meth and cocaine safe. Until then, we need to severely restrict their usage.

The jury is still out on marijuana, but evidence is mounting that it is not as harmless as many people think. Of course potheads will be inclined to dismiss such evidence, as it invalidates their lifestyle. In this respect they are similar to global warming deniers.

Given that this thread has already diverged from just marijuana perhaps this graphic from Nutt's study in The Lancet will help. It's a summary of a detailed evaluation of the risks of various mind altering substances.


You'll note that alcohol shows a higher aggregate risk than heroin, methamphetamine or cocaine. Perhaps it's time for a more rational approach to the status of all narcotics in society?

 

[marplots]

Given that this thread has already diverged from just marijuana perhaps this graphic from Nutt's study in The Lancet will help. It's a summary of a detailed evaluation of the risks of various mind altering substances.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_16272507e80db55cb2.jpg[/qimg]
You'll note that alcohol shows a higher aggregate risk than heroin, methamphetamine or cocaine. Perhaps it's time for a more rational approach to the status of all narcotics in society?

I think you are making a strong case for alcohol prohibition.

 

[marplots]

And I bet 99% seek treatment because of a court order, not because they wanted to.

Imagine if getting caught with a beer resulted in a court order for alcohol treatment.

Court order, family pressures, pressures from society and drug testing for employment -- no doubt all figure into the mix. What's interesting though, is that none of these seem like a strong enough motivation to give up weed in many cases. That's the part that I find hard to explain when marijuana is touted as non-addictive. What am I willing to give up to continue using it?

 

[WildCat]

Court order, family pressures, pressures from society and drug testing for employment -- no doubt all figure into the mix. What's interesting though, is that none of these seem like a strong enough motivation to give up weed in many cases. That's the part that I find hard to explain when marijuana is touted as non-addictive. What am I willing to give up to continue using it?

It's about as addictive as unhealthy food, except that can actually kill you over time. Perhaps any fatties caught with a bag of Cheetos should be sent to counseling?

People smoke pot because they like to do it, and it really shouldn't be any of the state's business.

 

[marplots]

It's about as addictive as unhealthy food, except that can actually kill you over time. Perhaps any fatties caught with a bag of Cheetos should be sent to counseling?

People smoke pot because they like to do it, and it really shouldn't be any of the state's business.

That last bit is the key question. Under what circumstances (if any) do others have the right (or duty) to interfere with how I want to run my own life? And where does marijuana fit in the scheme we come up with?

I'm not asking for an answer; I don't think there is a clear one. I'm just pointing out that underlying these discussions is this important philosophical issue.

 

[asydhouse]

That last bit is the key question. Under what circumstances (if any) do others have the right (or duty) to interfere with how I want to run my own life? And where does marijuana fit in the scheme we come up with?

I'm not asking for an answer; I don't think there is a clear one. I'm just pointing out that underlying these discussions is this important philosophical issue.

This is the crux of the whole matter, isn't it?
All the rest is blowhard baloney if we haven't addressed this issue. From public sewage works to public institutions like libraries and fire departments, to social security provisions, to child care issues.... the individual's duty to society, and the society's duty of care to its citizens.

As a society we value individual freedom. We also claim to value democracy. A corollary of that value is the necessity for educated adults with capacity to reason, therefore a decent public education system is required to create the functioning adults to fill the role of citizens. Adults need the room to make their own choices about how they want to live, and to make their mistakes... we can't grow and mature without life experiences, and part of maturation is making and learning from mistakes. We need autonomy.

Apart from all that, we have a severe disagreement about the value and meaning of drug-use to the people that do it. That's because of the variety of people and their backgrounds, and the variation in their outlooks, intelligence, skills etc, and also because "drugs" is as useful a category as "stuff". LSD and heroin are totally unlike each other. Etc.

So the whole hysterical "discussion" over "drugs" is a lot of preconceived ideas pretending to be issues that need addressing. But what really needs addressing is the completely inappropriate grounds on which the "discussion" is proceeding at the moment.

I am appalled at some of the statements being made in this thread: that someone should presume to know the value of my creative drug use to my life experience, and to self-righteously assume that their way of living is somehow (morally or practically, who cares) superior to my own, is the most incredible invasion of my peace of mind... I am just flabbergasted that anyone can presume to condemn my processes of mind! If I want to dream poetry, why shouldn't I? Because that's what you are saying... no poetry allowed in that idle brain!

Should I be a factory worker instead of a poet? According to some people, I would be more use to society if I did a 9-5 job and got drunk and violent on the week ends, instead of inspiring people to think for themselves and question authority. That's their moral superiority at work.

A lot of people arguing from their limited knowledge base about how other people with a different knowledge base should live.

Meanwhile, thousands of wasted lives, young minds condemned to prison for a youthful indiscretion... that's going to help society huh.

 

[RandFan]

Only a naive fool would think that decriminalizing marijuana will significantly reduce the activities of Mexican drug cartels.

Kind of like ending prohibition significantly reduced crime from illegal sales of liquor? No, only a fool would think otherwise.

Drug-Friendly Netherlands to Close 8 Prisons -- Not Enough Crime

Therefore I can only assume that those who advocate ditching the 'war on drugs' in Mexico are OK with giving these criminals free rein to flood the US with cheap hard drugs.

If drugs are not illegal there is nothing for the drug cartels to do.

No doubt this will significantly increase the number of addicts, increase medical costs and violent crime, and adversely affect the general economic health and welfare of the country.

Fact is, when nations concentrate on therapy rather than the judicial system drug use plummets.

Portugal decriminalized drugs a decade ago. What have we learned?

​

Depending on your agenda, you may not consider it a bad thing to have a larger proportion of your citizens' lives being destroyed by hard drugs.

Do you have any evidence because the facts don't support your contention? Read my link on Portugal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Something interesting from the NIDA (http://www.drugabuse.gov/publicatio.../available-treatments-marijuana-use-disorders) :


and...



Are they making this stuff up to support the current administration's drug policy?

The thing is addiction means different things. It can mean a physical dependency with withdrawal symptoms if you don't get it. But you also get things like internet addiction, gambling addiction or porn addiction. These are behaviors that people might want to stop but can't. Of course so are a lot of OCD behaviors so are they addicted to say washing their hands?