Do You Smoke?

[edy420]

Weed increases the creative center of your brain. It was explained to me that, like anti-depressants (though I am making no comparison, just for instance), Pot opens up the receptors in our brain that allows creative thought, and also stimulates them.

Is that really so? Are there scientific references, or did a pot head just creatively decide that?

So weed might help with replace anti-depressants?

Sure it can, in small doses.

But there isn't many doctors who know how much to prescribe or what the real effects are.
In high enough doses to actually get stoned, marijuana can have negative effects on deppression, sometimes making it worse.

[edy420]

My blank canvas is my journal and I love smoking before I write. So this pot smoker says yes, it does help ME with my creative side.
It all depends on the person who's smoking the weed. Some people let it consume their lives and never get off their hind end, and others are "productive citizens".

I think the writing part can be executed almost automatically, without interfering to much with the creative thought process. Painting too, can be executed in the same manor if the end result is not a particular concern. If the end result of a painting is intended to look like a truer representation of the subject then a great deal of concentration is required. Thinking back some many years ago, I see your point and agree.

It's highly debatable whether or not William Shakespeare used Marijuana, considering it was readily available at the time and also hemp.
Clay pipes were found in his garden with traces of marijuana and other hallucinogenics :P

As for scientific research, its hard to come by, considering its illegal to use marijuana.

Marijuana Research
Current restrictions on marijuana research are absurd

Yet outdated regulations and attitudes thwart legitimate research with marijuana. Indeed, American biomedical researchers can more easily acquire and investigate cocaine. Marijuana is classified as a so-called Schedule 1 drug, alongside LSD and heroin. As such, it is defined as being potentially addictive and having no medical use, which under the circumstances becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Any researcher attempting to study marijuana must obtain it through the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The U.S. research crop, grown at a single facility, is regarded as less potent--and therefore less medicinally interesting--than the marijuana often easily available on the street. Thus, the legal supply is a poor vehicle for studying the approximately 60 cannabinoids that might have medical applications.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... a-research

I'd say Carl Sagan would agree with NORMLme...
"The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world."
- Carl Sagan quote on Marijuana

[bretjones]

Seems to me like cannabis smokers (I am one) always are able to create justifications for thier actions, while the non-smokers will always quote health benefits of quitting, which are actually as irrelevant to the smoker as myself telling a businessman working in the city that city traffic is bad for his health. Its always inconsequential. The arguements about psychiatric issues, however, seem to be scare tactics. Alchohol has more readily recognizable associated psyciatric issues whihc can be easily witnessed in any town centre on a Friday/Saturday night.

[bretjones]

Seems to me like cannabis smokers (I am one) always are able to create justifications for thier actions, while the non-smokers will always quote health benefits of quitting, which are actually as irrelevant to the smoker as myself telling a businessman working in the city that city traffic is bad for his health. Its always inconsequential. The arguements about psychiatric issues, however, seem to be scare tactics. Alchohol has more readily recognizable associated psyciatric issues whihc can be easily witnessed in any town centre on a Friday/Saturday night.

I suppose that statement is a bit meaningless in isolation. In my personal experience cannabis helps to separate emotion and reason, and so those who discourage seem to give in to emotional prejudices while the reasonable arguement that nobody is hurt and the health impacts are tolerable is made by the smoker. When considering ambition (many people say that ambitions are damaged by smoking, in my experience), cannabis does not so much destroy ambition, as redirect energy into improving what is already there, as opposed to exploring new territory. I think to get ahead in a modern society, the ability to work with what you have, rather than constantly be striving for and disappointed by greener pastures, is an important benefit to cannabis. Alcohol on the other hand, seems to be the weekend drug which keeps the masses content with thier employment by providing a short, sharp fix of relief each weekend.

[neuro]

Actually, there is a big difference between occasional use and hard smoking.

Endocannabinoids (anandamide and 2-arachidonyl-glycerol, the endogenous substances whose receptors are activated by THC, the psychoactive component of marijuana) have a very important role in modulating nervous activity and they are quite significantly involved in the processes of synaptic stabilization and pruning, which make it possible to continually modify neuronal networks to learn and memorize.

These "plastic" modifications of neuronal networks are particularly active during adolescence, and many studies have demonstrated that intense and persistent stimulation of cannabinoid receptors (such as it occurs in hard smokers) during adolescence significantly interferes with these plastic changes and the correct evolution of neural connectivity. In humans, this would produce memory and psychomotor deficits, possible changes in mental attitudes, and may predispose to psychiatric disorders (statistics may suggest that this is actually true, but in such studies it is very difficult to discern causes from effects: are psychically suffering persons more likely to become hard smokers or are hard smokers more likely to develop psychic disorders?).

So, although data in humans are controversial - and it is true they are often used as a deterrent - neurobiological data suggest that interfering with the endocannabinoid system, especially during adolescence, impairs the perfectly physiological development of neural networks in the brain.

[bretjones]

Impair is a bit of a negative term, and I think misleading, I think 'alters' would be more correct. Do you not think that the evolution of language and intelligence in humans could, in some way, be influenced in the same way as any physical selective pressure on the species level? Assuming people here dont believe in the supernatural/superstitious (or whatever other derogatory words people are throwing at religoun recently), to altering the functioning of the brain could be described as a new species, ie many species of brain types in the human brain pool. If this is true, then the question becomes not what effects on the brain are they, but when will those effects be seen as useful and when will they be detrimental, to the person him/herself, or, more likely, the person who controls when it is available and when it is not.

[BadgerJelly]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't EVERY substance that we absorb a drug?

I would say I do not smoke or drink. I have done before and I more than likely will do again. I sometimes eat a lot of salt and/or chocolate too. I actually went without chocolate for about a year once!

I've had mushrooms once and would recommend to anyone if they want to to try illegal drugs if they want to as long as it is their choice. READ UP FIRST THOUGH!! While you're at it check out the effects of other things like caffeine.

Also note that everyone is different. Some people are more inclined to reacted in some ways when others do not react at all.

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi Folks..

I can only speak for myself. I started out with Cross-Tops (whites) around 1968. Great fun and I got an amazing amount of work done in very short order. Only used them on weekends so never became addicted. Then I tried LSD at a concert and several times after that. Never really liked the stuff, was too weird watching plants walking all over the place etc :P

Then got drafted to Vietnam and assigned a guard post away from the main action. Looked to fall in with some social group, I tried the Christians. Their collective IQ's made them very boring. I then tried the Pot Smokers. They were also very boring because all they wanted to do was kick back and listen to music. So I then tried the Beer Group. Forget that! Every night was at least 4 fights and easy access to weapons. Saw more guys get shot at that club (friendly fire?) than due to enemy fire.

So finally that left the Heroin Group. That drug scared me but the guys were very bright and liked Chess, Cards and Conversation. Eventually I tried the stuff, so pure that nobody injected it. Just rolled it into a cigarette and smoked it. Wow.. incredible comfort. And no obvious side effects. Also was super cheap. Did that for over 6 months. When time approached to leave Vietnam, I decided to go cold turkey.. and that scared me. But my symptoms were no worse than a common mild flu over the following two weeks. I came home clean.

Next ten years passed by.. got married and started a career. My wife became progressively ill, sort of like a permanent PMS but no bleeding. Doctors couldn't figure it out and we couldn't have kids. She was on some heavy pain meds for several years. The change occurred when we met some neighbors that offered us some pot one night. I didn't like the stoned feeling but my wife said it helped her far more than the pain meds. So we started smoking a pipe load every night. Very soon she got completely off the pain meds and started feeling human again. For myself, I discovered pot to be something that was easily adjusted to. Meaning the uncomfortable stoned effect wore off after a few weeks of nightly usage and was replaced with a general feeling of well being and a new appreciation for comedy TV.

Then I noticed something unexpected. I was suffering from major stress prior to pot. I had regular bouts with Asthma. I had Psoriasis. I had Ulcers. I had Insomnia. I had a very high stress job. After doing pot for about a month, all these ailments disappeared. I felt great and my job performance improved. Life improved all around. This went on for the next TEN years.

In 2003 my wife passed away from a flu bug while at war with diabetes, she was almost blind by then, and I became very depressed. I stopped smoking pot then (no withdrawals) and haven't indulged in anything since. All my stress symptoms have returned. I'm thinking about medical pot, but it feels like I would be partying without her. Go Figure..

I do still smoke tobacco and will quit someday. For now.. helps to improve concentration.

I bet if they produce a safe cigarette, the laws still wouldn't change, because of the smell. Also, I think many smokers deserve the prejudice received, because of their inconsideration for non-smokers and throwing butts all over the place, which I never did.

Just some of my personal experiences, for what it's worth.

Best to all,
Dave :^)

[BadgerJelly]

I actually know of a few people who smoke pot for pain. They swear its the best thing for them after trying other things.

Some people can handle "drugs" some cannot. Maybe its about being pressured? I was never pressured and when at college I did smoke some weed and I was actually the first one to stop at the time because it got to the point everyone was smoking too much just for the hell of it and it became boring.

I doubt its bad for your lungs if you ingest it right? As for psychological effects .... ppfftt! Some people are just stupid and unhinged before they start smoking. A bigger worry is the nanny effect on kids, over use of cleaning products, bad diet and social conditioning that causes stress (IMO the biggest killer and main cause of cancer).

I hate the term "disorder" as well. Or people looking for a "cure" for down-syndrome. Utter nonsense! We are not robots we are human beings in all our shapes and forms. Today it is like being a child is a "disorder" now or having interests outside of work.

Rant over ... for now :P

[Lomax]

I actually know of a few people who smoke pot for pain. They swear its the best thing for them after trying other things.

I have Tourette Syndrome, and cannabis is actually the most effective thing I've come across. It's actually quite low on side-effects (Neuro is quite right that the long-term effects are not so good, but I would say the same for Haldol etc). It stops me from getting very much done mind you, which is one of the reasons I mostly avoid it.

stress (IMO the biggest killer and main cause of cancer).

You know, such things are not a matter of opinion ;)

[BadgerJelly]

I love Tourette Syndrome! Its fun. I remember this girl I knew and her friend had it and she had days where she just said random animals sometimes. After a while I stopped noticing it which was boring :(

Guess it could be annoying though and everyone wants to "fit in" to a degree.

[neuro]

Impair is a bit of a negative term, and I think misleading, I think 'alters' would be more correct.

As you can see several points of view are expressed here. Some of them are concerned with expressing a judgement (its is good, it is bad, it is great etc.).

Mine was not.

"IMPAIR" is not a judgment of merit and does not have any MORAL implication.

Neuronal plasticity is a finely tuned process which is needed during establishment of the mature wiring of the nervous system (infancy and adolescence) and is anyway involved in forming new memories and forgetting, in the adult brain as well.

Endocannabinoids are needed to modulate and finely tune this process. In the absence of cannabinoid receptor stimulation (e.g. rimonabant) or in the presence of unphysiological stimulation (cannabinoids) the process does not proceed in the normal way, i.e. autoregulated, leading to a certain average number of synaptic connections for each neuron and a certain number and normal shape and structure of the synaptic spines on dendrites.

When you interfere with a PHYSIOLOGICAL finely tuned developmental process you IMPAIR it - you also alter it, certainly, but you literaly IMPAIR it (no moral judgement in this)

[anky2930]

What a high quality rabbish servay ???

[arifulislam]

I smoke since the day I am alone. It really acts as a good companion.

[Percarus]

I once heard that technicaly speaking smoking cigarettes deprives your body of oxygen, it hence lowers your metabolism and given that (provided you don't die of cancer or a smoking related illness) it will indeed prolong your lifespan if done correctly, any thoughts?

[CanadysPeak]

I once heard that technicaly speaking smoking cigarettes deprives your body of oxygen, it hence lowers your metabolism and given that (provided you don't die of cancer or a smoking related illness) it will indeed prolong your lifespan if done correctly, any thoughts?

A lowered oxygen level (hypoxia) is considered pathological, and does often lead to death, albeit rather slowly. Early death seems counter-productive to prolonging life. But, if you wanted to do this, just eat lots of cabbage and broccoli, both of which are reputed to lower metabolism (I personally think it doesn't make you live longer if you eat these; it just seems that way to those who live in close proximity to you).

[Mello]

Whoops, looks like my post went away. Well, it's easy to remember what I said. As a marijuana and synthetic marijuana smoker, I do not feel I owe so much as an explanation let alone a justification. Let it kill me, a city bus can do the same thing. We banning those too now? didn't think so. Health or lack thereof matters not--it's the person's own business what they are doing. Second hand smoke is irrelevant--how many public human smokers d'ya think it would take to match what ONE CAR puts in your lungs? How about ONE COMPANY? Thank you. I knew you were good at math ;P cheers....

[Watson]

Any smoke is not good for you, so try brownies, but so much of what we are forced to breath is relatively diluted ( cumulative, but diluted ) and it is likely that any ill-effects can not be attributed to a single cause. So best hope you live near the healthy air.

[Lomax]

Second hand smoke is irrelevant--how many public human smokers d'ya think it would take to match what ONE CAR puts in your lungs? How about ONE COMPANY? Thank you. I knew you were good at math ;P cheers....

Good question. My maths isn't what it was at college but my Googling is OK:

If you're indoors, three cigarettes produce ten times as much particulate matter as a car. Note that, in this experiment, the car was also indoors, but likewise note it was a diesel. However, a quick glance at direct.gov.uk's database tells me that the difference in emissions between petrol and diesel is not so drastic.

WebMD gives a more readable rundown here, and NewScientist here.

Lomax

[Watson]

If you're indoors, three cigarettes produce ten times as much particulate matter as a car.

nough said. Brownies all round.

[Mello]

Any smoke is not good for you, so try brownies, but so much of what we are forced to breath is relatively diluted ( cumulative, but diluted ) and it is likely that any ill-effects can not be attributed to a single cause. So best hope you live near the healthy air.

I've made weed butter with a friend before--we split it and used it for mac n cheese n stuff. it's fun to do....most ppl opt to smoke it cause it's "here and now" faster, etc

[Mello]

Second hand smoke is irrelevant--how many public human smokers d'ya think it would take to match what ONE CAR puts in your lungs? How about ONE COMPANY? Thank you. I knew you were good at math ;P cheers....

Good question. My maths isn't what it was at college but my Googling is OK:

If you're indoors, three cigarettes produce ten times as much particulate matter as a car. Note that, in this experiment, the car was also indoors, but likewise note it was a diesel. However, a quick glance at direct.gov.uk's database tells me that the difference in emissions between petrol and diesel is not so drastic.

WebMD gives a more readable rundown here, and NewScientist here.



Lomax

that is interesting and thanx....as far as particulate matter, it is semi-believable if the smokers are indoors. I am actually a bit skeptical of the results, but I am interested to read that, and the particulars of the experiment. I am also a bit wary of the "indoor car", given that "indoors with a car" remains a popular method of suicide. I know that they were talking about pollutive matter in general, and death from being in a closed garage with a running car is specifically from carbon monoxide. So that part at least closes it for me which one (car exhaust or secondhand smoke) is more deadly to HUMANS. As to the environment as a whole--I still find it hard to believe cigarettes are that much in the running what with the varying sizes of vehicles producing large amounts of exhaust, before we've even gotten into industrial emissions....thanks again tho :)

[Mello]

PS: Reading it now--I truly find it ironic that the car was left idling in a garage for 30 minutes while air samples were taken. Notice not a one volunteers to actually stand in the garage WITH the car, for good reason. I know the test was for particles, and not carbon monoxide, but I have to ask what their point was, given that any teen can stand in a garage for hours with more than that amount of "evil cigarette smoke," but obviously no one would have survived standing in the garage with the "lesser evil." I know this was for pollution, and not specific gassing danger to humans, but I still find it funny because studies like this are inevitably used for the "bad cigarette body bag" propaganda. Don't get me wrong, I dislike cigarette companies because I believe they have a hand in the demonization and criminalization of weed. But I gotta say the whole car in the garage experiment is highly ironic to me. JMO.

[Watson]

Any smoke is not good for you, so try brownies, but so much of what we are forced to breath is relatively diluted ( cumulative, but diluted ) and it is likely that any ill-effects can not be attributed to a single cause. So best hope you live near the healthy air.

I've made weed butter with a friend before--we split it and used it for mac n cheese n stuff. it's fun to do....most ppl opt to smoke it cause it's "here and now" faster, etc

KD and weed? That would be auwesome, then more KD for the munchies. I see a pattern?cycle happening, but who involved would possibly care?

[Mello]

Any smoke is not good for you, so try brownies, but so much of what we are forced to breath is relatively diluted ( cumulative, but diluted ) and it is likely that any ill-effects can not be attributed to a single cause. So best hope you live near the healthy air.

I've made weed butter with a friend before--we split it and used it for mac n cheese n stuff. it's fun to do....most ppl opt to smoke it cause it's "here and now" faster, etc

KD and weed? That would be auwesome, then more KD for the munchies. I see a pattern?cycle happening, but who involved would possibly care?

kd?

[Watson]

Kraft Dinner, brand of mac and cheese? I asked Mrs.Wiki and she has this:

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

[Mello]

I love Kraft foodz.

Ok, guys sorry, but on the subject of car exhaust experiments again. I'm very sorry to keep harping about the carbon monoxide death thing, seeing as the experiment tested for PARTICULATE MATTER and the experiment was for ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION and not PHYSIOLOGICAL DANGER TO HUMANS. (though it will no doubt be used to prove such) Ok, I get that...but even so, it actually seems a tad on the uhhhhhh SHADY side that they SPECIFIED PARTICULATE MATTER in a study on ENVIRONMENTAL AIR POLLUTION seeing as a lot of pollution is GASEOUS? So why particles? Non-particulate gases are pretty poisonous to the environment too, after all.

I honestly can't help wondering if the focus was on particles in order to DELIBERATELY render carbon monoxide irrelevant??? seeing as it's, i dunno, deadly, and much deadlier than any particle released here, however 'thick.' (yes I read all of them.) Furthermore, I also can't help wondering if running the same experiment but including ALL pollutant matter, not just particle/"dusty", would yield different results. Cars are quite gaseous, you know. So is a lot of pollution. Think about it. I smell deliberate result skewing. However, I also admit to having a spot of paranoia. But even if not deliberately skewed, it certainly gives me pause. Night nite...

[Watson]

I agree with most of your comments, but as soon as you admit to:

Code: Select all

I also admit to having a spot of paranoia 

You lose all, or any credibility you may have, even simpathetic credibilities are gone. Everyone does, not just you. If you believe........believe to the death.
If not................shut up?

[CanadysPeak]

I love Kraft foodz.

Ok, guys sorry, but on the subject of car exhaust experiments again. I'm very sorry to keep harping about the carbon monoxide death thing, seeing as the experiment tested for PARTICULATE MATTER and the experiment was for ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION and not PHYSIOLOGICAL DANGER TO HUMANS. (though it will no doubt be used to prove such) Ok, I get that...but even so, it actually seems a tad on the uhhhhhh SHADY side that they SPECIFIED PARTICULATE MATTER in a study on ENVIRONMENTAL AIR POLLUTION seeing as a lot of pollution is GASEOUS? So why particles? Non-particulate gases are pretty poisonous to the environment too, after all.

I honestly can't help wondering if the focus was on particles in order to DELIBERATELY render carbon monoxide irrelevant??? seeing as it's, i dunno, deadly, and much deadlier than any particle released here, however 'thick.' (yes I read all of them.) Furthermore, I also can't help wondering if running the same experiment but including ALL pollutant matter, not just particle/"dusty", would yield different results. Cars are quite gaseous, you know. So is a lot of pollution. Think about it. I smell deliberate result skewing. However, I also admit to having a spot of paranoia. But even if not deliberately skewed, it certainly gives me pause. Night nite...

If the car is well tuned, CO levels should not be that high. NOx will be present, as well as carbon dioxide, both of which can be fatal.

[Watson]

I agree with most of your comments, but as soon as you admit to:

Code: Select all

I also admit to having a spot of paranoia 

You lose all, or any credibility you may have, even simpathetic credibilities are gone. Everyone does, not just you. If you believe........believe to the death.
If not................shut up?

Sorry Mello,
That doesn't sound the way it was intended.