Marijuana

[DakAttack]

Re: Marijuana

@Dak: It's pretty obvious we are both on opposing sides of humanistic rights concerns and probably won't concede to each other. You have nothing but contempt for people who think and act differently from you, and I see myself as much more open-minded than that. I'm done going at your throat, but I still won't hesitate to shoot down any ignorant claims or generalizations you make about cannabis or other drugs, or their users.

Yes, I have contempt for all people who act differently from me. That's the idea I want people to take home with them after they read a thread wherein I argue against the use of marijuana.

Which reminds me, you never cited a source for this:

I don't need to, because it's as obvious as the light of the day.

[Mhurron]

Re: Marijuana

Pot does not do this either. Pot is almost totally non-addictive in any physical or chemical manner.

Is that so

[Feba]

Re: Marijuana

Because the government would never ever use propaganda.

[Mhurron]

Re: Marijuana

Because the government would never ever use propaganda.

You think you never read anything with a bias? Do you have anything to refute what it says or are you just trying to look hip with 'I don't trust the guberments.'

[Feba]

Re: Marijuana

Nope, everyone naturally has a bias, but the government is much more likely to be spreading blatant propaganda than anyone else... except maybe people trying to legalize drugs.

[Sabaron]

Re: Marijuana

The White House also published doctored reports on global warming and fictitious reports on the existence of "WMDs" in Iraq. It's credibility is rather lacking.

I also like the footnote marks with no footnotes. That's classy. I can't refute it because they don't actually cite any sources (despite there being obvious citations). Therefore, I'll have to refer you back to the citation documentation on the page previous:

References for the footnotes

Working...

[Hantz]

Re: Marijuana

Man, all this arguing is harshing my mellow. I need to smoke huge rock of crack.

[Deeke]

Re: Marijuana

Um, ya. Ok. Sweeping generalizations and such. Have fun with that.

I had no idea that MMO's formed a chemical dependance in it's users.

1st bit:
I did have fun with it actually. I did a little lol when I made that first point. And happily the point still stands.

Incidentally, I've come away not sure where you stand with regards to my statement. All you seem to have done is have a dig at some self-referential aspect of it. Clever of you to notice, but it was hardly the main event.


2nd bit:

Oh come on, who said anything about chemical dependence (ignoring the whole serotonin thing, which however much a chemical, doesn't qualify chemical addiction)?


Weed and MMOs: are capable of utterly screwing up a person's priorities.
Weed and MMOs: both just as potentially hazardous to a person's social and family life.
Weed and MMOs: both will be responsible every year for crappy/failed exams, etc.
Weed and MMOs: both easy to dabble in initially, easy to get lost in eventually.
Weed and MMOs: both offer escapism. This one is very important.

The list really does go on.

Please take a second to look at this from a perspective outside of your own. I'm not trying to say MMOs are evil. I'm merely pointing out that addiction is bigger than physical dependence. And we as MMO players can, if we examine some of the reasons we'd abhor the idea of never playing FFXI again, feel some of that, I'm certain. There ARE parallels, much as some you may be loathe to admit it.

In my humblest of humbles at least^^

[Sabaron]

Re: Marijuana

The White House also published doctored reports on global warming and fictitious reports on the existence of "WMDs" in Iraq. It's credibility is rather lacking.

I also like the footnote marks with no footnotes. That's classy. I can't refute it because they don't actually cite any sources (despite there being obvious citations). Therefore, I'll have to refer you back to the citation documentation on the page previous:

References for the footnotes

We shall skip the first reference #27 because it refers to the DSM which is basically a psychiatric care guidebook and is (generally) quite a solid document. Unlike most sciences, psychology is based on statistical aberrations of "normal behavior", but, most generally, a psychiatric disorder is only a disorder if it causes distress to the person experiencing it or if it causes the person to engage in "criminal" activities. It's a very "flexible" document.

Let's go on to citation #28

According to the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 4.3 million Americans were classified with dependence on or abuse of marijuana. That figure represents 1.8 percent of the total U.S. population and 60.3 percent of those classified as individuals who abuse or are dependent on illicit drugs.28

28 National Survey of Drug Use and Health 2002. SAMHSA, 2003.
Font accents added by me for interest.

First of all lets look at the bold portion: "or abuse of marijuana." This indicates that the figure 4.3 million does not represent the number of "marijuana addicts", but rather a combined statistic of those addicted and who simply use the product.

The cited document is rather lengthy, so I will extract a few interesting tidbits:

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug, with a rate of 6.2 percent (14.6 million) in 2003. An estimated 2.3 million persons (1.0 percent) were current cocaine users, 604,000 of whom used crack. Hallucinogens were used by 1.0 million persons, and there were an estimated 119,000 current heroin users. All of these 2003 estimates are similar to the estimates for 2002.

In 2003, 12.2 percent of past year marijuana users used marijuana on 300 or more days in the past 12 months. This translates into 3.1 million persons using marijuana on a daily or almost daily basis over a 12–month period. This was the same number as in 2002. However, the number of youths aged 12 to 17 using marijuana daily or almost daily declined from 358,000 in 2002 to 282,000 in 2003 (Figure 2.11). The number of youths using marijuana on 20 or more days in the past month declined from 603,000 in 2002 to 482,000 in 2003.

Taking the numbers: 14.6 million users * 12.2 percent using at least 300/365 days yields: 1.752 million "frequent" users. Therefore, the number of "addicts" cannot really be higher than that number. Frequent use does not necessarily connote addiction, but we can assume that one of the monikers of substance dependency is, in fact, extraordinarily frequent use.

The study deals mostly with use (and it uses this word frequently rather than abuse) of products and also for treatment of disorders. There is no linkage in the document between seeking treatment for marijuana specifically. Therefore, there is no statistic in the study that directly correlates the figure presented in the "Myth 2" document. Also, the number 4.3 million does not appear in the document. It was calculated by some unknown process by the "Myth 2" author. The study references people seeking "Drug Treatment" in a general category which means that in the study, the only thing that is separated from the "treatment" statistic is Alcohol.

No distinction between "heavy" and "light" daily usage is made.

I'm going to do something else now... Feel free to peruse the remainder of the citations. Unfortunately, I cannot find an online resource for the "Psychopharmacology" publication, and I'm not currently in a University library.

The document appears to be heavily paraphrased and citations are more of the writer's inference rather than actual quotations (thus the non-use of quotation marks).

I have one more marker for you.

The proportion of admissions for primary marijuana abuse increased from 6 percent in 1992 to 15 percent of admissions to treatment in 2000.35 Almost half (47 percent) of the people admitted
for marijuana were under 20.

Were under 20 huh? I wonder what percentage of these admissions were forced by the legal system. When I was 19, I got caught by a cop and as a condition of my court supervision had to attend treatment. Therefore, this statement bears little merit because it doesn't state "voluntary admissions". People with real addictions check themselves in. They use the legal system to generate statistics which are very misleading.

[Ameroth]

Re: Marijuana

Is that so

Until you can provide a non-biased link that actually cites any kind of source, your post holds no merit. Have this one:

There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans.

When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. 61 Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms. 62

Signs of withdrawal have been created in laboratory animals following the administration of very high doses. 63 Recently, at a NIDA-sponsored conference, a researcher described unpublished observations involving rats pretreated with THC and then dosed with a cannabinoid receptor-blocker. 64 Not surprisingly, this provoked sudden withdrawal, by stripping receptors of the drug. This finding has no relevance to human users who, upon ceasing use, experience a very gradual removal of THC from receptors.

(Excerpt from Marijuana Myths, http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi...is_myth9.shtml)

Yes, I have contempt for all people who act differently from me. That's the idea I want people to take home with them after they read a thread wherein I argue against the use of marijuana.

But see you haven't just argued its use, you have more than enough ignorant claims and insults against people who think opposite of your opinions.
Ex.

1. I hear the stupidest things come out of stoners' mouths 2. The only weapon stoners have is endless and pointless arguing. 3. That's pretty much what I expect from a stoner... 4. just commented mindless zombie style.

There's more, but I've made my point.

I don't need to, because it's as obvious as the light of the day.

That's still not a source, just some more ignorant banter.

[DakAttack]

Re: Marijuana

That's still not a source, just some more ignorant banter.

You can't prove it's ignorant banter unless you have a source.

[Sabaron]

Re: Marijuana

You can't prove it's ignorant banter unless you have a source.

I think you're trolling... the basic purpose of everything you have posted is to turn this discussion into a flame war so that the thread will be closed. I'll simply ignore you from now on.

Why can't you be like Mhurron? She's on the same side of the coin as you, but she has reference material and sources.

[Ameroth]

Re: Marijuana

Marijuana's obvious damage to the personality, and mental stability

You can't prove it's ignorant banter unless you have a source.

1. http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi...is_myth8.shtml
2. http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi...s_myth11.shtml
3. http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi..._effects.shtml

And here, I found a source that does mildly back up your claim:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...the-brain.html

However, if you read the article it explains that this "fog" may happen after long-term (20+ years), chronic use. Further, it points out that the individuals tested after chronic marijuana use were never actually tested prior to this experiment.

[Feba]

Re: Marijuana

You can't prove it's ignorant banter unless you have a source.

Ignorant banter is trying to make a point in a scientific discussion without something to back it up.

Don't make me look up science 101 and point out to you how important it is to do your research.

[DakAttack]

Re: Marijuana

I think you're trolling... the basic purpose of everything you have posted is to turn this discussion into a flame war so that the thread will be closed. I'll simply ignore you from now on.

Again, painting me as the bad guy and playing the victim. I'm not an idiot, I don't need to read a publication detailing a scientific study on the properties of water just to make ice. I also don't need to read a publication detailing a scientific study on the effects of marijuana on the personality to know that there is a pronounced effect, no matter how interesting the read.

Though I don't cry for sources, they are interesting to read.