Study Suggests That Marijuana Is More Dangerous Than Thought

[NotreDame]

But is it not entirely possible to have 'light' marijuana?  I mean, I accept that right now with its prohibited status you probably will not find light marijuana, because it does not make economic sense. But is it literally impossible to create?

 

Not to be abrasive, but your last couple comments haven't made a ton of sense to me.  Do you have any real experience w/ drugs or is it all theoretical to you?

 

The point of smoking is to get high.  I'm not sure what "light marijuana" would accomplish.  Some pharma companies are attempting to isolate certain aspects of marijuana, but I'm a bit cynical about that (ie. if you want the benefits, just smoke it, don't look for some chemical derivative patented by pharma and approved by the FDA.)

[NotreDame]

I mean, if we are comparing it to alcohol, we have beer at around 3-6% ABV, wine around 20%, whisky around 40-60%. Even 99% Everclear has its purpose. Could marijuana not function in the same manner, or does THC simply function in a radically different manner?

 

Alcohol is different from other drugs.  Alcohol doesn't make you "high" the same way.

 

If you haven't been high, I'm not really sure how to explain it.  It would be like trying to explain an orgasm to somebody that never had one.  I'll have to leave that to a better person than I. 

 

NOTE:  A shot of everclear would probably get you drunk, but mixed properly you can consume an everclear beverage moderately just like any other alcoholic beverage, experiencing some of the relaxing qualities of alcohol w/o affecting reason.

[Perigrina]

But is it not entirely possible to have 'light' marijuana?  I mean, I accept that right now with its prohibited status you probably will not find light marijuana, because it does not make economic sense. But is it literally impossible to create?

 

I've heard the sort of marijuana that was available when I was in my teens was significantly less potent than what is on the market now.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Not to be abrasive, but your last couple comments haven't made a ton of sense to me.  Do you have any real experience w/ drugs or is it all theoretical to you?

 

The point of smoking is to get high.  I'm not sure what "light marijuana" would accomplish.  Some pharma companies are attempting to isolate certain aspects of marijuana, but I'm a bit cynical about that (ie. if you want the benefits, just smoke it, don't look for some chemical derivative patented by pharma and approved by the FDA.)

Yes, it is theoretical to me. I have never smoked it, but I do have serious reservations that it makes sense to consider marijuana in the same category as cocaine or meth. The point of smoking pot right now, perhaps, is to get high. But this is as much a function of its illegal status as anything else. What I am asking is whether or not this is necessarily true, due to the way in which its active ingredients actually function, or if, say in a society where it was not stigmatized, if people could, theoretically, smoke in moderation.

 

I've heard the sort of marijuana that was available when I was in my teens was significantly less potent than what is on the market now.

 

I have read some studies that report the same thing.

[Credo in Deum]

I've heard the sort of marijuana that was available when I was in my teens was significantly less potent than what is on the market now.

 

 

It was and is still, the same weed.  Your generation just smoked mostly the leaves and not the bud itself.  

Edited June 21, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[NotreDame]

I've heard the sort of marijuana that was available when I was in my teens was significantly less potent than what is on the market now.

 

I have no idea how old you are, but due to basic botanical techniques, "good weed" just keeps getting stronger.  Thanks to medical marijuana there's been a big jump in potency just over the last 10 years as well.  As I said before, the better the weed the more of "body high" you get.  

 

Yes, it is theoretical to me. I have never smoked it, but I do have serious reservations that it makes sense to consider marijuana in the same category as cocaine or meth. The point of smoking pot right now, perhaps, is to get high. But this is as much a function of its illegal status as anything else. What I am asking is whether or not this is necessarily true, due to the way in which its active ingredients actually function, or if, say in a society where it was not stigmatized, if people could, theoretically, smoke in moderation.

 

I have read some studies that report the same thing.

 

OK, so you have reservations about things I never said.  What marijuana shares w/ other drugs like meth/coke is that at the point when you've taken enough to notice it's affects your reason has already been altered.  Same can't be said for alcohol.   This is the point I'm trying to get across. 

 

The desire to get high has nothing to do with it's legal status.  As I understand it, the high in weed comes from THC.  THC is what gives you all the medical benefits: appetite, relaxation, pain relief.  Is pharma trying to figure out a way to get those benefits from THC w/o getting you high?  Yes.  right now, however, getting those benefits only comes from getting high, so the point of marijuana regardless of your motive, is to get high.

 

It was and is still, the same weed.  Your generation just smoked mostly the leaves and not the bud itself.  

 

Yes leaves were smoked in the past and generally aren't now, but it is not the same weed.  The buds have been continually enhanced to be bigger and much more potent.  

 

Leaves were smoked because buds were smaller, less potent in the past:  http://ask.metafilter.com/134774/From-leaf-to-bud

Edited June 21, 2014 by NotreDame

[Credo in Deum]

Gives a whole new meaning to; best buds. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Notredame, do you have references to any studies or research which reflects what you said, about there essentially being no such thing as a moderate amount?

[Perigrina]

I have no idea how old you are,

 

The picture from the 70s show was a clue.  My teenage years took place during the 70s.

[NotreDame]

Notredame, do you have references to any studies or research which reflects what you said, about there essentially being no such thing as a moderate amount?

 

I've never looked for them and - not to be abrasive again - but I am kind of annoyed by that question.  I think it will be years before scientific studies can quantify what one can learn directly from experience in this area. I find this generally to be true for both drugs and sex where experience and being around people w/ experience still trumps the nascent research.  I think in the old days they called it common sense /sarc.

 

For what it's worth I'm not sure why the PhD community has any credibility in this regard.  For years studies have said it's ok to take vicodin for pain, soma for muscle relaxation, or xanax for anxiety, but that marijuana has no beneficial effect in those areas - a conclusion which is absurd to anyone who has actually used those substances for said ailments.

 

I mean, just calling some of the FDA approved pharma safe should cost people their credentials.  I've seen guys who have been functioning users for years brought to their knees (literally) by vicodin and oxy.  In fact, most of the severe substance abuse problems I've seen in friends/acquaintances the past 15 years are related to OTC drugs.

[Nihil Obstat]

Frankly I do not have much use for anecdotes. I want to see verifiable, replicable numbers.

[Lilllabettt]

one of the professors at harvard got sent up the river for encouraging his students to do LSD. Timothy Leary. They still talk about him. plenty of nutjobs got degrees. 

[CrossCuT]

I have a low opinion of the behavior of people who flout a stupid law because they 1. want entertainment 2. think they can get away with it 3. so why not?

 

"This law is preventing my fun" is not enough to make a law unjust and therefore breakable.  "The law is preventing me from relieving my child's pain" okay maybe. But that is not recreational marijuana use, is it.

 

I think I will skip the part where I hold forth on the neurological mechanisms behind drug induced sedation and stimulation cuz I have a feeling that would make me look, in your words, "vaguely dickish." so I will demure.

If having fun is what you think this subject boils down to then lol. So much for a Harvard education. 

 

My layman's understanding of how marijuana use affects behaviour does imply to me that it could be used in moderation, though under prohibition of marijuana that may not be the standard way in which it is used. It has not yet been demonstrated to me that this is incorrect.

 

Correct. A small amount of THC will create a small high vs a lot of THC will cause a large high. The only problem is that since its illegal, it is not regulated so its hard to know exactly how much is in it. Ive been to Colorado and got to visit a marijuana store which was pretty interesting. The people there are very knowledgeable of the stuff they are selling and will tell you which types might suit you best. THC is more on part with a high that leaves you feeling a bit paranoid after but depending on purity you can change that as well. 

Ive smoked small amounts as well as been off my ass high before to the point where I was having mild hallucinations. In my experience,  majority of people do not smoke to get so high that they cant function...they smoke to ease anxiety, depression, or simply have a good time. You CAN smoke in moderation. 

 

I also tried a strain that was very low in THC but high in CBD. I took quite a few hits of that stuff and I didnt even get a small buzz.

 

Everyones experience will be different though. Some people feel paranoid regardless of type or how much you smoke and some people dont feel it at all. I mean, its the same process and when doctors prescribe someone an SSRI (which is the most common antidepressant). Some people react very poorly to it and some dont. It make take a few trial and error months to find one that works for you. 

Also, in general..in regards to cannabidiols altering brain structure things, duh. When anyone is exposed to any sort of varying levels of chemicals in development it can have the same effect. Like even oxygen can do that.

 

When you take one hit of decent weed you immediately get a "head change" and your reason and affectations are changed.   Contrasted w/ taking a sip of a beer, wine, cocktail, marijuana does not offer moderation wrt to maintaining reason.   As I've mentioned, this isn't unique to marijuana.  The change induced by recreational & pharmaceutical drugs is even more stark.  What's unique is the ability to moderate alcohol. 
 

 

Head change? Like what?

And no, not at all. Your reason stays pretty intact unless you go balls to the wall. My experience with it was basically that it was similar to feeling drunk, but I was able to keep all my motor faculties. I could still stand up, move around, and everything else pretty easily. 

 

I know quite a few people who smoke on a regular basis and none of them would agree with your assessment. 

Edited June 21, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Ash Wednesday]

I always love how defensive people get when marijuana use is questioned or criticized. 

[CrossCuT]

I always love how defensive people get when marijuana use is questioned or criticized. 

 

Most of the time people who attack it do so on little to no basis other than anecdotes. Which, granted, do have a place in studies, but they dont represent much if not backed up by something more concrete.