Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive 1

message: Recently in a newspaper it was claimed that smoking pot after a hard days work, interupted the brain coming down, so to speak. And normal stress and other stuff was not properly released, and caused to back up hence causing crazyness . Any truth??
:Complete nonsense, actually. I saw that too. Non-smokers are full of theories about the harms of cannabis, and most are crap. -SM 07:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the actions of cannabis are more complex than simply "stimulant" or "depressant".  For a view of this complexity, see this psychoactive drug chart. Or, of course, read the Cannabis (drug) article. -SM 08:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cannabis after a hard day

message: "Although deaths from Marijuana are unknown, pot is known as a "gateway" drug, leading people into "harder" drugs."
Prometheuspan 01:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are numerous scientific studies out there that dispel the myth that marijuana is a "gateway drug." There is no causal connection between the use of marijuana and other drugs. --Muugokszhiion 07:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gateway drug

message: The previous link listed on the subject is no longer available.  I have took it off the board. BigMar992 17:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Study! : Pot not a cancer risk 

message: After reading the entheogen article, I am pretty sure that cannabis does not satisfy the heuristics normally applied to entheogens.   It has been used in religious ceremonies, but there are not widespread reports of cannabis users having divine revelations, visions, or experiences of a god-like presence while under the influence.   Classifying cannabis as an entheogen dilutes the meaning of the term.  210.165.233.136 8 July 2005 08:51 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 01:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification as [[entheogen]]

message: A different anonymous person also says - I strongly disagree with the suggestion that more cannabis is needed when this method is used. On the contrary. I have found that 5g of good quality hashish is sufficient when cooked in a certain way to enjoy a very pleasant experience 32 times. Part of the reason for this is the potentiation of the drug during the process of dissolving it in butter, a certain amount of cooking is helpful.
Shouldn't the term Space Cake be mentioned in this section somehow? DodgeK 19:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oral consumption

message: This section is ridiculously one sided and overstated.  I'm removing it. ----Benna 04:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Long-term effects on social well-being

message: I'm re-adding the sentence "Possible carcinogenic/anti-carcinogenic effects (conflicting reports)" which was recently removed from the Largely Physical section. I'm not quite sure why it was removed. It is true, though; there is conflicting evidence suggesting both effects are possible. However, it occurs to me that we are lacking in sources regarding [smoked] cannabis's carcinogenic or anti-carcinogenic effects. I am aware that there is relatively little research going into this in the medical community, so information may be limited, though there is some out there. However, it would be nice to have more sources if any could be found. --Muugokszhiion 3 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)
:I have removed this. A bullet item is inappropriate for a claim which is self-contradicted, the "conflicting reports" should be contextualized in the body of the article where relevant. Whig 3 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)
Tobacco doesn't naturally contain these radioactive radium or polonium, it is a byproduct of fertilizer application and cultivation techniques.  Cannabis could just as easily contain these elements, but to my knowledge it has not been studied.  Therefore, we do not have the support to say cannabis lacks radioactive elements that tobacco contains.  Therefore, I'm removing any statements that suggest this until someone can bring a study demonstrating otherwise.  211.128.87.100 05:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carcinogenic/Anticarcinogenic Effects? 

message: 142.179.194.203 just removed a paragraph about cigarette smoking. I completely agree with him that this paragraph should not be in an article on cannabis. There is no reason to associate cannabis with tobacco, SqueakBox 17:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
I am also going to remove a paragraph about cigarette smoking.  The paragraph is out of place in this article.  Rocky 21:13, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
You actually removed the same paragraph that I had removed. Someone replaced it. It is completely irelevant; please put it in the tobacco article, as this is an article on cannabis, SqueakBox 21:22, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
It is a bit relevant since the majority of cannabis is smoked with tobacco.
To technically overdose on THC, one would have to smoke 90-100 marijuana blunts in the timespan of about 1-2 hours. I'd like to see someone actually try and accomplish that. ---- Koto
Amongst tobacco smokers it is common in Europe to mix tobacco and cannabis but not in the Americas and elsewhere. By no means all cannabis smokers are rash or foolish enough to indulge in tobacco smoking, SqueakBox 04:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Effects compared to tobacco

message: In the "largely physical" section:
"Reduced nausea, especially from chemotherapy though can cause nausea in inexperienced users, and can exacerbate nausea (although a minority of users may experience an increase in nausea)."
Isn't that redundant and a little confusing? The end of it says to me, "it can make nausea worse (although for a minority of users it can make nausea worse)". Did the writer perhaps intend to say alleviate or mitigate instead of exacerbate? I would change this myself, but it's unclear to me what the writer intended to say, and I don't want to make inaccurate edits. Either way I think the wording is confusing and it should be rephrased... feel free to delete this comment if it gets changed. --Muugokszhiion 23:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusatron 

message: In the "largely mental" section, "depressant" is listed as an effect.
The meaning here is ambiguous, and the link redirects to a disambiguation page, which doesn't help. Does this mean that cannabis causes depression or that cannabis is a depressant drug? There are major differences between the two. While it may be true that cannabis can act as a mild CNS depressant (after the primary stimulatory effects have subsided), a causal link between cannabis use and depression--at least to my knowledge--has not been reliably demonstrated.
Also, I think the Wikipedia depressant page would inaccurately classify cannabis as a GABA receptor agonist by definition. Consider this excerpt from the depressant page:
"A depressant is a chemical agent that diminishes a body function or activity. The term is used in particular with regard to the central nervous system (CNS). In that case these chemicals are known as neurotransmitters. Depressants intended to act on the CNS do so by increasing the activity of a particular neurotransmitter known as gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)."
I believe, though I'm not 100% positive (so please correct me if I'm wrong!) that cannabinoids have no affinity for GABA receptor sites. If that is indeed the case, then linking cannabis to the depressant page would also be inaccurate. Classic CNS depressants like diazepam and alcohol, which act on GABA receptors, are very different from cannabis (CB1 receptors), and linking them could cause confusion. Again, if I am incorrect, please let me know, and give your opinion. --Muugokszhiion 00:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absolutely correct, cannabis has no affinity for GABA receptors and this has been cited as the reason a fatal "overdose" of cannabis is considered to be impossible. The cannabinoid system is completely independent of the CNS functions that control, i.e., respiration and other vitals. Whereas any true depressant can cause death by this mechanism. Whig 02:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depression 

message: This was recently added to effects:
Not everyone believes that spiritual experiences are real, nor can they be scientifically proven. Hence, if a cannabis user expressed a fixed belief in having a direct experience of higher consciousness (such as the Rastafari do), he or she might be considered by some psychologists or psychiatrists to have psychosis.
I'm not sure that it is entirly accurate to call these experiences psychosis per se (from the psycholigists points of view).  What do you all think? Benna 07:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That definition is wide enough to cover any religion as well. Psychosis is defined as a break with reality (the term "psychotic break" is illustrative). I don't think it's appropriate to debate whether a behavior as loosely defined as that fits the term "psychotic". Avriette 09:34, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
NO psychiatrist or psychologist would make a diagnosis of psychosis on the basis of a "spiritual experience", no matter how subjective, strange, or hallucinatory. The diagnosis of psychosis is based on such a disordered perception of reality, especially reality related to social function and expectations that the thought problem is causing clinically significant problems for a person, such as being a danger to himself or others or being unable to hold a job or take care of himself. When the person starts thinking god is telling him to kill people, you can assume he is psychotic (if not Muslim ). alteripse 12:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It depends on the reported experience and the psychologist/psychiatrist, of course. If someone said they spoke with God, and were not dissuadable from that perception, and if there were observable behavior changes which appeared strange as a consequence, etc., they could be said to be "hearing voices" — a hallmark of psychosis. It really depends a lot on context, of course. A modern psych might very well diagnose Joan of Arc as psychotic. Note that I am not saying specifically schizophrenia, which is a whole larger set of symptoms which may include lack of affect, substantially lowered function, but this might also be an extreme along a continuum for some people. The DSM-IV does have a category for Psychosis NOS (not otherwise specified) which can be made to conform well with the reported effect especially of acute and long-term cannabis use for some people, while not necessarily being hallucinatory perception if we credit the possibility of valid but scientifically unmeasurable experiences. Whig 16:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the criteria for Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder the DSM-IV explicitly states, "Do not include hallucinations if the person has insight that they are substance induced."  Now even if someone using marijuana who has a spirtual experience believes it is somehow more real than everyday reality, he would almost certainly be aware that the marijuana caused it.  I don't think it makes sense to look at NOS when there is an explicit diagnosis relating to substance induced pychosis. Benna 22:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: You are certainly right that it depends on the psychiatrist and I am sure you can find some counterexample to any generalization. However, my point is still valid, that claiming that a subjective religious experience qualifies one for a diagnosis of psychosis simply ignores the principal reason a psychiatrist or a psychologist would even be considering a diagnosis: that diagnosably psychotic behavior is not just a perception of reality that varies from most of us, but that it is producing major problems for the person or the people around him, such as impairing his capacity for social relationships and gainful employment. No psychiatrist goes looking for people who hear god or smoke dope, but those people get taken to psychiatrists when those things are threatening every other worthwhile thing in their lives. Joan of Arc certainly might have met most of the criteria for a diagnosis but we simply don't know. alteripse 02:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder dx differentiates that the person acknowledges in some sense the "ungenuineness" of the experience, i.e., that they are "substance induced" and not real. A person who smoked pot and honestly believed that he/she talked with God, and continued to maintain the reality of that experience, would not be differentiated on simple account of the fact that cannabis had been consumed. Indeed, in some users, the experience may persist long after the acute effects wore off. As for the initial diagnosis, those experiencing this might undergo a crisis of some kind if they were unprepared, frightened or otherwise distressed at the encounter, leading them to either seek psychological help or be referred/committed. Whig 06:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is usually what people mean when they say they have a spiritual experience while using marijuana.  If it were, I would agree with you.  The fact is, though, that the spirtual experience is usually more of a feeling.  Someone might say that they experienced God.  This same person would acknowledge that this experience is substance induced, but argue that it it is none the less useful in connecting with god.  The way the article was worded previously, it sounded like this experience which I just described would be diagnosed as psychosis, and I don't think that it would.  Few people who smoke marijauna claim to hear voices.  For that reason, I see no reason to include any mention of the psychosis at all.  Such a comment might make more sense in LSD, where the experience is still usually somewhat like I described, but it becomes more likely that someone would forget that they are substance induced. Benna 09:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I call BS, and reference the Rastafari as a complete disproof. Even if "few" people who smoke cannabis claim to "hear voices", it is also clear that "few" people who smoke cannabis are claimed to experience "psychosis." So, what's your point? The whole preceding section seems to be making the point that cannabis does correlate with such experiences, and classifies them as psychosis, but the purpose of the edit is to express the view that such experiences are not necessarily a form of mental "illness". To remove this is to take a particular POV that such experiences are per se invalid/psychosis. Whig 09:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I was unclear.  What I really wish to do is make a distinction between "hearing voices" and "higher consciousness."  I am willing to grant that psycholigists might make a diagnosis of psychosis for someone who hears voices, but this isn't the religious experience that most claim (including Rastafari).  I would dispute that cannabis even causes people to hear voices.  Those that do hear voices probobly have some other underlying disorder not related to cannabis, though perhaps cannabis exacerbates it.  Because the vast majority of the religious experiences which are induced by cannabis are not the kind that could be reasonbly charectorized as psychosis (hearing voices), I think it is unreasonable to make that connection in the article.  If you would like to state something about the possible exacerbatation of underlying mental disorders which results in more severe psychosis, thats fine with me, as long as you don't connnect it with religious experience.  I don't buy the argument that not mentioning psychosis somehow assumes that the experience are psychosis. Benna 10:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychosis?

message: I bow to superior medical knowledge but if cannabis has anti-emetic effects why do I always feel sick after toking a bong?
:The fact that Cannabis is an antiemetic is well established. --Benna 01:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-emetic? You sure?

message: Found this gem from no less an authority than the Wacky Weed Smokers Digest, vol. 1, would love to find another source. Tracks with low incidence in population.  Enjoy, -SM 07:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannabis hallucinations, due to excess cerebral lithium?

message: It is a fairly common belief that users don't always get high their first or even second time trying marijuana.  I was wondering if anyone had any scientific backing for this, or just some substantive information about it.--Igor 02:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely my own opinion but I believe the reason first and second time smokers report not becoming high is simply because they aren't used to smoking. They may not know how to use the smoking implement, may not want to inhale too much (either for health reasons or because they are afraid of getting "too high"), or may not understand how to inhale the smoke. I've seen many inexperienced smokers try to take a drag from a pipe with the carb uncovered and think that they've gotten a hit or take only a small hit and hold it in their mouths for a few seconds rather than inhaling it, etc. I've also seen people not get high because they are unable to take large enough hits - they take small hits while others in the circle are still taking large ones and the marijuana is gone before they get a chance to smoke enough to get high. Grimm
Not so as tobacco smokers get the same phenomenon. It can occur on multiple occasions, not merely once or twice but once it has taken affect once it will then ever afterwards. For the article we would need some kind of source for the phenomena but it doesn't necessarily have to be scientific, SqueakBox 04:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I am a long time listener of loveline and drew pinsky (a doctor and addiction medicine specialist) has described this phenomenon on air. I don't recall the date at the moment so I can't quote but a paraphrase would go as follow, "The first couple of times people smoke they generally get a sort of a priming effect that isn't really understood and then around the third time they have a powerful effect which if it's euphoric usually leads to addiction. there was a paper recently published on the power of the pleasent experience in addiction."  I realize this doesn't count as a source but hopefully it can point some people in the right direction. I too had the same effect, the first two times I smoked it had no effect and the third time it had a profound effect. I smoke cigarettes and the marijuana I smoked was a joint, so familiarity with the implement was not an issue. Although to specifically answer the primary question, I don't think multiple attempts are a necessity, but that it is common for there to be no effects the first few times. Vicarious 14:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple attempts neccessary? 

message: I read in a book about drugs that using marijuana heavily for a few years can lead to complete immunity, and the effect becomes entirely psychological. Is there any truth to this? If not, how extreme can the resistance become? 04:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developing Resistance? 

message: I have personal experience where I will smoke a certain amount and then say 2 hours later, I will smoke the same amount again with the same method (i.e. pipe).  I can never achieve the same level of 'high' that I endured from the first smoke session.  The same desired effects are witnessed, but not at the same intencity level, so to speak.  I am not sure if it is because I am comming down from the first high or what have you.  My question; Does anyone know if there is a theory behind this phenomenon? BigMar992 17:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short-Term Resistance?