My Own Independent Research On Marijuana Addiciton

Discussion in 'Health & Fitness' started by Anarcho Union, May 12, 2011.

  1. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Quick Note; this research was done simple but correctly. This research is in no means meant to be used in any offical report, writting ect about marijuana or marijuana addiction. The people involved in the research are not trained or have much experience. All research is independent and unpublished.

    Now with that out of the way the expierment was indeed simple. I wanted to test out the theory that marijuana was not addictive. 4 friends helped me with this research. 2: 18 year old males. 1: 19 year old male 1: 18 year old female. 3 subjects smoked marijuana every other day for 3 months. 1 subject smoked every day for a month. Then all 4 subjects where tested on there physical and psychological dependece/addiction for 2 weeks after stopping cold. Results showed that all 3 males showed slight irritablity and sleep pattern disturbance but no major withdrawl symptoms while the female reported no noticable withdrawl symptoms. As far as this simple research is concerned, I see no evidence that marijuana is physicaly addicitve.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    just thought id share.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    3 months and that's what you call research? I'd think that there have been much longer studies done on this matter over and over again and again just to say the same thing to everyone. Just like smoking a cigarette won't get you into an addiction after only 3 months of inhaling them once a day either. The biggest problem is that it is a gateway drug, you'll always find much harder drugs wherever there is marijuana being sold. That's something you neglected to research because you had a controlled environment unlike the streets. There are many people that have addictive personalities as well and perhaps you just didn't have any among your volunteers this time but if you would have perhaps one of them might have become habit forming from smoking the pot. You just can't tell who's the one that is going to have the problems.

    Decriminalize marijuana, making it a misdemenor for less than an ounce and a fine and no criminal record.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    Two two word phrases: Sample size and control set.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Marijuana does not seem to be heavily chemically addictive.

    Shoplifting, porn, gambling, and cutting aren't chemically addictive either-but there sure are a lot of people hooked on those...
     
  8. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,104
    It's many due to the difference between direct chemical addiction and secondary addictions. It's known that Marijuana causes the bodies reward centre to be stimulated, this is why people can feel pleasant (or just down right stoned), what isn't taken into consideration is that long term over-stimulation caused damage to the reward centres.

    ( It's related to the equilibrium within the bodies own chemistry where the body attempts to flush the abundance of chemicals, which creates a potential "addictive" quality as a low usually means either allowing the body to rebalance or un-naturally balancing it back to a high through the reuse of drugs. )

    Cannabis is "subtly" addictive compared to "physically" addictive which is when people suffer physical responses because of the bodies chemical imbalances. (Cigarette's "Craving" on smokers is a low level physical addiction compared to some Prescription and Major street drugs which can cause things like coldsweats, violent shaking, irrational thinking etc.)

    Long-term usage will cause physical damage, this is where the statements of Schizophrenia spring up and where the smokers that feel currently no side effects dispute that cannabis can ever be responsible. (The reward centre is located in the cerebral cortex, which deals with perception and consciousness among other things like the source of paranoia, both are usually effected through cannabis's usage and can be "altered" if long term mis-usage causes actual damage to the Cortex generating Schizophrenia traits.)
     
  9. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,247
    Uh...this is all pretty silly, kids.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If we are going to start/continue making pseudo - scientific statements than we need to back those statements up with actual published, peer - reviewed research studies.

    Our 15 year old friend has definitely got the interest to do this, but lacks the education as of yet. While I applaud his desire - as I do you others - please substantiate these broad statements with the proper citations.

    Otherwise it is just more hot air. :shrug:
     
  10. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,104
    Your quite welcome to slam it yourself. Why should it always be on the person that presents the theory to back it up, why for once don't the people that disagree with the theory provide proper citations of why that theory is inaccurate (It's what's referred to as "Debunking".)

    I state this because what I've written isn't Pseudo-science, it's actually what I've learnt from years of investigation through documented information that even you could find online. It would be difficult to pinpoint which sources, mainly because it was for my own personal musings.

    What you might misread is one of my statements:
    "Long-term usage will cause physical damage".

    lets apply it metaphysically, in the long-term how long could you run a car with the addition of nitrous? The car's engine has a specific design (which incidentally a persons cells do not) and the addition of nitrous goes beyond those design perimeters, in essence if there was a warranty on the car it would be invalidated because it would be known that it was operating beyond it's designed operating levels.

    You don't need a citation to identify that over the long-term there is going to be "wear and tear", the usage of drugs just increases the "wear and tear" factor.

    In essence it should be common sense, which apparently people do seem to lack nowadays.
     
  11. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    I actually liked the study. It was pretty good compared that it was done by a few teenagers. Loved Cosmic, who first slammed it, then backed the idea of decriminalizing the usage.

    By the way I would say most cigarette users become addicted after 3 months of smoking, so that is a long enough time. The same with harder drugs. M. being a getaway drug is bullshit, just like beer is not a getaway drink to hard liquor...
     
  12. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    I would like to volunteer for the Marijuana addiction test, followed by the 5 pints of beer a day test, followed by.....................

    I think I'll pass on the Meth and Crack tests.
     
  13. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Sorry but I disagree with you.

    The gateway drug theory (also called gateway theory, gateway hypothesis and gateway effect) is the hypothesis that the use of less deleterious drugs may lead to a future risk of using more dangerous hard drugs and/or crime. It is often attributed to the use of several drugs, including tobacco, alcohol, black coffee and cannabis. While some research shows that many hard drug users used cannabis or alcohol before moving on to the harder substances.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory
     
  14. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,104
    The true "Gateway" to drugs is purely down to social discourse. For instance as a child it was likely seen that you couldn't legally drink or smoke cigarettes, this meant as you grow up and go through the rebellious phase where a person tries to work out what they want from the world it leads to experimentation with their peers in the substances that they still aren't legally capable of buying themselves.

    This "underground" social group can then have other experiments shared between them as others in the group grow more adventurous. This is the point where the drugs or activities can become harder and where some will branch off and away because they realise that "Drugs isn't what life is about" while others continue to experiment.

    (Incidentally this is the point where some will become kleptomaniacs to support their cigarette habit, perhaps stealing from a parent or sibling before branching out etc. So cigarette's might not just be the basis of being "a gateway drug" it's also "a gateway for common theft".)

    It's statistical to suggest that where there is one low grade drug there is likely a few people that know of someone with something of a higher grade, unless of course their particular dealer actually attempts to handle more than one type. So it can give access to drugs to people that otherwise wouldn't be able to try them purely because of the lack of availability.
     
  15. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,104
    If you mix them all for one day, you won't bother with the rest of the week while you recover.
     
  16. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    Certainly a step in the right direction, since heavy criminal penalties seem to have little to impact on MJ usage.
    (No citation immediately available, but if we use the OP's definition of "proper research" then I have decades of experience "researching" the matter.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )



    Depends on how you define physically addictive. I realize that you used the term "chemically" addictive (probably to avoid this very sort of response), but even there definitional issues can arise. If you are talking about "internally generated" chemical addiction, potentially all of your examples could be classified as such. I believe that this is similar to Stryder's reference(s) below...



    Anything that influences neurotransmitter production or re-uptake can be classified as being "chemically addictive". If you get a "rush" from gambling, cutting, etc., taking away the external influence that provides said "rush" is going cause withdrawal symptoms. Therefore, it would seem to me that these stimuli could be considered "chemically" addictive, at least in the broadest sense of the word.

    See above...


    Which brings me to my real issue.

    Although nicotine delivery systems are usually similar / identical to THC delivery (i.e. "smoking it"), I wonder why alcohol was not brought in for comparing and contrasting.

    Alcohol is not considered an illegal "street drug", (at least in most, if not all, western countries) yet it can be violently physically addictive and causes true chemical dependency. My questions revolve around people's opinions on why we as a society allow this legal absurdity to continue.

    Quite simply, do you agree with the points made above? If so, do you believe there is an inherent contradiction between keeping pot illegal while alcohol remains legal? Why or why not?
    (I am familiar with a lot of the purely historical and propaganda issues involved in creating the current state of affairs, e.g. international treaties and "Reefer Madness" type factual misrepresentations. I'm more interested in your own opinions.)

    Having been personally subjected to the actual "Reefer Madness" movie as part of a high school assembly I was forced to attend (where again, it was presented as "fact"), I can see how people of a certain age could view marijuana as the "Devil's weed". But we know better now. At least I hope we do...

    Do you feel that MJ is more or less harmful than alcohol when abused? Is alcohol a "gateway" drug? After all, alcohol is usually present where harder drugs are available, much like pot is. If you're underage these days, the easiest place to obtain alcohol may very well be the local drug dealers establishment, thereby exposing young people to the same hard drugs that obtaining a few grams of pot would. Why wouldn't it be considered a gateway drug?

    A few additional points:
    Which would you rather be driving the same streets with - a bunch of stoners going 15MPH or a bunch of half-blind drunks doing 120 with their impulse control and reaction ability nearly totally destroyed?

    Would you prefer that your child smoke pot occasionally or get "stoned" out of their mind on alcohol once in awhile?
    (I realize the first impulse is to say "neither", but try to address the question as it's written please.)

    What, if anything should be done about the current situation, vis a vis marijuana vs. alcohol legislation? America tried prohibition of course - remember it didn't work out - resoundingly so...


    Personally, I think most, if not all "drugs" should be decriminalized and / or legal. Take the enormous amount of resources currently devoted to monitoring, apprehending, trying and imprisoning druggies and devote it to education - true education, not the Reefer Madness type of propaganda. Throw some of that money into treatment centers as well.

    This would put people in a position to make informed choices and allow help to be made available to those that make poor ones.

    Prohibition doesn't work. You would think we would acknowledge that fact by now, and start making corrections.
    :shrug:


    Edit: I notice some of these points had already been raised by the time I completed my reply. Sorry for any redundancy...
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2011
  17. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,247
    Redundancy is the least of this threads problems, NBD.

    OK, when I say that you need to cite your sources while discussing topics like this, this is what I mean:

    Top 10 Cannabis Studies the Government Wished it Had Never Funded


    10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY:
    A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.


    9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON’T RUIN YOUR LIFE:
    Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept.
    1997


    8) THE “GATEWAY EFFECT” MAY BE A MIRAGE:
    Marijuana is often called a “gateway drug” by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical “associations” indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana – implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained “without requiring a gateway effect.” More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what’s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.


    7) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART I):
    The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, “the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement.” And what data exist show “little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use.” In other words, there is no proof that prohibition – the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century – reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.


    6) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART II):
    DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE “GATEWAY EFFECT”?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its “tolerant” marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.


    5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I):
    Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.


    4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II):
    In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, “in a dose-dependent manner” (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, “Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,” AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.


    3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III):
    Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.


    2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV):
    Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.


    1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE:
    In response to passage of California’s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana’s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.” While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, “we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting.” The government’s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government “loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened.” Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006

    *********************************************************

    Now this ^ little bit supports a few important points that are either part of this discussion or should be part of this discussion. I have lots more similar and much more detailed. Like I keep saying - this is one of my research topics, has been for many years. Its just fine to state your opinion...as long as you are being clear that is what you are doing.



    If you start throwing around statements like
    which I consider to be an "extraordinary claim", then you need to provide some of that scientific "extraordinary proof" that goes with one of those to support it.

    It is the business and responsibility of the person making said extraordinary claim to substantiate it. It is NOT the responsibility of the reader who disagrees with such a claim to disprove it. Science is not done that way, for reasons both practical and obvious.

    Oh yeah - and for the record, I personally favour the legalization of all drugs, also gambling, prostitution and assisted suicide. This for compassion, financial reason, government cost - effectiveness and because I do not believe it is the governments place or right to dictate individual decisions of this nature.
     
  18. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    From what I understand and it may be hearsay . Marijuana was made illegal to satisfy the wishes of Me cousin Lloyd Tevis's Partner in crime Randolf Hearst . He owned Timber interests and wanted to replace hemp production with timber . So lobbying efforts made his interest sour by making Marijuana illegal.

    It is a joke if you ask Me .
     
  19. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    I plan to do my own independent research, just to be on the safe side.
     
  20. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    And other data shows, that:

    1. Some people never switched from weed to harder drugs.
    2. Other people jumped to hard drugs without starting on weeds.

    So how do these fit your theory?

    Also, again you make no sense. If you believe in the getaway theory, why would you want it decriminalized???
     
  21. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    I remember a study published in the US back in the 1980s that showed how toxic cannabis smoke was. They strapped masks on some rhesus monkeys and pumped smoke into them. The monkeys all died of asphyxiation.

    This is one of the best arguments in favor of legalizing it and regulating the supply. The other half to it is the association of weed with harder drugs in public education, leading kids to question everything else they learned in DARE class the instant they smoke their first joint.

    The gateway drug argument is a self-fulfilling prophecy entirely of our own making. And that's only in the rare cases where it actually applies - while most heroin addicts will say their first illicit drug was weed, most pot smokers don't go on to shoot heroin.

    Just to be clear because this gets accepted as fact by a lot of people: cannabis does not cause schizophrenia. Numerous population studies have shown that even in periods during or following a huge explosion in marijuana use, schizophrenia rates have remained unchanged. If marijuana caused schizophrenia, the more people (including teenagers) using pot, the higher the per capita rate of schizophrenia. It's almost certain that the much ballyhooed statistical correlation is the other way round; people with mental illness, including latent schizophrenia, are more likely to seek escape or to self-medicate. In other words, being a pot smoker doesn't make you a schizophrenic; being schizophrenic makes you a pot smoker.

    And while it's possible that it may merely hasten the inevitable (causing a user to have a psychotic break at the age of 24 instead of 25 if he had never touched the stuff), A: that's a pretty minor since it's not causing anything that wasn't going to happen anyway, and B: that's far from proven since it's quite possible that those with more serious and more impending latent psychosis may be more prone to self-medicate or seek escape from reality.

    Also, marijuana doesn't cause COPD (although those who smoke marijuana and tobacco are at a higher risk than those who smoke only tobacco, those who smoke only marijuana are at no increased risk in comparison with total non-smokers) or any of the common cancers that have been studied in relation to pot. So far, the only negative health effects of marijuana we have any evidence of is the munchies and a slightly increased risk of developing a cold or flu (and that's only if one smokes the drug).


    Drug prohibition in the US is rooted in racial and social/moral conflict as well as financial interests. Alcohol was banned as a result of the moralizing women of the early progressive movement. This remains alive today in the form of MADD, whose founder actually left because it had become a "neo-prohibitionist" organization totally opposed to any use of alcohol. Marijuana was banned by ginning up fervor over the corruption of young (white) people by (black) jazz musicians in the 20s and 30s. Today this continues to manifest itself in the racial disparity in sentencing and in our prison population. Psychedelics and ethenogens (LSD, mescaline, mushrooms, MDMA, etc) were banned in the 60s and 70s as a way to crack down on the burgeoning counterculture movement (dirty hippies). Now a lot of it is driven by the prison lobby (private prison corporations and prison guard unions). This will be an increasingly important factor as time goes on, as prisons are being deliberately located in remote towns that become dependent on the prison for jobs, multiplying their lobbying power. It also gives police departments a lot of funding to militarize. Wannabe SWAT teams are everywhere now and their use is commonplace. Today in the US we have the largest per-capita prison population in the world - higher than than Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia (gulags included), or modern North Korea.

    Essentially, there is no rationality to our system. Marijuana is Schedule I (dangerous, with no legitimate medical uses) while we're researching cannabinoids for their medical potential and using medical marijuana to treat various problems. It's not possible to die/get permanently hurt from marijuana unless you do something heroically stupid. Meanwhile, alcohol is legal despite being much more damaging and causing many more problems in society than marijuana - physical dependency, overdose, increased aggression, and causing more schizophrenic breaks in susceptible individuals. Similarly, MDMA is also Schedule I despite its experimental uses in therapy. Meanwhile, methamphetamine is available by prescription and used to treat ADHD (Desoxyn - Schedule II).

    edit: Since it seems we're all for full disclosure here, I've come around to favor the decriminalization/legalization of certain drugs over time, mainly as a result of seeing the costs of prohibition stack up while usage rates continue to increase. The thing that really made me realize how utterly fucked our current policies are was when I had to move my dad across the country just so he could get a medical marijuana card. Guy was given six months to live thanks to cancer related to agent orange exposure in Vietnam and his doctor couldn't prescribe him the one thing that made his last days bearable enough to have a meaningful conversation with his kids. Why? Because the DEA gets to decide what drugs have medical use. Retired cops, not doctors. Fuck that.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2011
  22. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Cannabis
    A drug that makes you feel good and reduces pain.
    Helps people wind down.
    Also increases appetite.
    Not particularly addictive.

    I bet the drug companies are annoyed that nature invented it first.
     
  23. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Damn straight. Good whiskey needs no introduction.
     

Share This Page