Marijuana - Is it truly evil?

[Shadow Wolf]

By which definitions are caffeine and sugar drugs?

I'm not too certain about sugar, but caffeine effects the nervous system, cardiovascular system, is moderately addictive, and can have adverse health effects. Caffeine is actually the most widely and frequently consumed drug in our society.

Not directly, anyway... they only make people wish to die.

Many do wish they could die from the withdrawals, but indeed on rare occasions heroin withdrawals are fatal.

Although heroin withdrawal is considered less dangerous than alcohol or barbiturate withdrawal, sudden withdrawal by heavily dependent users who are in poor health is occasionally fatal. In addition, heroin craving can persist years after drug cessation, particularly upon exposure to triggers such as stress or people, places, and things associated with drug use.

Heroin - InfoFacts - NIDA

 

[earlwooters]

If God created everything, then he created herbs too. Herbs keep you healthy and prolong your life. Ask Willie Nelson.

 

[Mathematician]

I don't understand your comparison. Surely there isn't much of a danger of consuming too much music, or becoming dependent on it... or is there? I never heard of that, anyway.

All I said was that the high one gets from drugs is the same high we get when we're stimulated by good music, sex, or other forms of entertainment. I attend large field raves and upon arrival feel my heart pound, my mood improve, etc. - I'm essentially feeling a cocaine or amphetamine rush, and it can be shown in brain scans that the same chemicals said drugs affect upon consuming are being tweaked. I even addressed the health concern separately in a caveat, so I'm not sure why you're even asking me this question.

By which definitions are caffeine and sugar drugs?

By all medical and scientific standards? Caffeine and sugar are both psychoactive drugs; they both alter mood and create physical dependency. Caffeine has already been touched on, but sugar is an analgesic and acts on your opioid receptors much like opiates.

If survival is all you care about, maybe they do compare favorably to sugar and caffeine. Once one considers mental health, things change quite a lot.

Almost all recent literature shows that drugs considered "soft" have no long-term consequences on most users' mental health. In fact, ecstasy is being studied as a reliable tool to treat depression and PTSD in the military. All ego diminishing drugs are excellent at fighting social anxiety. I know of many people who only discovered an appreciation for dance after they took ecstasy at a rave. Through a few experiences these people come away with new confidence. Eventually they can go clubbing and not even drink. Introverts dancing, and when sober... Ecstasy does it better than any group therapy.

Psychedelics don't create mental disorders. At worse they bring out a pre-existing condition, just as a stressful situation at work might, or a bad divorce. At best they can get people to think hard about deep philosophical and spiritual subjects.

Even hard drugs like methamphetamine used once or twice have insignificant long-term effects on the brain.

So knowing that most illicit drugs are productive for one's psyche, are safer than caffeine and alcohol, have little physical dependency, why the witch-hunt?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If God created everything, then he created herbs too. Herbs keep you healthy and prolong your life. Ask Willie Nelson.

I know some Christians that believe marijuana is a plant that was created by God, and we are supposed to enjoy it. One of these ladys even smokes a bowl before church because she believes she is enjoying a gift from God before she goes to worship.

 

[Mathematician]

Wine and weed. Jesus approves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wine and weed are a very lovely combination, of course in moderation.

 

[LuisDantas]

If God created everything, then he created herbs too. Herbs keep you healthy and prolong your life. Ask Willie Nelson.

How does that logic apply to, say, snake venom? God supposedly created it and the willing vessel to grant it to people effortlessly to boot. Yet somehow it is not quite recognized as the gift from God it must be.

Even for a true Creationist, it must be recognized that the world is not a completely safe place, and among God's gifts the discernment to avoid its dangers in certainly not the lesser.

 

[LuisDantas]

All I said was that the high one gets from drugs is the same high we get when we're stimulated by good music, sex, or other forms of entertainment. I attend large field raves and upon arrival feel my heart pound, my mood improve, etc. - I'm essentially feeling a cocaine or amphetamine rush, and it can be shown in brain scans that the same chemicals said drugs affect upon consuming are being tweaked. I even addressed the health concern separately in a caveat, so I'm not sure why you're even asking me this question.

Because I fail to see your point. Music, by its very nature, has an inherent upper dosage of sorts, and therefore it is nearly impossible to develop significant dependence to it. It is hardly comparable to the dangers of recreational chemicals.

By all medical and scientific standards?

No. So tell me which ones are you willing to employ.

Caffeine and sugar are both psychoactive drugs; they both alter mood and create physical dependency. Caffeine has already been touched on, but sugar is an analgesic and acts on your opioid receptors much like opiates.

That might well be true by some criteria, but it is really a tergiversation of the true matter. Neither caffeine nor sugar are the danger for mental balance that marijuana and alcohol are.

Almost all recent literature shows that drugs considered "soft" have no long-term consequences on most users' mental health.

I sincerely wonder why you expect that to mean anything. "Most users" is not nearly enough. Most victims of bullying don't develop heavy trauma, but that is no reason to ignore the dangers either.

In fact, ecstasy is being studied as a reliable tool to treat depression and PTSD in the military.

I thought we had agreed on the dangers of psychoative chemicals earlier on? Aren't you backtracking?

I don't particularly doubt your claim, but really... you shouldn't try to sneak medical uses (which I must assume have proper supervision) as arguments to defend recreational use. It hurts your case.

All ego diminishing drugs are excellent at fighting social anxiety.

"Ego diminishing". Wow. What a spin... :areyoucra

I can't help but remember how lobothomy used to be considered good for certain kinds of anxiety as well.

Sorry, but I won't buy that propaganda.

I know of many people who only discovered an appreciation for dance after they took ecstasy at a rave. Through a few experiences these people come away with new confidence. Eventually they can go clubbing and not even drink. Introverts dancing, and when sober... Ecstasy does it better than any group therapy.

Out of curiosity, which kind of resources lead you to that statement?

I find it, quite frankly, dangerously irresponsible. And, certainly, not at all credible. You are attempting to present the shortcomings of our social environment as arguments towards chemical inconsequence. That is only a short step away from full callousness and even worse stances. Worse still, it leads to those stances.

Psychedelics don't create mental disorders. At worse they bring out a pre-existing condition, just as a stressful situation at work might, or a bad divorce. At best they can get people to think hard about deep philosophical and spiritual subjects.

"At best" is a cop-out. And by your logic, gluten does not create celiac disease either. You are playing with words and spin in an attempt to protect your desires.

Even hard drugs like methamphetamine used once or twice have insignificant long-term effects on the brain.

Yes, poisons and even biological disease agents have a minimum effective dosage to create their effects. Heck, even brass knuckles require a certain minimum level of usage before they crush your bones.

So?

So knowing that most illicit drugs are productive for one's psyche, are safer than caffeine and alcohol, have little physical dependency, why the witch-hunt?

What on Earth you mean by "productive for one's psyche"? That is hardly true. Nitpicking chance situations to misrepresent such a dangerous activity is shameful, Gene. As for safety, you are either deluded or flat out lying.

 

[horizon_mj1]

It is understood that it is impossible to OD on marijuana right? I am not positive, but I am pretty sure this is the only drug you can not OD on. People react differently to different things; one person may not be effected by caffeine while another is bouncing off of the walls (the same can be said for any prescription drugs as well). What works for one person and effects them one way does not mean that every person will be effected the same (only a list of "possible" reactions can be deduced from testing). Marijuana is a plant; does no one else find this weird that it is illegal even though it can be found growing naturally? Maybe nature should be given a fine for allowing it to grow eh?

Oh and if talking about marijuana only, then yes this "drug" is much safer and much less addictive than that of caffeine and sugar. Can it be "good" for the psych, once again depending on the person but in most cases yes.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is possible to overdose on water and to become intoxicated by oxigen or even by standard air.

Anyway, Marijuana's danger is not so much in the risks to body as in the risks to mind and brain.

As for law, well, it is really a marginal matter to the subject at hand. Law is a political tool. It doesn't really have the power to make drugs - natural or otherwise (there is really no difference) - either licit or illicit.

 

[horizon_mj1]

It is possible to overdose on water and to become intoxicated by oxigen or even by standard air.

Anyway, Marijuana's danger is not so much in the risks to body as in the risks to mind and brain.

As for law, well, it is really a marginal matter to the subject at hand. Law is a political tool. It doesn't really have the power to make drugs - natural or otherwise (there is really no difference) - either licit or illicit.

There most certainly is a difference between a 100% natural drug and synthetic drugs. Marijuana is a plant, a natural herb found in nature and it does not become a "drug" until ingested (it is just a weed until utilized in some form by a human). Synthetic drug are man made; ingredients used in these drugs are highly toxic by themselves raising the factor of improper combinations that can kill or permanently mess a person up. The risks to the mind and brain by marijuana use is minimal in comparison to any synthetic drug (acetaminophen can destroy your liver, marijuana doesn't).

 

[Panda]

There most certainly is a difference between a 100% natural drug and synthetic drugs. Marijuana is a plant, a natural herb found in nature and it does not become a "drug" until ingested (it is just a weed until utilized in some form by a human). Synthetic drug are man made; ingredients used in these drugs are highly toxic by themselves raising the factor of improper combinations that can kill or permanently mess a person up. The risks to the mind and brain by marijuana use is minimal in comparison to any synthetic drug (acetaminophen can destroy your liver, marijuana doesn't).

Why do you think natural is good and synthetic is bad? You get hundreds of synthetic drugs that have less risk than natural ones. Man made or grown in nature is completely irrelevant.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Why do you think natural is good and synthetic is bad? You get hundreds of synthetic drugs that have less risk than natural ones. Man made or grown in nature is completely irrelevant.

Iagree, but we are discussing marijuana. Why do you think it is irrelvevant? Do you mean to tell me you do not see the feasibility of being able to grow your own medicine? Even if it is sold at pharmacies all you have to do is grow it, you do not need a lab. I agree that not everything in nature means better (I do have a bit more brains than that), but in some cases natural is better (as well as in some cases synthetic is better).

 

[Mathematician]

Indeed; it seems kind of ridiculous to outlaw nature. The same is true for coca leaves which really just produce a buzz similar to caffeine.

Not all synthetic drugs are bad, either. Acid (LSD) is probably one of the safest drugs out there.

 

[Mathematician]

No. So tell me which ones are you willing to employ.

There's really no use in debating with you if you can't even accept that caffeine and sugar are drugs when all professional publications I'm aware of (Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, British Journal, etc., Combined Effects of Caffeine and Nicotine on Cardiovascular... : Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology) label them as such.

Both caffeine and sugar 1.) are addictive and are 2.) are mind-altering substances.

That might well be true by some criteria, but it is really a tergiversation of the true matter. Neither caffeine nor sugar are the danger for mental balance that marijuana and alcohol are.

Not really sure where you're drawing these conclusions from when it's pretty evident caffeine induces an amphetamine-like psychosis in most of the human population at doses that for THC would only get most people feeling greatly relaxed.

"In over a decade of practice as a clinical nutritionist, I have seen firsthand, with thousands of clients, that caffeine is a health hazard. Anxiety, muscle aches, PMS, headaches....However, if that's all caffeine has done to you, you're lucky. What about people misdiagnosed as neurotic or even psychotic, who spend years and small fortunes in psychotherapy--all because no one asked them about their caffeine intake?"

http://caffeineweb.com/

I thought we had agreed on the dangers of psychoative chemicals earlier on? Aren't you backtracking?

I said there's always a present danger, but it's overblown for soft drugs unless we're talking about adulteration of substances, which is a fault of Prohibition. Everything has an inherit risk down to driving your car to work.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Marijuana doesn't really have any risks though. If you eat it or vaporize it, you are taking the inhaled carbons out and thus the only health risks are taken out of the equation. Any adverse effects, such as short term memory loss, are grossly over exaggerated and only happens while a person is high and the individual reverts to normal once the high is over. Marijuana, when moderately consumed, has even been shown to stimulate brain cell regrowth. There is nothing chemically addictive about marijuana, and the statistics that show more people going to rehab for pot aren't considering the fact that many people do so for a reduced sentence, retain their financial aid, and other reasons that are much better than the alternative.
Some people may have an adverse reaction to it, but some people become suicidal on anti-depressants, and some people are deathly allergic to penicillin.

 

[Panda]

Iagree, but we are discussing marijuana. Why do you think it is irrelvevant? Do you mean to tell me you do not see the feasibility of being able to grow your own medicine? Even if it is sold at pharmacies all you have to do is grow it, you do not need a lab. I agree that not everything in nature means better (I do have a bit more brains than that), but in some cases natural is better (as well as in some cases synthetic is better).

I am saying that if it is natural or synthetic is irrelevant to the debate on whether marijuana should be legal.

 

[gnomon]

Societal consequences is what matters and as it stands now the consequences of criminalizing a mild hallucinogen for primarily racist reasons has been devastating to for more members of society than the use of marijuana.

Ergo, the criminalization of marijuana, on some imaginary good/evil scale, is far more evil than the use of the drug.

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

I just don't like smoking. Inhaling smoke is toxic to your lungs, and the chemicals are toxic, which is what causes altered states of being. Do I abstain from all drugs? No. I take aspirin. I have a drink every now and again. But smoking isn't on my list of things I like. Now if you want to smoke, be my guest. Should it be illegal? Absolutely not. That's absurd. Look at what happened with the Prohibition.

 

[horizon_mj1]

I am saying that if it is natural or synthetic is irrelevant to the debate on whether marijuana should be legal.

My point of seeing it as relevant is that marijuana is a plant. Let's say that botanist find a plant that is indigenous to several areas of the world that may make you high if ingested in some way; people don't know that this would happen, but it is made illegal anyway. It's a plant! I personally have a relative who grew marijuana just for the looks (yes I know it was for the looks, it was my grandmother and she was over 70; the plant was never "stripped" of its leaves or blooms). Should she have been arrested for liking the way a plant looked, even though she did not ingest it? To me making any plant illegal is just plain silly and like I asked earlier, why don't they fine nature for growing it, that is how silly to me it is.