Shocking news: Marihuana is bad for you, kids!

@Jacanuk: K.

Yes those people are called drug addicts because they have built up a higher tolerance level do to their high usage of THC.

I had something really pretentious to say, but I couldn't be arsed copy-pasting Wikipedia.

Addicted to marijuana.

@loco145: NEWSFLASH!! pal too much of anything is bad for you.

lol, yes let's all listen to what they have to say after they published that shit study that links vaccines and autism then attempted to cover up what garbage science they publish.

I had assumed that when I finished Horton would say that an investigation was needed to untangle these complex matters. There were at least three strands: possible research fraud, unethical treatment of vulnerable children, and Wakefield’s conflict of interest through the lawyer. But within 48 hours, and working with the paper’s three senior authors, the journal was to publish a 5000 word avalanche of denials, in statements, unretracted to this day.

http://briandeer.com/solved/bmj-wakefield-3-1.htm

but anyway regardless of what a rag the lancet is children should not smoke pot.

@foxhound_fox said:

@Jacanuk said:

Yes those people are called drug addicts because they have built up a higher tolerance level do to their high usage of THC.

Addicted to marijuana.

It's funny because you can't overdose on marijuana either.

Thank you people for the overwhelmingly insightful observation that correlation does not equal causation.

P.S. You can become addicted to marijuana.

It can though lead to psychological dependence. It's not the same as chemical addiction, but it's addiction nevertheless. Actually, it's the same kind of addiction of someone that can't feel alright without porn for example. Or can't have fun in a party without drinking.

Yup definitely bad for you esp. if you are inhaling burnt vaporous matter through your lungs, which primarily exist for breathing fresh air. The root of why we are still wasting so much time talking about marijuana and its place in society is that two issues get blended together almost continually. Those two issues being 1. Is cannabis recreational use bad for the average human's health; 2. Do humans have the right to consume cannabis in a recreational manner as you would other controlled substances like alcohol and tobacco.

True, as cannabis dependence is now listed in the DSM 5. But there is more to it than simple psychological dependence. People exhibiting cannabis dependence can have withdrawal symptoms: headaches, chills, irritability, sleeplessness, anxiety, gastrointestinal issues, etc. Accordingly, around 9 percent of individuals who use can develop cannabis dependence, and that number can rise for those who use it daily.

Hmm I think more people should read the article and not let the tc mislead us about what ten article actually says. A major factor talked about is the illegal status playing a role.

More than half of my graduating class smoked weed and they graduated.

It's not the THC, it's the endorphins.

Fox, do you have a point there I'm missing? Same goes for sex.

While I agree with many here saying that correlation doesn't equal causation, we shouldn't just dismiss this study out of hand. All I ever here from cannabis users these days is how pot is the greatest thing ever and is the cure for everything and has no addictive properties whatsoever. I think many of them need to take a step back and at least acknowledge that there are some risks (ex, increased risk of schizophrenia when started from and early age).

It also increase heart attack risk as well, particularly in middle-aged users. I quit smoking a couple of years ago because I started getting anxiety attacks. It would make my heart race and I would fall into a panic spiral from there, exacerbating the effect.

DON'T BRING YOUR LOGIC INTO THIS FEAR-MONGERING THREAD!!!

This.

-Byshop

Are you really trying to deny facts?

on the internet where everything can be found in under 30sec...... wow just wow.

"Cannabis is one of the most widely used drugs in the world^[1]with a dependence rate between 9% and 10% in adult users.^[2] In the US, as of 2013, cannabis is the most commonly identified illicit substance used by people admitted to treatment facilities.^[3] Demand for treatment for cannabis use disorder increased internationally between 1995 and 2002.^[4]

Although not medically serious, cannabis withdrawal symptoms can occur in one half of patients in treatment for cannabis use disorders. These symptoms include dysphoric mood (anxiety, irritability, depressed mood, restlessness), disturbed sleep, gastrointestinal symptoms, and decreased appetite. Most symptoms begin during the first week of abstinence and resolve after a few weeks.^[5]

Thanks for posting that picture laughing at yourself because unless you were being sarcastic, which i hope you were because i have heard some dumb things on this board but that one takes the cake.

We are talking about addiction. Your link talks about dependence. I have admitted that marijuana can be an emotional dependency for some. It has been medically proven to not be physically addictive substance.

Pick up a dictionary/thesaurus and learn the difference between addiction and dependence.

@KHAndAnime: I have never used pot in my life and I'more literate than a lot of people -__-

Being dependent on something and having a addiction is the same cloth. And you even trying to claim anything else is just moronic.

THC is a drug - someone NEEDS that drug, it doesn't matter why. Thats being addicted and thats psycho 101 so unless you are still in kindergarten you should know this.

Also next time try looking up the words before trying be clever with a remark about "looking it up" it would kinda save you the pain of standing back with a triangular hat.

lulz.

in the usa alone alcohol killed 90,000 people last year and tobacco another 400,000 and here we are worried about pot.

that's how gob smackingly massively stupid people are.

They are related but not the same. You originally used the terms synonymously. It's not my problem you can't form a consistent argument.

Nobody "needs" THC. They "need" the nice feeling they get from smoking/eating it. That's the difference between dependence and addiction. THC is not physically addictive. It is the endorphin response that is.

You should stop trying to discredit my argument by attacking me and go after my argument. If all you can do is say "NUH UH, YOU'RE WRONG!" then you really don't have much of a leg to stand on.

It's not just that. Endorphins being produced by our body through stimulation is only the description of the process. Doesn't change the fact that the stimuli comes from the substance itself. Even if one would admit that the substance itself doesn't addict, the psychological dependence on the endorphins that are collateraly produced is still true. Just like in mast./sex addiction. Bringing the endorphins is still admitting the possibility of addiction.

They are not just related, Addiction is actually a psychological term used to describe when people depend on "something" that being THC, Porn, Sex, Gaming, Gambling, "whatever" so again why would you claim that addiction is not possible when it comes to THC? when experts and people who deal with this everyday clearly have a different opinion.

So again yes people can need THC they are called addicts, exactly like people need porn, need sex, need gambling, in fact most addicts like that can experience quite real physical effects of the addiction, headaches, nausea, irritation, anger, etc.

And i dont need to discredit you, you are doing that all by youself by claiming something that can be disproven under 30sec by looking up 3 things on google.

As someone who smokes often:

-yes it can be dangerous and psychologically addictive, weak willed people are going to be addicted to multiple things at once

-yet it's bad for kids, the brain is still forming it's physical contours of the cortex and cannabis effects that in a bad way

-yes it can be bad psychologically and unlock schizophrenia, people in their 20's undergoing significant stress with a family history of schizophrenia should stay far away from cannabis

-no it's not the cure for everything

-yet it is in fact very awsome, it can make you smarter and improve your motor skills and focus permanently. It can make you a better athlete, musician or student.

-generally it's not the cannabis that makes you dumb, it's the lifestyle that lazy people have when they are addicted to cannabis. If you sit around watching tv, playing videogames and eating junk food you're going to be stupid cannabis or not.

-It's a waste of time making it illegal; educate children, actually educate them from a biopsychological perspective so they make their decisions based on reality and not baseless fearmongering.

-If someone can't admit there are dangers inherent with cannabis they are ignorant but so are people that think it's the devil and that it will ruin your life. There are millions of people that smoke regularly and lead perfectly healthy, moral and fully satisfied lives but based on my knowledge I'll be the first one telling children to stay away from it and actually have scientific knowledge to back it up with so they'll actually listen. Children will listen to reason, it's fearmongering and authoritative orders that make them tune you out quickly.

-Also this study about child development and cannabis has been known for years, I knew about it when I was in university 5 years ago.

It really shows you know very little about it and are talking from a place of ignorance. There are 2 major kinds of strains, Indica and Sativa. Indica makes you tired and relaxed. Sativa is proven to give you energy and make you motivated to do things, sitting around and being lazy from a Sativa is nearly impossible. But you know, you wouldn't know that speaking from a please of profound ignorance.

You might want to read up on cannabis other then what you find on the package you said you smoked a lot, because besides its true that within the cannabis family there are indica and Sativa and its said that Sativa has different effect, but its mostly what users themselves say which is far from the truth.

Since Cannabis Sativa and Cannabis Indica main ingredient is THC or Tetrahydrocannabinol which is known for its high potency and its relaxing effect on users, it would be highly illogical for a drug that contains that to have a "energetic effect" and i guess it might be because you are using it and you try to justify it to yourself, but the case is probably more that since one has a higher presence of THC that the other one with less can seem to be more "energising" but THC is THC.

And i have yet to see more serious medical reports that says otherwise but hey link away but dont think you can link to "cannabis HQ" or Smokinghigh websites and think that constitutes serious sources.

I have a friend who used to smoke frequently in high school and still does, he's a lawyer now he's doin pretty good

Sadly he's trying to downplay the role of psychological addiction. He argues that its not the THC, it is the endorphins. He's trying to run around the facts, circling as best he can to avoid calling THC addictive in nature. How does THC work? It primarily acts as an agonist, releasing dopamine into the system. How does the extremely addictive drug cocaine work? It blocks the dopamine transporter protein, causing dopamine to build up in the cleft. Cocaine is seen as an extremely addictive drug, yet it is primarily viewed as a psychologically addictive drug. You get addicted to the euphoria that is created in your brain. How did you create that euphoria? By using a certain drug. Therefore, you become addicted to the drug. Psychological addiction creates physical changes within the neuronal structure of your brain.

This quote from a Time article sums it up nicely:

Former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders characterized marijuana succinctly on CNN recently, while declaring her support for legalization: “Marijuana is not addictive, not physically addictive anyway.”

In this view, the paradigm for addiction is heroin: the shaking, puking heroin junkie who can’t quit because the withdrawal sickness is impossible to bear. Because marijuana cessation is not linked with such severe symptoms, the drug isn’t seen as physically addictive. And considering that most people view physical addiction as uncontrollable, but psychological addiction as manageable with proper willpower, marijuana tends not to be regarded as addictive in general. (More on Time.com: Addiction Files: Recovering From Drug Addiction, Without Abstinence).

But virtually all addiction experts disagree with that stance. “The distinction is completely arbitrary. Psychological addiction occurs in your brain and it’s a physical change,” says Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Different brain processes may be involved in the psychological drive to take drugs and in the physical withdrawal symptoms when the drug is stopped — but both are brain changes.

As it turns out, the psychological drive is much more powerful than the physical experience of withdrawal. Cocaine, which also produces little withdrawal sickness but does create extreme craving, was once seen as nonaddictive — that was before America was introduced to crack in the 1980s. More than a century ago, Mark Twain summed up the essence of the problem,

So, let's get this straight. You, someone who has no experience in something, is making a statement of absolute certainty? It's common knowledge that sativas are uplifting and give you energy, doctor's will not prescribe to people that need pain relieve/relaxation because that's not how they work. There is more than one type of cannabinoid in each strain, you stating that you know the truth with zero experience in the area is simply ignorant. This is the kind of nonsense we deal with all the time, you are speaking from a place of zero knowledge. Go smoke a sativa and try to sleep, then go smoke an indica and try to sleep. Actual experience will show you that you are speaking about something with no knowledge. But whatever, it's clear you are uninformed and have zero intention of learning anything, you're in the ignorant and self-righterous crowd.

You know CBD is one of the most promising cannabinoids and actually has cancer killing (via apoptosis) and epilepsy treatment potential. Or are you just going to keep regurgitating the same stupid argument, oh noes.... the THC, the horror

Well, if you want to play it that way. Then are you really trying to pass your "knowledge" as a heavy user off as facts and as something you should actually take serious for one second? As i again said the effects of THC is well documented and Cannabis both "strains" main component is THC. Also i see you have been looking at wiki, you might want to get your info from a more reliable source. And as to the "energising effect" that is actually far from reality and you seem to mistake users "description" as facts. particular when the reason is not that gives you more energy but that it affects the "reward" center and that its lower amount of THC can be key factor in how "relaxing" it feels.

You are right that cannabis have been found to be medical usable which is way major pharmaceutical industries like Novo etc. have begun to do research and begin to clinical test cannabis medicine, so you don't need to smoke it or legalize it to get that benefit.

But as i said stop trying to pass your knowledge off as anything trustworthy, and link to reliable sources, if you want to continue this debate.

THC is not always the most active component, so you're making things up and passing it off as fact

Denying the effect of Sativas is hillarious, absolutely hilarious. Self-righteousness speaking from a place of profound ignorance.

It's not a debate, you have no idea what you're talking about and passing it off as fact making factual errors in nearly every sentence. Seriously, you are just plain ignorant and willingly so. There are millions of people with experience that will corroborate the evidence that Sativa has uplifting energetic effects, you have no experience, no knowledge yet make ignorant comments. Go ahead, keep proving how poorly your brain works.

http://www.cifas.us/sites/g/files/g536796/f/Marijuana%20and%20medicine%200.pdf

oh look scientific evidence stating as much, you'll say oh that's one source. I'd look up another, you'd discredit it... because you're being purposefully ignorant with a bias. This is what stupid people do. Every time you respond you are documenting your willful ignorance and personal bias.

No, there is no way Marijuana or the plant people smoke would not contain the natural active component which is THC, i am kinda beginning to doubt your "use-history" here because Also the natural occurring cannabis plant would never of course not hold the chemical component its made up off.

Its true that you can find industrial made cannabis plants but those are called hemp and are used to manufacture clothes etc. and will never get you or anyone smoking it a high since its been removed from that.

Well, here is one thing we can agree on its not a debate because all you come with a made up facts and conjecture which have no basis in reality and i guess must be propaganda from the "weed lobby" If you really want to convince people you might want to try with facts that can be proven by more than a admitted heavy users words on a board.

As to your link? well first of all did you even read it? because if you think that backed any of your ramblings you clearly have not read it. But lets take a snip of it

"Much has been learned since a 1982 IOM Marijuana and
Health report. Although it was clear then that most of the
effects of marijuana were due to its actions on the brain,
there was little information about how THC acted on brain
cells (neurons), which cells were affected by THC, or even
what general areas of the brain were most affected by THC."

But oh wait you just said that THC wasn't the most active component............ so again thanks for proving my point and i never actually said that THC and cannabis couldn't have medical value, in fact i even mentioned that key companies within the medicinal industry has begun clinical trials and have made pills, sprays and other that holds the beneficial value but doesn't give you a high.

Also if you read on it actually clearly states that the medical benefit comes mainly from the THC ;)

Here's the thing, THC is not always the most active component. Sometimes CBD is. That's a fact, it's undeniable you are ignorant plain and simple.

I never said "THC wasn't the most active component". You have weak reading skills and even worse comprehension. I can't talk to you, you are making things up that I never said and making statements that are contrary to reality. You need to learn to think more clearly, which is funny considering the debate, but you really are not reading very well. Try using your brain more and emotion less, you've got a point to drive home and to do so you're lying about things I said and misinterpreting to force your fallacious point home, all the way lying about things that you know nothing about. What a fool. Your quick reactions are driven by bias and what you think you know is simply made up.

And again you prove that you are nothing but a troll..

Firstly CBD which is Cannabidiol is indeed a component but again THC is the main component so even though it might not be present in large quantities, its still the key to your high.

And its funny to hear that you have run out of arguments and you now start to lash out like a 5 year old who are told the facts and it proves that "hey kids Marijuana is bad". You have yet to link to one actual source that backs anything you have said up and the link you showed was just a short summary of a report of how THC can benefit as a medicine. But you continue to smoke what ever you want, in the end luckily it only hurts you.

True, but at the same time there IS scientific evidence that strongly suggests marijuana may be harmful to the brain.

@Riverwolf007: "in the usa alone alcohol killed 90,000 people last year and tobacco another 400,000 and here we are worried about pot."

Lol. I like your style buddy.

Marijuana shouldn't be given to children in the first place. The drinking age is 21 no?