Official Drugs Discussion Thread

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, not at all.

But they are absolutelty no different. Yeah, I don't know how well their lymphatic system works, but in terms of attitude and behaviour, nothing's changed.

indeed, but nobody rational has ever claimed that a single use will lead to radical observable behavioural changes (though I know people who single uses of drugs has caused this in).

K wont kill you, likely. K will **** UP your memory. If I remember correctly (and I apologize for not having the citation) the study found irreversible changes in declarative memory. K is also physically addictive.

lol, look, I love K, it is just important to have a rational idea of what it is you are doing to yourself. "My friends are ok" is probably not the best measure, nor is what the government tells you. It is unfortunate your high school probably has no access to real research, but even just search stuff on pubmed (you will probably only get to read the abstracts). There are serious people doing good research into this stuff. Unfortunately, science doesn't try to be political most of the time, so neither side becomes aware of it, because it wont serve their propaganda.

EDIT: oops

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, but nobody rational has ever claimed that a single use will lead to radical observable behavioural changes (though I know people who single uses of drugs has caused this in).

K wont kill you, likely. K will **** UP your memory. If I remember correctly (and I apologize for not having the citation) the study found irreversible changes in declarative memory. K is also physically addictive.

lol, look, I love K, it is just important to have a rational idea of what it is you are doing to yourself. "My friends are ok" is probably not the best measure, nor is what the government tells you. It is unfortunate your high school probably has no access to real research, but even just search stuff on pubmed (you will probably only get to read the abstracts). There are serious people doing good research into this stuff. Unfortunately, science doesn't try to be political most of the time, so neither side becomes aware of it, because it wont serve their propaganda.

Seems to say otherwise.

Originally posted by lord xyz
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/ketamine/addiction.htm

Seems to say otherwise.

They are clearly unbiased and peer reviewed.

Actually on further examination they do seem pretty good. Though, for a site with no political agenda they seem to have one hell of a political agenda.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Some of my friends were in a K hole, and they're no different than before.

As for addiction, it really does depend on the person.

The assholes were lying.

Originally posted by lord xyz
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/ketamine/addiction.htm

Seems to say otherwise.

indeed, what I said about K being physically addictive seems to be wrong

just asking again about peyote since my post was a page behind..lol

Originally posted by Jack Daniels
just asking again about peyote since my post was a page behind..lol

Well drugs are only bad if miss used, like a woman took pills but she only died because she drank to much water and drowned her self. Most things in life is bad for you if you miss use it. To much chocolate you could get diabetes. Fruit rots your teeth. I admit heroin is bad but if you say no don't do it people wont learn if they want to mess there life up it up to them, life is one big learning curve. Cannabis yes is addictive but no one has OD on it or died from just taking it it is the mixing of drugs and miss using them which makes it bad.

This is only my opinion though and I do not want to influence anyone. Everyone is aloud an opinion, as every one has the right to do what they want to there body.

If this has offended anyone i am sorry 🙂

zart22

Originally posted by zart22
Well drugs are only bad if miss used, like a woman took pills but she only died because she drank to much water and drowned her self. Most things in life is bad for you if you miss use it. To much chocolate you could get diabetes. Fruit rots your teeth. I admit heroin is bad but if you say no don't do it people wont learn if they want to mess there life up it up to them, life is one big learning curve. Cannabis yes is addictive but no one has OD on it or died from just taking it it is the mixing of drugs and miss using them which makes it bad.

This is only my opinion though and I do not want to influence anyone. Everyone is aloud an opinion, as every one has the right to do what they want to there body.

If this has offended anyone i am sorry 🙂

zart22

"Cannabis is a weakly addictive drug but does induce dependence in a significant minority of regular users."

Over 70 million in America have admitted using the drug, and 2 million are regular users. Doing the maths, that's 2.8% of possible addicts.

Originally posted by lord xyz
marijuana is not addictive, physically atleast. Infact, the UK department of health states:

"Cannabis is a weakly addictive drug but does induce dependence in a significant minority of regular users."

Over 70 million in America have admitted using the drug, and 2 million are regular users. Doing the maths, that's 2.8% of possible addicts.

doing the math would indicate weak addictive properties

actually, Canada did some stats, and it is like less than 10% of users consume more than a gram a week, and less than 10% of that used daily. Blah, I might actually look that one up 😉

also, from the other drug thread:

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, "most addictive substance" is a very difficult, and largely empty, statement to make. For instance, research recently showed that addiction to marijuana is worse as far as withdrawl symptoms (subjectively described) than cigarettes, yet nobody would, in their right mind, claim that marijuana is as addictive as nicotine.

Like anything with drugs, the statistics can be put in different ways in order to make whatever point you want, and imho, there is a significant lack of empirical research into drugs that isn't focused on saying "this will do X to you, oooooooh scary" or "this is how to treat addiction to X". Seratonin and LSD, something that is on the cusp of neuro-chemical research, is an example of the way all drugs need to be studied, as, again imho, they offer something akin to repetable and controlled lesions, which are one of the cornerstones of brain research. As it stands now, when the Lancet, one of the world's most trusted medical journals, published independent rankings of the harms of drugs (to compare them to the classification system of the British gvt), the opinions of clinical psychologists about the harms of drugs were more important than strict neuroscientific evidence in their rankings.

lol, to rant some more, and hopefully tie this all up, saying "heroin is more addictive than meth" is largely pointless, most significantly because there is not agreement in what consitiutes "addiction" (DSM classifaction vs behavioural measures like withdrawl effects), but even further, because people use different drugs for different reasons. That most ravers have done meth in pills or at a party for a buzz is much different than those in poverty who use heroin as a form of escapism.

imho, the environment of people is far more of an influence for addiction than the chemical substance in itself.

talking about addiction is in a lot of ways a red herring. A person can be more addicted to marijuana than another is to heroin.

mary jane is not physically addictive bottom line...............mentally depends on your stress level..lol..some folks need it...I wish it was legal I wouldnt be killing myself with booze..current : watching jay leno with kevin bacon...said its okay to cut his throat open for the movie but not showing him smoking a joint..wtf?

Originally posted by Jack Daniels
mary jane is not physically addictive bottom line...............

depends how you define "physical" and which definition of "addiction" you are using.

Originally posted by inimalist
doing the math would indicate weak addictive properties

actually, Canada did some stats, and it is like less than 10% of users consume more than a gram a week, and less than 10% of that used daily. Blah, I might actually look that one up 😉

also, from the other drug thread:

talking about addiction is in a lot of ways a red herring. A person can be more addicted to marijuana than another is to heroin.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The way I measure addiction is by how desperate they are to get it once it's taken away.

according to scientific research, pot would then be more addictive than cigarettes, as those who quit after heavy daily usage report more withdrawal symptoms in general and stronger negative withdrawal symptoms when quitting pot than cigarettes.

full article:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2214670

summation:

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/marijuana-withdrawal-bad-withdrawal-cigarettes-15309.html

and a quote from the abstract:

verall withdrawal severity associated with cannabis alone and tobacco alone was of a similar magnitude. Withdrawal during simultaneous cessation of both substances was more severe than for each substance alone, but these differences were of short duration and substantial individual differences were noted. These results are consistent with other evidence suggesting cannabis withdrawal is clinically important and warrants detailed description in the DSM-V and ICD-11.

EDIT: and not to make this personal story time, but back when I was living with a couple of my friends, we were HURTING. It was like a day to day "How am I going to eat? How am I going to get high?" The plan for most days was the mission where we went to go pick up weed. Quite honestly, we would find like 7 dollars, and it would be like "**** ya, a 5 piece and a 2 dollar slice from city pizza". When smart, logical and mature individuals can spend over 50% of their budget, forgoing food, for a drug, it is really obvious it has addictive qualities.

If that isn't what life is like for you, good, don't let it get like that. Getting up every day wondering how it is you will get high (and that being the most important consideration all day) is not a fun life, and something many cannabis users go through.

That shot me down.

Maybe pot is more addictive, I'd definately rather smoke a joint than a cigarette.

But the scientific studies say no, so I don't know.

Originally posted by lord xyz
That shot me down.

Maybe pot is more addictive, I'd definately rather smoke a joint than a cigarette.

But the scientific studies say no, so I don't know.

the problem is that you are only defining addiction in 1 way. Addiction is not a quality of a substance, but a personality disposition mixed with context. Can something be physically addictive, sure, but EVERYTHING can be physically addictive because of dopamine release in the hippocampus.

I'm way happier to smoke weed than cigarettes, but I would only be lying to you if I said I wasn't addicted. The cause of that addiction could be debated, and the contribution of some chemical vs social contextual issues is important.

don't miss the EDIT above though

As far as I understand it, broadly speaking, nicotine is both mentally and physically addictive; pot is mentally addictive only.

I've never smoked cigs, so I can't speak from experience on that. But as far as mary jane goes, whenever I wasn't able to resupply, it was annoying and I got bored (until I rebooted other parts of my brain), but I was never in physical discomfort, let alone pain. In fact, sometimes the break was nice.

Originally posted by Mindship
As far as I understand it, broadly speaking, nicotine is both mentally and physically addictive; pot is mentally addictive only.

what does that mean though?

and shopping or tanning can be "addictive", because of dopamine mediated connections. How is that not a "physical" addiction?