Originally posted by King Kandy
Pot is probably much healthier than Ritalin anyway.
DEFINITELY!
I'm sure there is a MJ plant out there that would relax and calm the person but not make them drowsy. Perfect for people that have test anxiety or ADD/ADHD. But, I'm not a psychiatrist so I'm really just talking out of my ass.
Originally posted by inimalist
totally. I wasn't trying to imply there is nothing cool there, Rotterdam is actually a very significant city in the history of the electronic music I like, but without the coffeeshops, it doesn't add much that you can't find in any major European city. I figure they will realize this before they ban it in Amsterdam. the boarder cities I can understand a little more, but still, it's a weird move for the Dutch.
I actually live in the city of Maastricht which was mentioned in the video. They tried to ban foreigners from coffeeshops here a while ago, and although most of the 'notorious' shops won't let foreigners in, you do find a lot of Germans and Belgians in coffeeshops that aren't in the center of town. I've never really seen any police near a coffeeshop, and definitely not to check out people's nationality. I doubt it'll be that different in Amsterdam.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, that's interesting. Pot is probably much healthier than Ritalin anyway.
depends. thc itself is very benign, but smoking anything, even with a vaporizer, is not healthy for you.
additionally, even though it isn't always prescribed correctly, and also given our pharmacology isn't perfect, meds that equalize an already existent imbalance in neurotransmitters shouldn't cause a huge degree of damage.
in real terms, the potential damage from Ritalin-esque meds is probably more severe, but if used properly, which it usually isn't, it probably doesn't pose as much barm as the lung damage one can get from pot.
that being said, I personally don't support any medical solution for ADHD, as there are possible behavioral solutions
Originally posted by inimalist
depends. thc itself is very benign, but smoking anything, even with a vaporizer, is not healthy for you.additionally, even though it isn't always prescribed correctly, and also given our pharmacology isn't perfect, meds that equalize an already existent imbalance in neurotransmitters shouldn't cause a huge degree of damage.
in real terms, the potential damage from Ritalin-esque meds is probably more severe, but if used properly, which it usually isn't, it probably doesn't pose as much barm as the lung damage one can get from pot.
that being said, I personally don't support any medical solution for ADHD, as there are possible behavioral solutions
I've read that it is little to no lung damage from vaping below a certain temperature and that the only fears should be allergies.
Do you have a study that shows the negatives of vaping cause that would be damaging to my perspective on vaping.
Also, why couldn't the children just eat the pot with their food? Aren't there pill forms or nasal sprays, as well?
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm 26 now. From the age of 17, I've essentially gotten high multiple times every day. Not only that, I dealt for a couple of years, so, for a while I had been in a situation where I smoked whenever I wanted.I recently moved to a new city, where I don't have such access to pot, and have gone a week or a few days without it. I've cut back on my use probably 10 fold. What would have been a daily supply can now last me 3-4. This isn't just access, I have to be much more responsible with my money here than I previously had been.
This has really had no effect that I am aware of, and I have tried to be aware of possible withdrawl symptoms. Long story short, it isn't really that hard to give up, if its just not there.
Now, if I had a bag of it, and there was no reason for me not to smoke, I might have a hard time convincing myself not to, but there really was no dificulty in stopping or cutting back.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I've read that it is little to no lung damage from vaping below a certain temperature and that the only fears should be allergies.
considering they only recently identified carcinogenic chemicals in pot smoke, I'd take that with a grain of salt. I imagine it is better, but I would be skeptical of anything that suggests inhaling any substance is not doing some damage
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you have a study that shows the negatives of vaping cause that would be damaging to my perspective on vaping.
I can't think of anything specific, what journals would you suggest in terms of finding that type of data? maybe I'm being a bit too dismissive, but I would be surprised if any serious research had been done on the issue.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, why couldn't the children just eat the pot with their food? Aren't there pill forms or nasal sprays, as well?
is your question "why shouldn't children take psychoactive drugs" or just, why shouldn't they take them to treat ADHD
remember, I don't really support medical treatments of adhd
Originally posted by inimalist
depends. thc itself is very benign, but smoking anything, even with a vaporizer, is not healthy for you.additionally, even though it isn't always prescribed correctly, and also given our pharmacology isn't perfect, meds that equalize an already existent imbalance in neurotransmitters shouldn't cause a huge degree of damage.
in real terms, the potential damage from Ritalin-esque meds is probably more severe, but if used properly, which it usually isn't, it probably doesn't pose as much barm as the lung damage one can get from pot.
that being said, I personally don't support any medical solution for ADHD, as there are possible behavioral solutions
I seriously doubt that smoking (esp vaporizing) does enough "lung damage" to be that bad. Studies showed no propensity at all towards lung cancer, you've smoked every day, do you have any kind of bronchitis etc. to speak for it? I have something of a cough which I associate with smoking, but this was coming off an earlier flu. Meanwhile, in the US about 8000 Ritalin overdoses are recorded per year (not fatalities) and has a variety of adverse effects.
Originally posted by King Kandy
They can eat brownies. It'll get them through a whole school day too, unlike smoking which you'd probably have to do twice.
ok, wait until I'm at a better pc, not just my phone, and I can talk about this. ultimately, sure, eating it might be more convenient, but I'm against giving thc to kids, at least in the case of stuff like ADHD, for issues of consent, developmental issues, and actual neurological effects pot can really have, like on anxiety and psychosis
Originally posted by King Kandy
I seriously doubt that smoking (esp vaporizing) does enough "lung damage" to be that bad. Studies showed no propensity at all towards lung cancer, you've smoked every day, do you have any kind of bronchitis etc. to speak for it? I have something of a cough which I associate with smoking, but this was coming off an earlier flu. Meanwhile, in the US about 8000 Ritalin overdoses are recorded per year (not fatalities) and has a variety of adverse effects.
fair enough, though I think you are exaggerating the risk of Ritalin based on the problems we see with misuse.
maybe if I put it like this: I'd rather find out my child was recreationally using pot over Ritalin, however, if they had medical need and used the medication properly, I wouldn't have much more concern about the medical use of Ritalin as I would about the recreational pot.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, wait until I'm at a better pc, not just my phone, and I can talk about this. ultimately, sure, eating it might be more convenient, but I'm against giving thc to kids, at least in the case of stuff like ADHD, for issues of consent, developmental issues, and actual neurological effects pot can really have, like on anxiety and psychosis
Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough, though I think you are exaggerating the risk of Ritalin based on the problems we see with misuse.maybe if I put it like this: I'd rather find out my child was recreationally using pot over Ritalin, however, if they had medical need and used the medication properly, I wouldn't have much more concern about the medical use of Ritalin as I would about the recreational pot.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I agree that Ritalin isn't that bad. But even so, I find the claim that lung damage is worse to be pretty out there.
it's one of those things I try to deliberately keep myself open to the possibility of. from my own position, it would just be too easy to be like "oh ya, not doing anything unhealthy", so maybe I'm too overcautious.
I will say, in terms of where our understanding of this is, we can't say anything for sure. but, like ya, personally I will cough up some crap, or get a sore throat if I use a really crappy piece for a couple of days, but my lungs seem good
Originally posted by The MISTER
This post is the reason it should be legalized. I've read a lot of your posts and before I knew that you smoked regularly I thought that you where one of the most open minded and intelligent posters who hesitated to judge quickly and made very good points. Thanks for giving me more evidence that more people should smoke. I think it allows people to think more intensely on things and respect others ideas as well. We may disagree intensely on some things but I really don't care. Keep posting man. 😮💨
there is a scientist I like, Sam Harris, who will sort of timmidly talk about using MDMA and the how those experiences help get him interested in neuroscience. However, he sort of gets embarassed by headlines that read "scientist has mind blown by ecstacy", and not that he would deny it, just sort of makes no big deal about it.
I'm going to wear that stuff on my sleave. The world needs more drugged out role models.
Originally posted by inimalist
considering they only recently identified carcinogenic chemicals in pot smoke, I'd take that with a grain of salt. I imagine it is better, but I would be skeptical of anything that suggests inhaling any substance is not doing some damage
You could be correct, then, as I read what I read for a drug developer about how he thought all of his pharmacological efforts would be nulled if people caught onto vaping product. (He was trying to develop MJ related drugs to help patients (AIDS, Chemo) develop appetites through the "munchy" effects of some MJ plants, because of how depleted their appetites were and how keeping one meal down a day could be the difference between life and death.) He said it had little to no negative lung vectors under a certain temperature (like....300? I don't remember.)
And then there was the Abrams et al. study.
http://www.letfreedomgrow.com/articles/vaporization_study.pdf
Basically, there was little to no CO difference between exhaling normal air and the vaped MJ, which is supposed to be a key indicator of the content of negative combustion materials (ie bad for your lungs). Basically, more CO, more bad combustion products. The control is "air" and the closer the CO levels were to just plain air, the better. This is where I get my "little to no side effects" from.
On a side note, thankfully, you are not being pedantic and you realize that I REALLY mean "little to no negative side effects" as I hate it when a jerk chimes in, "Uh..hmm...almost: You mean '...negative side effects.'" /littlerant
Originally posted by inimalist
I can't think of anything specific, what journals would you suggest in terms of finding that type of data? maybe I'm being a bit too dismissive, but I would be surprised if any serious research had been done on the issue.
You said it wasn't healthy. I took that to mean it was "bad for you." Of course, you could have meant that you do not get any increased health benefit from it, but, in context, it seems like you meant "it is bad for your lungs."
You then mentioned, above, that they just recently identified carcenogenic products in pot smoke, leading me to believe that you are supporting your "not healthy" with some sort of study you had run across related to that pot smoke finding.
More simply, I just figured that you had a source because of how knowledgable you are about this subject, in general. But, I'm also one of those that would "rather read the study, for myself." If none exists then we can go with "little to no side effects". Do you agree or disagree?
Originally posted by inimalist
is your question "why shouldn't children take psychoactive drugs" or just, why shouldn't they take them to treat ADHDremember, I don't really support medical treatments of adhd
Neither.
This is what it was:Why shouldn't the children be allowed to get their drug doses through means other than smoking or vaping?
Of course, the question is meaningless considering you do not support psychoactive drugs as part of the assistance processs for those types of children.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You could be correct, then, as I read what I read for a drug developer about how he thought all of his pharmacological efforts would be nulled if people caught onto vaping product. (He was trying to develop MJ related drugs to help patients (AIDS, Chemo) develop appetites through the "munchy" effects of some MJ plants, because of how depleted their appetites were and how keeping one meal down a day could be the difference between life and death.) He said it had little to no negative lung vectors under a certain temperature (like....300? I don't remember.)And then there was the Abrams et al. study.
http://www.letfreedomgrow.com/articles/vaporization_study.pdf
Basically, there was little to no CO difference between exhaling normal air and the vaped MJ, which is supposed to be a key indicator of the content of negative combustion materials (ie bad for your lungs). Basically, more CO, more bad combustion products. The control is "air" and the closer the CO levels were to just plain air, the better. This is where I get my "little to no side effects" from.
On a side note, thankfully, you are not being pedantic and you realize that I REALLY mean "little to no negative side effects" as I hate it when a jerk chimes in, "Uh..hmm...almost: You mean '...negative side effects.'" /littlerant
huh, a nature study too..
I found a couple last year, one on how to use spectroscopy to determine thc quality, and another on how to grow high grade pot outdoors. So, I guess its not all that surprising, but interesting none the less.
I guess its more like the point I made to Kandy. No, I can't point to anything specific, but there hasn't been enough objective research into pot for me to say I'm satisfied there is no long term risk. Certainly, I don't think its excessive, if there is any risk, just that I'm not willing to let myself get to a point where I think its safe, barring more good evidence.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You said it wasn't healthy. I took that to mean it was "bad for you." Of course, you could have meant that you do not get any increased health benefit from it, but, in context, it seems like you meant "it is bad for your lungs."You then mentioned, above, that they just recently identified carcenogenic products in pot smoke, leading me to believe that you are supporting your "not healthy" with some sort of study you had run across related to that pot smoke finding.
More simply, I just figured that you had a source because of how knowledgable you are about this subject, in general. But, I'm also one of those that would "rather read the study, for myself." If none exists then we can go with "little to no side effects". Do you agree or disagree?
no source, but could you imagine the grant proposal:
"look, I'm trying to get people high, and I want to figure out the most effective way, balanced against the negative effects, so, you know, I'm just going to get all these people so high...". Now, I know people have done these studies, where they just get people high, I just have no idea how they pulled it off, you know?
you are right, it is more of an assumption of mine, and I certainly dont own a volcano or any other vaporizor.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Neither.This is what it was:Why shouldn't the children be allowed to get their drug doses through means other than smoking or vaping?
Of course, the question is meaningless considering you do not support psychoactive drugs as part of the assistance processs for those types of children.
fair enough, I totally missed whay you guys were saying with that convo