Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Anti-cannabis molecule discovered

117 posts in this topic

Posted

So people are arguing about what causes addiction, the person or the drug?

Why does that even matter outside of trying to find cures? Of course each person has a different reaction to drugs, that's not exactly news.

In the grand scheme of things, whether its the drug, or the genetics of the person, that doesn't change the reality that drugs can be harmful to us when they are taken in excess or in another way that puts the user at risk.

I think the other problem is that science has not settled on undisputed facts regarding what all of this stuff can do to you. There are tons of studies and theories out there, but sometimes they can contradict each other. Heck, over the last decade, you can find studies that find out something is bad for you and then later they find out its good for you, or the other way around.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Your comment shows you don't understand the definition of addiction if you did you would know that anyone who drinks a glass of wine daily can be considered "addicted" again "addiction" is noting more than a behavioral classification which is used primarily to push agendas. 

 

"I wonder what "agenda" people are pushing on heroin addicts, oxycontin addicts, even Adderall addicts" There you go you've just proven what I said, your the one labeling groups of people not me. 

 

Stop posting.  :(

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So people are arguing about what causes addiction, the person or the drug?

Why does that even matter outside of trying to find cures? Of course each person has a different reaction to drugs, that's not exactly news.

In the grand scheme of things, whether its the drug, or the genetics of the person, that doesn't change the reality that drugs can be harmful to us when they are taken in excess or in another way that puts the user at risk.

I think the other problem is that science has not settled on undisputed facts regarding what all of this stuff can do to you. There are tons of studies and theories out there, but sometimes they can contradict each other. Heck, over the last decade, you can find studies that find out something is bad for you and then later they find out its good for you, or the other way around.

"So people are arguing about what causes addiction, the person or the drug?" No people are arguing over what addiction means

 

"In the grand scheme of things, whether its the drug, or the genetics of the person, that doesn't change the reality that drugs can be harmful to us when they are taken in excess or in another way that puts the user at risk."    I agree but that's not what the general discussion on drug's is about, it's about if someone should be aloud to take whatever chemical they want as long as in doing so they don't harm anyone but themselves and or encroach other peoples rights while doing so. At the moment uncle Sam thinks not, but not for the reason I stated.  Why many recreational drug's are ban is actually to do with misconception's, economical effect's and fear that if some of these drugs where legal than there could be epidemic's related to them.

 

But and here's the but in my opinion it is morally unjustifiable to dictate to people what they can and can't put in there bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

But and here's the but in my opinion it is morally unjustifiable to dictate to people what they can and can't put in there bodies.

 

Finally someone with the balls to come out with it. This is the agenda behind all the "drugs aren't addictive" arguments IMO. And this is a totally different issue.

 

Rather than say I want to do dope if I want to, even well educated dope users will argue, it's not the dope, it's the brain damaged addicts. Lot's of M.D.s and R.N.s, brain damage and all have become addicted to pain killers and lost careers and the right to ever practice in the medical field. Of course, if they hadn't dipped into the drugs, their "brain damage" would have ruined their careers some other way.

 

Anyway, respect for coming out with the real argument people want to make here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"So people are arguing about what causes addiction, the person or the drug?" No people are arguing over what addiction means

 

"In the grand scheme of things, whether its the drug, or the genetics of the person, that doesn't change the reality that drugs can be harmful to us when they are taken in excess or in another way that puts the user at risk."    I agree but that's not what the general discussion on drug's is about, it's about if someone should be aloud to take whatever chemical they want as long as in doing so they don't harm anyone but themselves and or encroach other peoples rights while doing so. At the moment uncle Sam thinks not, but not for the reason I stated.  Why many recreational drug's are ban is actually to do with misconception's, economical effect's and fear that if some of these drugs where legal than there could be epidemic's related to them.

 

But and here's the but in my opinion it is morally unjustifiable to dictate to people what they can and can't put in there bodies.

 

It's easy to blither on about how people should be able to put what they want into their bodies when you don't consider the side effects of habitual drug use. 

 

People steal, fight, even kill to get their hands on their next fix. It can tear families apart and ruin lives, not just of the user but of others.

 

I work in a criminal law solicitors office and the vast majority of our clients are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs when they commit their crimes (especially in the case of dishonesty offences). One client became so dependant on alcohol that he lost his house, became homeless and had to turn to shoplifting to support his habit because he can't afford to buy alcohol. Similar stories could be told for a number of other drugs. 

 

If we knew about alcohol what we know now, when it was first discovered, then it probably would've been a controlled drug as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's funny how you regard it as foolish to object to what you deem to be their hypothesis, yet you persist.

It would be foolish to take away from their data the notion that they believe that addiction doesn't exist, and/or that rehabilitation is unnecessary.

Similarly, it would be foolish to make an argument against the peer reviewed research science compiled by PhDs that holds consensus among the experts in the field, based on nothing but the wording of a document meant specifically for laymen.

But, if you explain it too simply you'll inevitably get somebody that took college chemistry and biology courses who picks apart the work of PhDs because it wasn't detailed enough for their understanding. - Me

 

I don't object to any hypothesis. I just don't agree with it. And I can't say I necessarily completely disagree with their hypothesis or research, but your interpretation of their results. You did not accept my notion that their results of chemical dependency was semantics and actually synonymous with "drug addiction." I believe drugs are addictive, and I believe that to be a fact born out by drug use creating addicts addicted to them. Drugs change brain chemistry, I suppose that is indeed brain damage, caused by the drug the user is addicted to.

 

The National Institute on Drug Abuse and Addiction (NIDA), defines addiction in this way:

 

Addiction is defined as a chronic relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences.  It is considered a brain disease because drugs change the brain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's easy to blither on about how people should be able to put what they want into their bodies when you don't consider the side effects of habitual drug use. 

 

People steal, fight, even kill to get their hands on their next fix. It can tear families apart and ruin lives, not just of the user but of others.

 

I work in a criminal law solicitors office and the vast majority of our clients are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs when they commit their crimes (especially in the case of dishonesty offences). One client became so dependant on alcohol that he lost his house, became homeless and had to turn to shoplifting to support his habit because he can't afford to buy alcohol. Similar stories could be told for a number of other drugs. 

 

If we knew about alcohol what we know now, when it was first discovered, then it probably would've been a controlled drug as well. 

The ends don't justify the means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But and here's the but in my opinion it is morally unjustifiable to dictate to people what they can and can't put in there bodies.

That is a completely different topic. If that is your point, then we have started a new conversation.

I happen to agree that you should be allowed to do what you want, unfortunately its those few that don't take responsibility for themselves that leads to the laws we have now to try and control and regulate so much of our life. The small percent that take things too far, hurt other people, or otherwise involve other people in their choices, is the reason why the laws exist in the first place.

Digging into the topic of what the government should be trying to control is a deep well and would get us so far off the topic of the thread :laugh:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't object to any hypothesis. I just don't agree with it. And I can't say I necessarily completely disagree with their hypothesis or research, but your interpretation of their results. You did not accept my notion that their results of chemical dependency was semantics and actually synonymous with "drug addiction." I believe drugs are addictive, and I believe that to be a fact born out by drug use creating addicts addicted to them. Drugs change brain chemistry, I suppose that is indeed brain damage, caused by the drug the user is addicted to.

 

The National Institute on Drug Abuse and Addiction (NIDA), defines addiction in this way:

 

Addiction is defined as a chronic relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences.  It is considered a brain disease because drugs change the brain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

I've made no interpretation, but rather just parroted the research. You don't disagree with me, you disagree with the current understanding of science.

 

Of course, using drugs is a choice. So is getting on a rollercoaster. Whether or not to become addicted though, or to have a heart attack because of a rollercoaster ride, mostly depends on your condition before you made that choice.

You trust the interpretations of this man...

 

And, I trust the scientific findings of the many research scientists that this man has compiled which say the opposite...

 

You're not taking issue with me, but rather peer reviewed scientific research as compiled by a well respected scientific institution in the field of Addiction Science and it's director.

 

As I said before, if you really disagree with them so much, maybe you should contact them.

 

You confuse hypothesis with finding of fact.

 

Do you know CPR used to be 5 compressions to 2 breaths, now it's what 20 compressions to 2 breaths and soon may not be any breaths and early "findings" that led to 5:2 were wrong. It's now more important to remove toxins from organs by compressing until emergency response arrives.

 

Directors get replace all the time, when their is a general consensus in the medical community, and that results in a change in how we dispense drugs, and treat drug use of narcotics, I'll re-evaluate my opinion of their hypothesis. But that won't happen without the human study I described previously.

 

IMO the only thing this study will do, and is probably intended to do, is push drug addiction to being classified as a disease so drug addicts will become a protected class. Meaning you can't fire them for being a crackhead, you have to give them treatment first. Like alcoholism, when it became classified as a "disease."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You confuse hypothesis with finding of fact.

 

Do you know CPR used to be 5 compressions to 2 breaths, now it's what 20 compressions to 2 breaths and soon may not be any breaths and early "findings" that led to 5:2 were wrong. It's now more important to remove toxins from organs by compressing until emergency response arrives.

 

Directors get replace all the time, when their is a general consensus in the medical community, and that results in a change in how we dispense drugs, and treat drug use of narcotics, I'll re-evaluate my opinion of their hypothesis. But that won't happen without the human study I described previously.

 

IMO the only thing this study will do, and is probably intended to do, is push drug addiction to being classified as a disease so drug addicts will become a protected class. Meaning you can't fire them for being a crackhead, you have to give them treatment first. Like alcoholism, when it became classified as a "disease."

 

I disagree with your interpretation of unequivocal statements as mere hypothesis :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Erm yeah its not the drug thats addictive its things you add to it like Tobacco or just the habit. If you are forced to buy from a shady dealer also and not a legal vendor (because its illegal most places) you might be buying something thats been coated in say a little coke to make you go back for more. Some dealers around where i live go as far as adding a few drops of nicotine per gram. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

We need more people high on life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

We need more people high on life.

 

I guess some people just have the best of both worlds :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Psychological addiction affects the brain, which is part of the body. Therefore psychological addiction (or "mentally addicted" as you put it) is still technically a physical addiction. Many neurologists/psychologists think there should not be a line drawn between "psychological" and "physical" addiction. 

 

Does your family's "official research" involve simply smoking weed and comparing experiences or are they scientists? "weed is a good thing" seems like a very stupid thing to say. 

actual scientists... thats why I said official you know as in government approved and funded? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There seem to be quite a lot of confusion regarding psychological and physical addiction. The only difference between these two concepts are that a psychological addiction doesn't cause withdrawl symptoms; whereas physical addiction does.

Cannabis does not cause a physical addiction; but it can cause a psychological addiction, which can still pose a danger to the smoker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Even the pro-decriminalization advocates are now admitting the downsides to marijuana use. Odd that so many still refer to it as "harmless."

http://dailynorthwestern.com/2014/01/07/campus/feinberg-study-finds-direct-link-between-marijuana-use-and-working-memory/

Feinberg study finds direct link between marijuana use, working memory

A recent study published by a research assistant professor in the Feinberg School of Medicine revealed new evidence linking marijuana use with lower cognitive functioning and brain abnormalities similar to those seen in schizophrenia patients.

Matthew Smith, the lead author on the study, has been researching the relationship between schizophrenia and marijuana use for several years. In research published Dec. 16, he observed four groups of people, two sets of healthy individuals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.