Jump to content



Photo

Anti-cannabis molecule discovered


  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#91 +riahc3

riahc3

    Neowin's most indecisive member

  • 7,642 posts
  • Joined: 09-April 03
  • Location: Spain
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: HTC Desire Z

Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:50

Hello,

I have an alcoholic drink maybe once or twice a week, but sometimes go weeks without it.  Am I an alcoholic according to you?

Yes, according to HawkMan, you are not only a alcoholic but you are actually worst than those that drink it daily.

I actually laughed while typing that :laugh:


#92 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • 3,750 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 04 January 2014 - 03:36

 
You're thinking in the confines of the mythos and misinformation of how and why drugs are addictive. 
 
As stated in the myths about addiction that I quoted, it's not the drug that's addictive, it's the person. Whether someone becomes chemically dependent on a drug is based upon whether they're afflicted by a brain disease/disorder.

 

Most people who use drugs are not chemically dependent, whether they've hit rock bottom or not. Most never need to hit rock bottom, because they've never even come close to it as a result of drug use. Only about 10-15% of drug users are quote/unquote "problem users".
 
Keep in mind too, heroin is a powder as well, that can be snorted and smoked just like cocaine. Most recreational heroin users probably don't use it intravenously.

 

You want to take me back to college chemistry and biology. Most brain disorders are chemical in nature. Taking various narcotics, disrupt chemical balance and brain function. It's a chicken/egg semantically argument. One can define addition to drugs as chemical dependency.



#93 thomastmc

thomastmc

    Unofficial Attorney of Neowin

  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Lumia 928

Posted 04 January 2014 - 04:04

You want to take me back to college chemistry and biology. Most brain disorders are chemical in nature. Taking various narcotics, disrupt chemical balance and brain function. It's a chicken/egg semantically argument. One can define addition to drugs as chemical dependency.

 
Your college chemistry and biology classes must've been extremely elemental for the sheer mention of chemical dependency to urge you back so easily  :)
 
It's not semantic at all. It's specifically defined on the page I quoted earlier from the University of Texas at Austin's Addiction Science Research and Education Center. You should read it, at the risk of feeling like you're back in college ;)
 
 

9. Crack is more addicting than cocaine powder: While there are more “crack” “addicts” observed on the streets, this is probably because crack is cheaper and easier to obtain than cocaine powder. But there is no pharmacological reason why the form of a drug or the route of administration should change the “addiction” liability of a drug. In fact, science is beginning to realize that the drug is not the cause of “addiction”; rather, the susceptibility of the person to the drug determines how much “addiction” (dependence) develops.

18. Anyone who uses drugs too much or too often will become “addicted”: We know “addiction” doesn't occur in everyone, any more than diabetes occurs in everyone who eats too much sugar or food. It now appears that a person must "have what it takes" to become dependent on drugs. In many cases, genetics is the main risk factor for determining who develops the disease.

22. “Addicts” are bad, crazy, or stupid: Evolving research is demonstrating that “addicts” (people who are dependent according to DSM criteria) are not bad people who need to get good, crazy people who need to get sane, or stupid people who need education. Chemically-dependent people have a brain disease that goes beyond their use of drugs.
 
---------------

Chemical (Drug) Abuse

I.A maladaptive pattern of drug use leading to impairment or distress, presenting as one or more of the following in a 12-month period:

1.recurrent use leading to failure to fulfill major obligations
2.recurrent use which is physically hazardous
3.recurrent drug-related legal problems
4.continued use despite social or interpersonal problems

1.The symptoms have never met the criteria for chemical dependence.

------------------

Chemical (Drug) Dependence

I.A maladaptive pattern of drug use, leading to impairment or distress, presenting as three or more of the following in a 12-month period:

1.tolerance to the drug's actions
2.withdrawal
3.drug is used more than intended
4.there is an inability to control drug use
5.effort is expended to obtain the drug
6.important activities are replaced by drug use
7.drug use continues despite knowledge of a persistent physical or psychological problem

II.Two types of dependence can occur:

A) with physiological dependence (including either items 1 or 2), or
B) without physiological dependence (including neither items 1 nor 2).

http://www.utexas.ed...srec/myths.html



#94 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • 3,750 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 04 January 2014 - 17:09

 
Your college chemistry and biology classes must've been extremely elemental for the sheer mention of chemical dependency to urge you back so easily  :)
 
It's not semantic at all. It's specifically defined on the page I quoted earlier from the University of Texas at Austin's Addiction Science Research and Education Center. You should read it, at the risk of feeling like you're back in college ;)
 
 

 

Welcome to (1) College "research" center and their (2) hypothesis and (3) ambiguity as illustrated in "your" examples:

 

Ambiguity to support a hypothesis: "science is beginning to learn". Would science be the Austin Research Center or someone else?

 

Hypothesis and Ambiguity: It appears that a person must have, wait, here comes the empirical scientific term "what it takes" to ... here it comes ... "become dependent on drugs."

 

"Evolving", meaning still changing, research... according to DSM criteria (that would be selecting a specific set of criteria that supports their hypothesis.)

 

What we know is people become chemically dependent on drugs, narcotics. Physically and mentally. The notion that only "brain diseased people" get addicted to drugs sounds like a thesis of a dope using med student.

 

What we do not know, and what the hypothesis (educated guesses) you used to support his notion, is what is unknown and the subject of changing research.



#95 thomastmc

thomastmc

    Unofficial Attorney of Neowin

  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Lumia 928

Posted 04 January 2014 - 18:08

Welcome to (1) College "research" center and their (2) hypothesis and (3) ambiguity as illustrated in "your" examples:

Ambiguity to support a hypothesis: "science is beginning to learn". Would science be the Austin Research Center or someone else?

Hypothesis and Ambiguity: It appears that a person must have, wait, here comes the empirical scientific term "what it takes" to ... here it comes ... "become dependent on drugs."

"Evolving", meaning still changing, research... according to DSM criteria (that would be selecting a specific set of criteria that supports their hypothesis.)

What we know is people become chemically dependent on drugs, narcotics. Physically and mentally. The notion that only "brain diseased people" get addicted to drugs sounds like a thesis of a dope using med student.

What we do not know, and what the hypothesis (educated guesses) you used to support his notion, is what is unknown and the subject of changing research.

You do understand that the page was created to dispel myths about addiction for laymen...

You should contact the University of Texas at Austin and explain to them your expertise and objections to the data they've collected themselves and from other research scientists.

http://www.utexas.edu/research/asrec/

ASREC is a group of scientists whose mission is to communicate the latest findings in Addiction Science to the public, in terms that make the message easy to understand. Learn more about us from this website.



#96 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • 3,750 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 04 January 2014 - 19:08

You do understand that the page was created to dispel myths about addiction for laymen...

You should contact the University of Texas at Austin and explain to them your expertise and objections to the data they've collected themselves and from other research scientists.

http://www.utexas.edu/research/asrec/
 

 

It would be foolish to object to hypothesis, regardless of the university. If you dispel a myth, with hypothesis, you haven't actually dispelled anything, and you surely haven't prevented drug addictioin. What they should do is explain to all the rehab centers they do not need to exist because drugs are not addictive.

 

As I said, drug addiction or chemical dependency is a fact. The reasons as to why some become addicted and others do not, are "evolving" guesses or hypothesis. Such as is the case which much of human biology at the molecular\chemical level. You haven't shown me anything to contradict that.

 

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein



#97 thomastmc

thomastmc

    Unofficial Attorney of Neowin

  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Lumia 928

Posted 04 January 2014 - 19:57

It would be foolish to object to hypothesis, regardless of the university. If you dispel a myth, with hypothesis, you haven't actually dispelled anything, and you surely haven't prevented drug addictioin. What they should do is explain to all the rehab centers they do not need to exist because drugs are not addictive.
 
As I said, drug addiction or chemical dependency is a fact. The reasons as to why some become addicted and others do not, are "evolving" guesses or hypothesis. Such as is the case which much of human biology at the molecular\chemical level. You haven't shown me anything to contradict that.
 
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein


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



#98 brotherfromanothermother

brotherfromanothermother

    Neowinian

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 13

Posted 04 January 2014 - 20:06

I wonder what "agenda" people are pushing on heroin addicts, oxycontin addicts, even Adderall addicts. Crack addicts, cocaine addicts. The only debate is the drugs that have what I would call, sustainable deleterious effects like weed. Some people can drive on it, their reaction time and motor skills aren't degraded enough to cause them to be a danger (yet) some cannot. Some girls are naked after one or two tokes, some girls leave with their dignity after they've smoked it all up.

 

Really, nothing but a classification to push an "agenda." Come on now.

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. 



#99 B0mberman

B0mberman

    Silence is the key to Wisdom

  • 5,154 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 07
  • Location: CPT
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy S2 CM

Posted 04 January 2014 - 20:11

what am I reading here? 



#100 KingCracker

KingCracker

    I am your huckleberry.

  • 4,290 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 12
  • Location: Knoxville,TN

Posted 04 January 2014 - 20:12

I use to smoke it years ago, I don't know about anyone else but I wasn't addicted to it. I was addicted to cigarettes, I never had a deep craving to smoke a joint.. ever. I haven't touched a joint in almost 10 years and I haven't touched a cigarette in 7.  



#101 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,516 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 12

Posted 04 January 2014 - 20:54

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.

#102 Hardcore Til I Die

Hardcore Til I Die

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,267 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 07
  • Location: England

Posted 04 January 2014 - 21:44

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.  :(



#103 brotherfromanothermother

brotherfromanothermother

    Neowinian

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 13

Posted 04 January 2014 - 21:53

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.



#104 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • 3,750 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 04 January 2014 - 21:59

 

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.



#105 Hardcore Til I Die

Hardcore Til I Die

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,267 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 07
  • Location: England

Posted 04 January 2014 - 22:05

"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. 





Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!