I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

The US Revokes Peoples Liberty Over Weed

Hits: 24114 | Rating: (2.7) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: madest
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
gary8162
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 793 Posts
Thursday, September 16, 2010 3:51:01 AM
You're right in saying the mesolimbic dopamine system undergoes a physiological change. That's where the reward system for the brain takes place. The same physiological change takes place, to some degree, when you eat chocolate or have sex or any other enjoyable activity. However,that doesn't mean it was caused by THC. It would be more accurate to say a physiological change occurs as your reward. The reports I've read say that THC may contribute to an increase in dopamine levels and thus may be related to reinforcing the effects of marijuana. None of them have said conclusively it is addictive.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11060 Posts
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:07:10 PM
THC doesn't cause any physiological change in the human body, ergo it is not physiologically addictive.


Yes it does, in the mesolimbic dopamine system. So your argument fails.

Of course, I'm assuming you think it is addictive and not just arguing for the sake of arguing. That would just be childish.


I was asking a question for the sake of an answer. You might see that as childish. I don't.

I don't know if THC is physically addictive. That's why I asked. I prefer to know things rather than just pluck an opinion out of the air to suit whatever I want to believe is true.

I've been looking through medical studies (very boring) and it seems the evidence is uncertain. Withdrawal symptoms are proven. Whether the cause is habituation or physically addiction isn't.

gary8162
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 793 Posts
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 1:43:29 PM
Angilion, it seems you are purposely missing the point. THC doesn't cause any physiological change in the human body, ergo it is not physiologically addictive. I can't explain why it doesn't cause any change and I can't explain why cocaine or heroin does.
I've broken it down into the simplest explanation that anyone should understand. No physiological change equals no physiological addiction.. I submit the onus is now on you to explain why you think it is addictive.
Of course, I'm assuming you think it is addictive and not just arguing for the sake of arguing. That would just be childish.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11060 Posts
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 9:55:03 AM
I'd really like an answer to the question I actually asked, which wasn't a request for yet another explanation of the difference between physical and psychological addiction.

"Why is THC not physically addictive?" is not the same as "tell me again that it isn't because it isn't."

All these people all over the net saying that it isn't...and not one of them knows why. Sounds more like faith than reason.

gary8162
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 793 Posts
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:36:37 AM
O.K. Angilion,
As to your "natural=harmless" argument, I completely agree with you. After all, U.V.rays are natural. Yet in high doses, they're lethal...as is everything in high doses. Studies show that a lethal dose of THC to be smoked would be 1500 lbs. in a 14 minute period. PAR-TY.

Also, when talking about THC,there is addiction then there is habituation...Two totally different things but the meanings do get confused with each other.
An addictive subtance is something that, when taken long enough, produces gross phsyiogical changes in the way the body works, so that normal operation of the body is impossible without that substance being injested. And as the substance must, by definition, form a tolerance, higher and higher dosages are needed.
Habituation are things you crave but do not create a gross physiological change in the way your body works.
By the way,this is not a class room. We're not being graded here. Let's dial it down a bit.

jeepjones
Male, 30-39, Canada
 555 Posts
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:25:33 AM
Lets say your 18 and you get arrested in Canada for being in possession of a joint, now skip ahead 18 yrs. You haven't been in trouble with the law except for that single time, your at the USA/Canada border and are being refused entry to the US because of that time when you were 18, WTF is up with that BS, you tell me.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11060 Posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:18:08 PM
This was my point, Altaru:

Simply arguing that something is harmless because it's natural, QED, is a joke.


That was the argument being made - that "natural" and "harmless" mean the same thing.

Your modified argument is really one of dosage, not source. Chewing coca leaves is far less harmful simply because they are 99% other stuff and you'll only get a fraction of the 1% anyway - you're simply taking less cocaine that way.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11060 Posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:08:42 PM
Actually, gary8162, I was more interested in all the people claiming that THC, despite the way it works, cannot possibly be physically addictive...and having no idea why they think that. You're doing the same thing, just being more insulting about it.

In general, when someone makes a claim the onus is on them to substantiate it.

You make the claim that THC cannot be physically addictive. The onus is on you to substantiate that claim. You or anyone else making that claim.

Stating that all withdrawal symptoms must be purely psychological because they can't be physical isn't substantiating the claim.

gary8162
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 793 Posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 5:24:59 PM
Actually Angilion, I learned in high school(back in the 70's) that marijuana is not physically addicting. It's emotionally or mentally addicting. In other words, if you quit smoking pot for any length of time, you don't suffer from the D.T.'s of withdrawal as you would with other hard drugs. At the worse, you might just be "jonesing" for more. I do remember it was in my health book. I wouldn't read much into the fact that you can't find anything about it on the internet. The internet isn't exactly the "be all end all" of information. Try a library.

Not trying to be a smart ass but you're probably going to be offended anyway and take the hard line against everything I've said anyway just for spite. Have a lovely evening.

Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 3500 Posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:54:24 AM
Arsenic is natural. Aconite, used for murder throughout Europe throughout recorded history because it's so extremely poisonous, is natural.

Well DUUUH...

I wasn't arguing poisons, for christ's sake. Of course they'll kill you, natural or not.

But, like with cocaine, if it doesn't kill you just by consumption, it's usually better for you when it's natural as opposed to processed.

Like with cocaine. In the plant, there are trace amounts of the actual drug, yes, but not enough to get the highs we know are bad. Hell, people drink the Coca plant in TEA. Same with heroin. Before it's processed and extracted to be purified through acid baths and all that, it's quite a bit less destructive. People eat poppy seeds on bagels, and it doesn't kill them.

What I'm saying is, all things in moderation, as nature intended. Extracted, processed, and purified is NOT moderation.

Amurika
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 282 Posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:52:00 AM
ahh yes, the silly weed prohibition. its more harmful for lazy phucks to sit for several hours behind their mindless TV's eating junk food and complaining/feeling sorry for themselves about being overweight.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11060 Posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:05:10 AM
People are arguing that because it is. THC is not a physically addictive chemical. It's like saying that someone can physically be addicted to sitting in their Lazy Boy.


Restating the proposition is not proving it.

All I've found online is the unsubstantiated hypothesis that THC is only mildly physically addictive because it hangs around in your body for so long that even if you stop taking it you'll still in effect be gradually reducing your intake as the stored THC is used up. I think that must be wrong, because the stuff that hangs around isn't used

skaterboy17
Male, 18-29, Canada
 299 Posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:41:12 AM
@Angilion:

People are arguing that because it is. THC is not a physically addictive chemical. It's like saying that someone can physically be addicted to sitting in their Lazy Boy. Sure, they can sit in it so much that they don't want to sit in another chair in the room and watch tv, can't concentrate on the tv when they're in a different position, watching it at a different angle, but they're not physically addicted to it. That's a mental thing. I know lots of people who are psychologically addicted to pot, act weird when they're not high, but that's all it is. They just think that they can't go without it. If a long-time pot smoker stops "cold turkey," the only thing that would make them want to smoke is the fact that they like doing it, just like someone might like sitting in their favorite chair.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11060 Posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3:32:31 AM
Open question for all those who are arguing that it is impossible to be physically addicted to THC:

Why?

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11060 Posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3:31:35 AM
I'm laughing at what extreme lengths some posters are taking the "natural = harmless" argument to.

It's bullpoo anyway, but it's risible bullpoo when taken to these lengths.

If you were arguing that cannabis today is more harmful than cannabis in the 60s because it has been modified to be several times as strong as the naturally occuring cannabis that was all that existed back then, you'd have a point.

Simply arguing that something is harmless because it's natural, QED, is a joke. Arsenic is natural. Aconite, used for murder throughout Europe throughout recorded history because it's so extremely poisonous, is natural.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16745 Posts
Monday, September 13, 2010 10:40:02 PM
Altaru: How many classes did it take you for to learn to be a snarky wank ?

Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 3500 Posts
Monday, September 13, 2010 5:23:56 PM
Just because something is labeled 'Natural' doesn't mean it isn't harmful, That includes pot

How many classes did you have to take before you became so talented at completely missing the point?

AnarchistGod
Male, 70 & Over, Midwest US
 894 Posts
Monday, September 13, 2010 4:30:44 PM
@cagel
wikipedia? seriously?
and "Everything mental is based in physical, chemical, electrical reactions in the brain." yeah, duh, but that's just the words of a smartass. You know what they mean. And they don't do it to feel "normal" they do it for the high, because being high feels better than feeling normal. Unless you mean if they smoke so much that being high is actually normal to them...

zombunny
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
 2524 Posts
Monday, September 13, 2010 2:13:05 PM
"Why is weed not physically addictive? I know people that can't go a day without smoking some, and if they don't smoke they get the shakes, get cranky and show the similar signs of quitting any other addictive substance."

This is not a physical addiction. It is entirely possible to become emotionally addicted to marijuana, becoming depressed without it. The same way a person can get addicted to fattening foods or sex or just about anything else. It is not the same kind of addiction one would experience with harder drugs.

cagel
Female, 18-29, Western US
 277 Posts
Monday, September 13, 2010 12:38:32 PM
p.s. I will smoke a blunt with most of you unless you start saying a bunch of nonsense about which you know nothing.

cagel
Female, 18-29, Western US
 277 Posts
Monday, September 13, 2010 12:36:50 PM
Criteria for Cannabis Dependence

cagel
Female, 18-29, Western US
 277 Posts
Monday, September 13, 2010 12:35:06 PM
This nonsense about a separation of mental/physical addiction is based on an archaic separation of the mind and body. Everything mental is based in physical, chemical, electrical reactions in the brain.

People who say that Marijuana is not physically addictive are trying to use a simplistic way to justify what is drug use. Substance use. Substances can be abused. But if you can't become "physically" addicted, then you feel better about it. The addiction argument is moot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

Cannabis addiction does not manifest physical withdrawal symptoms such as hallucinations, DT's, etc. But it can have emotional withdrawal symptoms such as severe anxiety.

If you have to use cannabis regularly in order to feel "normal" and are anxiious, irritable, and aware of the absence of the drug in your system, you are addicted.

This

boNeymiZz
Male, 18-29, Canada
 236 Posts
Monday, September 13, 2010 11:16:42 AM
fk i love Canada

Reganom
Male, 18-29, Europe
 505 Posts
Monday, September 13, 2010 10:56:58 AM
SPrinkZ:

If i read a wiki article on something that is research. Research doesn't have to be first hand experience. My personal uni tutor is researching cures for cancer and he doesn't have cancer. Are you saying that everything he does is invalidated by the lack of cancer? That everyone that reads his papers are learning nothing unless they have cancer?

SPrinkZ
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2231 Posts
Monday, September 13, 2010 10:46:34 AM
Rega,

No one cares. And you need some first-hand evidence to prove pretty much anything. Otherwise what are we going on here? How one perceives another's behavior? That offers no insight. You have no insight into the issues at hand. Unless you do the research, don't waste our time.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.