Weed

Wertz

Aard wrote: »

Are you being serious? Because being psychotic is not a nice place to be in.

Yes of course I'm being serious, I welcome mental disease with wide open arms. :rolleyes:

My point on posting that is that I've been a regular smoker all my adult life...coming up on 18 yrs now. I haven't even been to a doctor in the last 7 yrs let alone felt the need to attend psychologists/psychiatrists.

This is the trouble with the "OMG weed is evil and will make you crazy" argument; for the vast majority of users it usually doesn't pan out for them like that.
If anything the repeated mantra of the anti-drugs lobby about the "dangers" of weed is damaging to their own arguments, because it simply doesn't reflect the realities of a lot of user's personal experiences of marijuana. Probably similar to the way that 90% (made up stat) of people can drink regularly and not be alcoholic or suffer the extreme negative effects of alcohol abuse.

I'm seriously fed up having this debate on here; ie online stoners, occasional users V health professionals, drug counsellors or whatever other sort of naysayer these threads attract.
When I end up in the funny farm, I'll come back and tell you you were all right....until then I'm just going to keep leading my life in the way I see fit, which includes being a regular cannabis user and a criminal in the eyes of the law.

I will say this though; it definitely has an impact on creativity, ambition, attention span, and short term memory.

Oh and short term memory.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Wertz wrote: »

I will say this though; it definitely has an impact on creativity, ambition, attention span, and short term memory.

Positive or negative, in your opinion?

Captain-America

Never touched it, though I've had a fair few opportunities to. Just not for me. I've never even smoked.

Haven't got a huge problem with people smoking it either though, so long as you don't feel the need to explain to me why it's so wonderful and why it should be legal.

Wertz

Kaia Millions Clown wrote: »

Positive or negative, in your opinion?

Creativity, usually positively. Although in the long term, the other negative effects on ambition and attention span can cancel out that positive.
It has a detrimental effect on short term memory, during and after use that I've found.

df1985

the odd time if a mate has it id smoke it.ive never went looking for it or bought it.more a fan of the stimulants personally.

Odysseus

Wertz wrote: »

I'm seriously fed up having this debate on here; ie online stoners, occasional users V health professionals, drug counsellors or whatever other sort of naysayer these threads attract.

I just want to point out that I wouldn't consider myself to be a naysayer, my point in posting on this thread was to point out the effects it can have on some people.

Alot of posters where denying the conection between THC and negative effects on a person's life. I pointed out that some people use it and may never show adverse psychological effects.

Personally I don't care if people smoke it or not, however, I think the labeling of a drug as harmless is just as bad as the people who condem its use.

robby^5

Have never had any sort of short term memory problems with weed/hash at all, tbh If I did I'd definately cut back. I know some people have that problem with drink, but again very rarely happens to me. Guess I'm lucky, I wouldnt like any sort of memory loss even in the slightest it would put me off weed/drink altogether.

Wertz

It undoubtetly can have some negative effects on the lives of it's users...only the most naive would fail to realise that or to admit it. It's the level of negative effects that I see exaggerated and blown out of proportion by the No camp that annoys me personally, when both personal and anecdotal evidnece says otherwise.
Nothing is harmless. You can physically take too much of a substance or too often, could be particularly sensitive or in some way allergic to the effects of a substance, could have underlying health problems that are exacerbated by that substance...as one poster famously claimed in a debate on the topic here before, drinking too much water can kill you.

Boggle

Odysseus wrote: »

So your saying that because I work with those who experience the down side of drug use that I cannot make an objective viewpoint; however, based on your subjective use of the said drug, you can make a objective opinion. That's just a joke. My posts are based on objective experiences of the people who present.

All my qualifications are psychological in nature so I would have some sense of establishing whether or not the people in question have psychological issues. You seem to be able to judge the people I refer to quite effectively without ever having met them. I can't think of one person I worked with around hash only that would fit your victim or not wanting to work profile.

These type of threads do be gas, people trying to defend their drug use with very weak points, "it never cause me problems...." Just because it never caused you any problems that your aware of does not meant it hasn't caused others significant problems.

Suddenly everybody is an expert, personally I don't claim to be. The points I have been making is that it can cause addiction in some people, its associasted with psychological distress is some too. I think I have been quite fair in noting that in others you do not see this down side. Whilst it may not affect you, to claim on that basis that it is a great drug is just not seeing the whole picture.

Well having smoked it for well over 10 years and knowing loads of people who smoke/smoked it (both with good and bad effects) just as long DOES in fact make me an expert.

The truth is that, like drink, some people just shouldn't smoke cos it doesn't agree with them. The difference is that if you decide to stop smoking you have no physiological dependence and at the worst you would "love a joint" - you cannot even say that about coke ffs!! (anyone who goes from loads of coke to no coke will testify)

I also have met plenty of losers in my time to acknowledge that some people who smoke are wasters - but then those people were wasters even before they started smoking. The fact that they play the victim (and Irish people are great at playing the poor me card) does not change the fact that they dont need a cuddle - all they need is a good kick up the backside and a clip across the ear. Mollycoddling anybody does more harm than good.
The only instance whereby that is inappropriate is where there is an underlying psychological issue and that is your area of expertise but I would advise against letting them think that their this way because of hash when you could just as likely blame their being brought up in a city. (cities have higher rates of schizo than the country I'm sure you know )

Now, the crux of the argument is whether smoke causes psychological problems and I can guarantee it does not. If it did, places like Holland and Canada would have a quantifiable increase in the incidence of schizophrenic disorders. They dont.

Aard

Wertz wrote: »

Yes of course I'm being serious, I welcome mental disease with wide open arms. :rolleyes:

Ok, I was just making sure - like I said above some people confuse psychosis with tripping.

======

As regards smoking cannabis, I used to about 5 years ago but don't any more. I have become psychotic on several occasions in the past couple of years. Whether this is related to smoking, I don't know or care. The fact of the matter is that I'm on anti-psychotic medication (which is working btw), and taking mood-altering substances at the same time doesn't make much sense. Were I not on these meds, nor had any mental illness, I'd probably smoke.

I've got no problem with people smoking cannabis; I think it should be legalised. However, I'd urge people who have mental ill-health to think before smoking. It's just like alcohol imo: most people can get away with it, but for others it just fuċks them up.

g5fd6ow0hseima

I cant get over the narrow-mindedness towards weed in this country. I know too many people who will actually brag about how much they drank the night before, yet would demonise someone for sparking up a J. Typically Irish I guess....

_____

As for me - I used to smoke the odd bag here or there, rathered it when music was involved and was in good company, made the obligatory trip to Amsterdam, but gave it up after a few panic attacks, heart racing etc.... It got the better of me, sadly though, id pick the company of a few smokers over drinkers anyday.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Firetrap wrote: »

Have never touched the stuff and never will. Each to their own.

If it was legal would you have a different opinion?

dsmythy

No option for 'tried it once' so i just answered 'never again'. If it was legal it wouldn't increase my chances of doing it again. Just not for me.

Odysseus

Boggle wrote: »

Well having smoked it for well over 10 years and knowing loads of people who smoke/smoked it (both with good and bad effects) just as long DOES in fact make me an expert.

The truth is that, like drink, some people just shouldn't smoke cos it doesn't agree with them. The difference is that if you decide to stop smoking you have no physiological dependence and at the worst you would "love a joint" - you cannot even say that about coke ffs!! (anyone who goes from loads of coke to no coke will testify)

I also have met plenty of losers in my time to acknowledge that some people who smoke are wasters - but then those people were wasters even before they started smoking. The fact that they play the victim (and Irish people are great at playing the poor me card) does not change the fact that they dont need a cuddle - all they need is a good kick up the backside and a clip across the ear. Mollycoddling anybody does more harm than good.
The only instance whereby that is inappropriate is where there is an underlying psychological issue and that is your area of expertise but I would advise against letting them think that their this way because of hash when you could just as likely blame their being brought up in a city. (cities have higher rates of schizo than the country I'm sure you know )

Now, the crux of the argument is whether smoke causes psychological problems and I can guarantee it does not. If it did, places like Holland and Canada would have a quantifiable increase in the incidence of schizophrenic disorders. They dont.

Claiming to be an expert based on the above is just wrong, even when I hear professionals described as an expert I switch off. I have worked in the area for nearly 14 years. I have a strong interest in dual diagnosis its a bit of a treatment buzz word now, but I spent two years researching the topic for my masters, when it wasn't a buzz word a good few years ago. I have 1000s of clinical hours in working with various disorders. I also lecture on third level courses around addiction and some of my lectures are on hash and the effects it can have. Does that make me an expert, in my opinion no. So your subjective experience of drug usage and that of your cohort of friends means little in my opinion.

As regards Holland and Canada, I know a bit about Holland [personally I think its a good system they have there] little or nothing about Canada. However, AFAIK a significant [have no stats here at home] in relation to the amount of hash consumed in Holland; a significant amount of it is considered to be associated with visitors, how would you factor that into research.

I don't know where you get the concept of mollycoddling from I don't wear wooly jumpers and give patients hugs if that what your suggesting.

Its this type of fundamentalist thinking that is messed up, based on your limited experience all the research that goes against you opinion is wrong. I would say the same thing if you where saying its a horrible drug and always causes psychological distress. I fully acknowledge that some people smoke and experience little or no adverse effects, how some do. Those who do often need professional help, there is no mollycoddling there, just a basic fact.

Yes there are problems in research this type of thing, there are also problems with classifying the problems. Most psychiatrists and psychologists will agree that the ICD-10 is flawed, that the most used diagnostic manual in Europe. However, its the best we have at the moment, the same with the research. I honestly don't know who people could read the research around hash and then say it doesn't cause problems. However, I also don't think that is a reason to demonise its use either, if you get my point.

Just using words such as "the truth is" and putting words in caps doesn't make you right. As for cocaine not causing physiological deprendance your wrong there as well.

Nichololas

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Oh no.

This isn't going to end well.

In before someone makes a self-righteous, holier than thou comment.

All drug users should be shot.

Wertz

Referring specifically to hashish: how much of the pollutants and cutting agents found in most of the mid and low grade stuff we get here could possibly be responsible for some of the negative mental and physical effects attributed to high grade herbal cannabis or pure THC?
I know a fair bit of reseacrh has been done on medically pure THC under controlled conditions, but I have to wonder about just how much research has been done into so-called "soapbar" and the low grades resins containing rubbers, plastics, oils and other such nastiness? How does the continuing mass prohibition of cannabis negatively contribute to the availability of a safe (r?) unadulterated supply.
The effects of habitual hash smoking (the kind most youngsters start off with here, or at least used to) would be of far more of a concern to me personally than the effects of the cannibinoid itself.
Unfortunately that whole aspect of the drug and it's inherent danger is lost amongst a panic over the main active ingredient and an unwillingness to admit that people are ingesting far worse things during their time spent getting high, than that which causes the high itself...

robby^5

Odysseus wrote: »

I fully acknowledge that some people smoke and experience little or no adverse effects, how some do. Those who do often need professional help, there is no mollycoddling there, just a basic fact.

It's not really a case of some dont and some do, it's a case of most dont and very few do.

Just a lot of people seem to think there's a big chance of having adverse health issues if they smoke cannabis, when it's really very unlikely that they will. If the amount of people who do experience adverse effects wasnt only a tiny percentage you'd hear less people saying that it's harmless, because to the vast majority, it is exactly that.

ScumLord

I just like to point out that the good people of Holland don't actually smoke all that much they don't have a drug culture like we do. They don't do any drugs to excess. I think they've a lower rate of usage than we do. Legalizing drugs seems to have that effect on the population.

Odysseus wrote: »

I made that point myself in an earlier post, I have no problems in noting that some people smoke and experience few or no negative effects. However, what got me posting was the denial around the negative effects that it can have in some people, the addiction or psychological distress.

There are significant issues around hash in this country, continued everyday smoking is not recreational use if your having a spliff on the bus/car on the way the way to work in the morning and continuing through the day your only fooling yourself. [No you personally]

I don't think any of us are denying that weed has side effects, or that abusing weed is not going to have any impact on your life. It's just that when some people says weed is linked to mental problems it's taken up as "if you smoke weed you will end up with mental problems in a short period of time", which is untrue.

Me and my friends have been smoking for over 10 years, I know people that have smoked for longer. I have yet to come across anyone who even know's anybody that developed mental problems from cannabis use. While I'm sure they're out there they must be in the minority if the vast majority of smokers don't know anybody like that, and stoner's end up knowing lots of other stoner's, it's a subculture.

I could easily be accused of abusing weed. The first thing I do when I come home from work is have a spliff (when there's no drought like there's been here for the past 2 months) I rarely smoke during work but would smoke pretty much non stop at the weekend. I'd easily go through more than a gram a day.

I enjoy getting stoned though, I don't like smoking a load of spliffs and it not having any effect on me so I regularly take breaks from it to allow my tolerance to drop so I can enjoy a smoke again.

I had more mental problems before I smoked weed than I do now and with what I smoke if weed did put you in a straight jacket I have to assume I'd be in one by now.

Odysseus

robby^5 wrote: »

It's not really a case of some dont and some do, it's a case of most dont and very few do.

Just a lot of people think it's like this 50:50 chance of having adverse health issues if they smoke cannabis, when it's really very unlikely that they will.

TBH I don't think we have the data to argue numbers for either side of that arguement. My viewpoint can be towards the point that it does and more that people think, but that is taking into account the fact that I see people where it has gone wrong. Its the same in cases where someone smokes and so do all their mates, they don't see adverse effects and form the opposite viewpoint.

That's why I try to keep a balanced viewpoint on it and try to avoid coming down hard on either side. Pulling together my professional and personal life experiences of hash users [which is difficult as I don't have a clinical relationship with some I know who smokes it and vise versa] I would say I have seen it affect people adversely in a significant amount of cases. However, it's a guess and those effects would range from mild to severe, however, that just brings us back to anecdoatal experience, which may give us some insight; however, its also very limited.

Boggle

Just using words such as "the truth is" and putting words in caps doesn't make you right. As for cocaine not causing physiological deprendance your wrong there as well.

Sorry, in my world coke is coca cola. And coca cola is more physically addictive than hash. Would you dispute that?
Would you dispute that it is also more harmful?

Claiming to be an expert based on the above is just wrong, even when I hear professionals described as an expert I switch off.

You can read all the papers you want but I'll take practical knowledge over theoretical any day. Especially when so much theoretical "knowledge" is so obviously wrong to anybody who actually smokes.

As regards Holland and Canada, I know a bit about Holland [personally I think its a good system they have there] little or nothing about Canada. However, AFAIK a significant [have no stats here at home] in relation to the amount of hash consumed in Holland; a significant amount of it is considered to be associated with visitors, how would you factor that into research.

Easily. I would ask "Does legalising hash lead to higher or lower incidence of psychosis?". By the way, I recall some study saying that holland actually has a lower level of hash consumption than here although when I was there, the lads in the shops just told me that the locals just get take away and thats why it looks like only foreigners smoke.

So does holland or canada have increased levels of psychosis or not? How about spain which is covered in the stuff?

I honestly don't know who people could read the research around hash and then say it doesn't cause problems. However, I also don't think that is a reason to demonise its use either, if you get my point.

Because the research says everything from "its harmless" to "its the devil". The only research that bears any relation to our experience are the "its harmless" stuff. Personally I have better respect for my own reasoning than most of the so called scientists interpretive abilities (copy and paste internet jockies most of them)...

ChocolateSauce

When I was 15/16 I smoked LOADS. Like, a quarter of hash a week, sometimes more. Not any more though; it's gotten dearer and is pretty boring IMO (LSD is the way to go). My partner is a regular smoker so I sometimes partake, but you'll never see me skining up.


And my to cents regarding the debate around the stuff....it is not only not as bad for you as, say, alcohol, it is also none of anyone else's business what I put into my body, and the fact it is criminalised is criminal.

Odysseus

ScumLord wrote: »

I just like to point out that the good people of Holland don't actually smoke all that much they don't have a drug culture like we do. They don't do any drugs to excess. I think they've a lower rate of usage than we do. Legalizing drugs seems to have that effect on the population.

I don't think any of us are denying that weed has side effects, or that abusing weed is not going to have any impact on your life. It's just that when some people says weed is linked to mental problems it's taken up as "if you smoke weed you will end up with mental problems in a short period of time", which is untrue.

Me and my friends have been smoking for over 10 years, I know people that have smoked for longer. I have yet to come across anyone who even know's anybody that developed mental problems from cannabis use. While I'm sure they're out there they must be in the minority if the vast majority of smokers don't know anybody like that, and stoner's end up knowing lots of other stoner's, it's a subculture.

I could easily be accused of abusing weed. The first thing I do when I come home from work is have a spliff (when there's no drought like there's been here for the past 2 months) I rarely smoke during work but would smoke pretty much non stop at the weekend. I'd easily go through more than a gram a day.

I enjoy getting stoned though, I don't like smoking a load of spliffs and it not having any effect on me so I regularly take breaks from it to allow my tolerance to drop so I can enjoy a smoke again.

I had more mental problems before I smoked weed than I do now and with what I smoke if weed did put you in a straight jacket I have to assume I'd be in one by now.

I agree personally I think Holland has a good system, from the few time I have visited it I think it works quite well.

I would never go with that argument that it will cause you to experience severe psychological distress, I think its wrong and to be fair there is no evidence to say that if you use hash you will have psych problems.

However, their is evidence to show that there is a risk of it for a unknown % of people. I generally avoid therads like this as I don't have the time to keep posting like this, but I do this weekend. I posted on this one because there were post stating that it doesn't and that it isn't addictive. That is what got me posting.

I think it just sh!te to post that it will cause you mental problems full stop, in the same way as I think it sh!te to post that it can't. In the same way the viewpoint of hash as a gateway drug is sh!te, I know loads of people who tried hash and never tried anything else. However, I have taken 1000s of drug histories over the years and guess what the first drug taken was? Hash. Yet I don't buy in the theory of a slippery slope. However, there maybe something in it, but its not an ultimate truth.

I'm excluding alcohol from the above statement, as most clients don't associate it as their first drug and in lots of cases its difficult to factor in, for example a parent letting a child take a sip of their drink, it can be quite difficult to get the first time if you get my point.

DrumSteve

ain't nothing wrong with a doobie.

ScumLord

Odysseus wrote: »

I agree personally I think Holland has a good system, from the few time I have visited it I think it works quite well.

I would never go with that argument that it will cause you to experience severe psychological distress, I think its wrong and to be fair there is no evidence to say that if you use hash you will have psych problems.

However, their is evidence to show that there is a risk of it for a unknown % of people.

That's fair enough but I'd say the % is less than 10%.

I'm excluding alcohol from the above statement, as most clients don't associate it as their first drug and in lots of cases its difficult to factor in, for example a parent letting a child take a sip of their drink, it can be quite difficult to get the first time if you get my point.

Your also overlooking nicotine which is the gateway drug according to some. Nicotine causes chemical changes in the brain that makes you more likely to become addicted to other substances. There also easy for kids to get their hands on, at least it was in my day.

The Volt

Started doing a bit every now and again when I started college, I enjoy it when I do it the odd time. Like the saying goes, what's seldom is wonderful. More often than not though it just makes me sleepy

Odysseus

Boggle wrote: »

Sorry, in my world coke is coca cola. And coca cola is more physically addictive than hash. Would you dispute that?
Would you dispute that it is also more harmful?

You can read all the papers you want but I'll take practical knowledge over theoretical any day. Especially when so much theoretical "knowledge" is so obviously wrong to anybody who actually smokes.

Easily. I would ask "Does legalising hash lead to higher or lower incidence of psychosis?". By the way, I recall some study saying that holland actually has a lower level of hash consumption than here although when I was there, the lads in the shops just told me that the locals just get take away and thats why it looks like only foreigners smoke.

So does holland or canada have increased levels of psychosis or not? How about spain which is covered in the stuff?



Because the research says everything from "its harmless" to "its the devil". The only research that bears any relation to our experience are the "its harmless" stuff. Personally I have better respect for my own reasoning than most of the so called scientists interpretive abilities (copy and paste internet jockies most of them)...

I don't understand your point around coke/coca cola would you mind expanding on that.

Personally I don't buy the practical knowledge viewpoint, and whilst I'm not going to comment on the topic here. You don't know what practical knowledge I may/maynot have acquired in my life.

However, I have worked with some very talented therapists over the years, some had experience of addiction some hadn't. The talented ones I would have spoken to about their "practical knowledge" would state that the only thing it gave them experience about was their own drug use.


But if the locals buy to take-away it would still be measure in the amount consumed, I would be guessing but I would imagine any stats around consumption would look at the amount, not just the people in the cafes.

I don't know has any done research with that specific question in mind, there are so many studies done it can be difficult to remember them all. However, when I read one I do try to look at it critically not just to back up my own view-point.

I also wouldn't claim to have the answer to your second question either, but if you have an answer to it with some evidence to support it, I would be interested in looking at whatever report/research it is.

Well of course you entitled to value your opinion over whatever research, its human nature to do that, but it hardly makes it fact.

Odysseus

ScumLord wrote: »

That's fair enough but I'd say the % is less than 10%.

Your also overlooking nicotine which is the gateway drug according to some. Nicotine causes chemical changes in the brain that makes you more likely to become addicted to other substances. There also easy for kids to get their hands on, at least it was in my day.

That's one of the reasons why I don't buy into the gateway model, however, I would be wrong to say it has nothing to offer either. I do think its wrong to use material like this to demonise a particular drug though.

Edit:

At a guess I would be saying its higher than 10%

Boggle

I don't understand your point around coke/coca cola would you mind expanding on that.

It was just throwaway comment pointing out that coca cola is a far more physically addictive product than hash and it has far worse side-effects.

Personally I don't buy the practical knowledge viewpoint, and whilst I'm not going to comment on the topic here. You don't know what practical knowledge I may/maynot have acquired in my life.

When theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge don't add up there is only ever one reason: the theory is wrong. Ergo practical trumps theoretical every time.

I don't know has any done research with that specific question in mind, there are so many studies done it can be difficult to remember them all. However, when I read one I do try to look at it critically not just to back up my own view-point.

I tried researching it once and as far as I could find (and there were no straight statistical comparisons), we appear to have a higher incidence of psychological problems that both Holland and Canada. But I would welcome the opportunity for a professional, with access to official figures, to put the question to bed. #

---

edited to reflect edit

---

Saw your edit and, while I think over ten percent is way too high (I would guesstimate it to be in the sub 1% range) but it at least could tally with the percentage of people I would know who gave up smoking because it stopped agreeing with them. Thats different to causing problems though cos they are capable of stopping with minimum effort ad the after effects are gone in a few days...

KeyLimePie

damn pot heads.

Odysseus

Just to point out before we go any further I edited that 70% to over 10% with a minute of posting. I thought you were referring to another point I made. So before we go any further sorry for the confusion on that point. But as you will see I posted at 16.34, added the first edit at 16.35 then realised I had taken the wrong point and reedited at 16.36.

So where were we...