Subject: Re: what do we know about pot?

From: [email-masked] (Dawn of the Living Dead)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 16:42:17 GMT

Marijuana is one of the most studied herbs, and one of the ones that we 
have the least hard information on.  Most of the studies conducted have 
been badly flawed.  If you read the stuff coming out of the Health 
Department, you realize that either they have a serious agenda, they 
flunked experimental design, or both.  They've done things like look at 
lung damage without controlling for tobacco smoking, or look at brain 
function without controlling for alcohol intake.  The pro-pot people rely 
heavily on anecdotal evidence and sample sizes too small to convince 
anyone.  The last time I did any serious research into 
this, I couldn't find any sources that I felt I could believe.  I have a 
gut feeling that te published research from the government wouldn't be so 
badly flawed if they could show harm with decent statistics, but that's 
just a feeling.  

I dearly hope that it's the political agenda that's clouded this issue 
and that all medical experiments aren't as poor.  If someone could 
reference any impartial research that stands up to examination, I'd love 
to see it.  

Dawn
-- 
I'm not a bad witch.  I'm a grumpy witch.
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (broomstick)
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 08:48:58

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Mark Farone) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Mark Farone)
>Subject: Re: what do we know about pot?
>Date: 20 Dec 1994 15:29:01 GMT

>In article <[email-masked]>,
>[email-masked] (broomstick) wrote:
>> In article <[email-masked]>
>[email-masked] (amos clayton) writes:
>[...]
>> >several of my friends have just recently "discovered" marijuana ....they
>> >seem to really get a kick out of it, it clears up their headaches, they
>> >sleep VERY well, and it doesn't seem to interfere with their bodies
>> 
>> [snip]
>>
>> Uh...dude, pot ain't supposed to knock you out...'Specially not in "two 
>> hits flat".
> 
>Actually, this isn't true. The only consistent immediate effect of THC
>usage is an increase in blood pressure.  Psychological effects vary
>greatly. Some people get sleepy, some get anxious, some get psychedelic
>hallucinations.  It is speculated that effects relate to the user's speed
>of intake of THC, i.e., if you take a goodly percentage in a short amount
>of time you will have more titilating effects.

>Psychological effects may also be learned or expectant behavior since many
>people do not get "high" from their first use.

I will grant you that there is GREAT variety in individual reactions to drugs. 
 Having had some experience with about 2500 addicts using a wide variety 
substances the last four years I can certainly confirm that.

>"One hit" bags, with high percentages of THC are not uncommon.

Very true.  The average THC in pot is most definately going up.
 
>> That crap your friends are smoking is PROBABLY spiked with heroin or other
>> CNS depressant.  If they keep it up they could wind up with a real monkey
>> on their backs.  Other fun stuff found in pot includes PCP, coke, anything
>> resembling the substance being "cut" that happens to be handy.

>These "adulterants" are all possible, but not probable. It would be cost
>and time ineffiecient, and veteran users would perceive the substantially
>different effects.

I disagree.  I also note that you are posting from about 2000 miles away from 
me.  Experience may differ in your area and mine.  In Chicago, (and Detroit, 
where I used to live) it is more common to find adulterated pot than not, in 
which case the user WON'T notice a difference unless there ISN'T some kind of 
crap in the pot.  Heck, I've seen people bum cigarrettes that turned out to 
have coke or angel dust in 'em.  Cost doesn't always make a difference when 
you're dealing with drugs.  If you got some user/dealer who LIKES to smoke 
something else along with his weed he could be passing it on to friends as 
"try this really great smoke".

 >> I worked in drug rehab 4 years.  My personal observation (which is a bit 
>> heretical) is that OCCASSIONAL, MODERATE use of "clean" pot is probably no 
>> more harmful than the occassional alcohol bender.  Problem is when its not 
>> occassional.  3 to 4 times a week is pushing things, especially with potent 
>> pot.

>It is *very* difficult to suggest a moderate level of marijuana use
>because the level of THC and physiologies of human bodies vary
>considerably.

If you get your pot from a consistent source using the same variety of plant 
you should get a fairly consistent level of THC, and regular use will teach 
you your own personal reactions to it.  If I were to start using pot (which I 
don't plan to, having enough lung problems already) I'd probably grow my own 
so I would KNOW that it was "clean", wasn't drenched in pesticides, and I 
could get used to the potency.  If it were a legalized drug, like alcohol, the 
strength and cleanliness issue wouldn't be such a problem.  Or maybe it would, 
as tobacco is legal AND heavily adulterated.  If I started using tobacco I'd 
probably grow my own as well, for the same reasons.

>Setting limits on usage, not engaging in hazardous activity (including
>driving), eating vs. smoking, defining the benefits you want from use, and
>minimizing emotional and environmental stressors before use are all ways
>to prevent "problem use."  

I can agree with that wholeheartedly

>Most notably, if you feel that the effects are becoming less intense
>between "highs", slow it down. Chances are you overusing and are setting
>yourself for problem behavior. 

True, increased tolerance is not a good sign when using any drug.

>> First thing to go is ambition, followed by short-term memory.  Not to mention 
>> that pot continues to affect coordination long after the "high" wears
>> off - up to 36 hours in some individuals, particularly heavy users, which 
>> makes driving a car fun.
>> 
>> They are also, as all smokers do, running the risk of bronchitis, emphasema, 
>> and lung cancer....Tell to wise up and quit before they screw themselves up 
>> permanently.  Athletic prowess is no measure of this drug's effect - their 
>> sportsmanship will not be the first thing affected.

>Fair enough.  Another important point to make is that much of the information 
>on the net is biased toward anecdotal evidence. There is plenty of 
>on-the-level information to find out about alcohol and other drugs, but the 
>net is not the most reliable source.  Try your library or a knowledgable 
>professional.

Too true - beware of 'Net Nonsense.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			|
>---Broomstick---	| "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains,
			| however improbable, must be the truth."
			|				-- S. Holmes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Michelle Tritter)
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 08:59:19 GMT

: >> That crap your friends are smoking is PROBABLY spiked with heroin or other
: >> CNS depressant.  If they keep it up they could wind up with a real monkey
: >> on their backs.  Other fun stuff found in pot includes PCP, coke, anything
: >> resembling the substance being "cut" that happens to be handy.
Actually if it is true "kind bud" that they are smoking, and that they 
are taking large hits, and the fact that they are lightweights (from 
being new to it), two hits could knok them flat no additives.

: >These "adulterants" are all possible, but not probable. It would be cost
: >and time ineffiecient, and veteran users would perceive the substantially
: >different effects.

: >It is *very* difficult to suggest a moderate level of marijuana use
: >because the level of THC and physiologies of human bodies vary
: >considerably.
Besides, it may not be chemically adictive but it can be in plain 
functioning ability.  If you normally smoke to keep care of naseau, you 
begin to stop being able to control it w/o the THC.  The habit gets you 
that way.

: >> They are also, as all smokers do, running the risk of bronchitis, emphasema, 
: >> and lung cancer....Tell to wise up and quit before they screw themselves up 
: >> permanently.  Athletic prowess is no measure of this drug's effect - their 
: >> sportsmanship will not be the first thing affected.
THC actually opens the bronchial tubes, nt close them.  You get the bad 
effects from smoking without filtering the smoke either through a screen 
(as in a pipe) or through water (which is the best filtering agent.)  
always remember to change the water or germs will grow there and cause 
the same lung problems already mentioned.

THC also has several other bennificial effects.  It may slow down co 
ordination and thought but for a hyperactive personality, or taken to an 
extreme, a scizophrenic it allows them to function.  It also relieves the 
mental abberations in manic depression, and other similar illnesses as 
well as in CFS.

It is also helpful for people who have low blood pressure as well as 
high.  It raises your pressure at first and then as you relax it lowers 
to a good balance unless you have too much.

I will agree, if you have too much or get some that has been cut with 
something you can get hallucinations, but you are usually so relaxed that 
they are fun to watch for a while.

You never hear of a stoner starting a fight in a bar, or beating a spouse 
when stoned.  It makes you less violent, not more.  Is that so bad?

pygment

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Russell)
Date: 26 Dec 1994 15:31:14 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>when stoned.  It makes you less violent, not more.  Is that so bad?

I'm not a recreational drug user ( including alcohol and caffeine )
and probally never will be.  That said, anyone interested in reading
an intelligent discussion what such drugs as pot etc are really
all about should pick up a copy of Dr. Andrew Weil's THE NATURAL MINDS.
He evaluates the pro and anti drug arguments in a *more* objectie
manner then most people have so far.

Good Luck
Steve R
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (PlantMed)
Date: 26 Dec 1994 14:12:52 -0500

Another good book about drugs by Andrew Weil is Chocolate to Morphine.

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Russell)
Date: 27 Dec 1994 15:10:27 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Paul Mitchell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Take a look at some people who've been smoking pot for
>10 or 15 years, and i'll bet you'll see people who have
>fallen far short of their potential in life. It's not
>immediately obvious, but short term memory is very im-
>portant for just about any activity worth doing, as well
>as for handling the logistics of life eg car maintenance,
>checkbook and all that.  Try breath control instead.
>

I do no drugs of any kind ( even caffiene ) and a few days ago I would
have agreed with you because I know several of the type of person you
talk about.  

I also know a few hopeless alcholics whose whole thing in life is to
wander the streets of the college town I live in.  I also know a few
alcholics who function at a job and whose only color in life is the
bottle waiting for them at home.

Is it the drug ( pot, alchohol etc ) that amotivates people when many
others use the drug with differnt results or is it that these unfortunates
start off with personality problems?  Im sure among drug users there are
all 3 types concerned and Im sure there are folks with personality flaws
who would be better off not touching drugs ( alcholhol, pot ) at all.
I just wanted to make the point that the situation is more complicated
then a drug being a problem pill.

Steve
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Camilla Cracchiolo)
Date: 27 Dec 1994 18:47:32 GMT

I happen to think that pot is pretty safe and should be legal.  However,
I don't think it should be used during pregnancy.  A little known fact
I uncovered is that it can cause birth defects in animals.  It's not clear
whether it does this in humans since it's hard to separate out the effects
of pot from alcohol (which definitely causes birth defects).  The birth
defects reported in humans whose mothers smoked pot also vary a lot so
it may not be an effect of pot we're seeing.  But I think the rule about
not consuming any drugs during pregnancy is best applied to pot

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
           Camilla Cracchiolo, RN   [email-masked]

        Shrine of the Cybernetic Madonna BBS  213-766-1356
        "The Board that Hates Rush Limbaugh With A Passion"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Hilda Marshall)
Date: 27 Dec 1994 19:03:14 GMT

[email-masked] (Camilla Cracchiolo) writes:

>But I think the rule about

How about sugar?  I've heard differing opinions as to whether a
woman should increase, decrease, or not change her intake of sugar
while pregnant - which is right?

Love, Hilda

---

From: [email-masked] (Hilda Marshall)
Date: 27 Dec 1994 15:29:25 GMT

>then a drug being a problem pill.

Well said, Steve!  But since recreational drugs are currently illegal
and their use considered a character flaw, a disproportionate
percentage of people with "personality problems" are drawn to them as
a lifestyle (rather than as an experiment or an occasional high).  So
long as drug use is socially relegated to the domain of "being bad,"
rebellious teenagers and people who are afraid of life will turn to
even such innocuous substances as pot as a way to shut themselves off
>from  the world.  So, yes, addiction *is* at least partly a function of
personality - but, at least in this particular culture, drugs are
disproportinately attractive to the socially uncomfortable.

Love, Hilda

---

From: [email-masked] (Camilla Cracchiolo)
Date: 27 Dec 1994 19:45:14 GMT

Hilda Marshall ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [email-masked] (Camilla Cracchiolo) writes:

: >But I think the rule about
: >not consuming any drugs during pregnancy is best applied to pot

: How about sugar?  I've heard differing opinions as to whether a
: woman should increase, decrease, or not change her intake of sugar
: while pregnant - which is right?

Sugar, by which I assume you mean sucrose, is one of the basic building 
blocks of life, and so does not cause birth defects.  I don't think that
sugar is dangerous, but some folks don't tolerate highly refined carbs 
very well.  These folks should probably avoid it.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul Mitchell)
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 10:39:38 GMT

---

From: Scott Mattes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 14:40:48 GMT

> very well.  These folks should probably avoid it.

Doesn't sugar (that white stuff used on the table) mess with the immune system? 
If so, it would be best to reduce its use before, during and after living.

---

From: Marian C <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 14:30:43 GMT

> very well.  These folks should probably avoid it.

I would like to add that eating more sugar could result in a pregnant woman 
eating less of the more nutritious foods she ought to be eating. Sugar is not a 
good substitute for good whole foods, for anyone (as if I need to tell this to 
y'all) ;).

Peace

Marian
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"

"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the 
Cat. -- Lewis Carrol
                       |\      _,,,--,,_  ,)   
                       /,`.-'`'   -,  ;-;;'     
       ~~~~~0         |,4-  ) )-,_ ) /\      email reply to:
                     '`--''(_/--' (_/-'      [email-masked]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

---

From: [email-masked] (allen lutins)
Date: 29 Dec 1994 05:44:19 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
[...]

...care to provide a citation?  ...i've done a *lot* of research on
cannabis & i've never come across this claim...
-- 
 "Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?  Are they not the ones
  who are dragging you into court?"              -- James 2:6 [NIV]
====================================================================
 allen `alley cat' lutins                  [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Francis Michael Gallina)
Date: 28 Dec 1994 23:28:38 -0800

I guess I have to say I feel sorry for all you who live in places where 
cutting mj with another substance is commonplace, and not the exception.  
In Eugene, OR this NEVER happens, due to the fact that so many people 
grow it that it would be a)pointless b)painfully obvious c)bad for business.
I guess people in "real" cities have to worry about other dangerous stuff 
too tho..

Frank

---

From: [email-masked] (Camilla Cracchiolo)
Date: 29 Dec 1994 11:29:33 GMT

allen lutins ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>,
: Camilla Cracchiolo <[email-masked]> wrote:
: >I happen to think that pot is pretty safe and should be legal.  However,
: >I don't think it should be used during pregnancy.  A little known fact
: >I uncovered is that it can cause birth defects in animals.  It's not clear
: >whether it does this in humans since it's hard to separate out the effects
: [...]

: ...care to provide a citation?  ...i've done a *lot* of research on
: cannabis & i've never come across this claim...

Complications of Pregnancy: Gynecologic, Psychosocial and Perinatal by
Cherry and Markatz gives 4 references on it.  I'm too tired to go look 
them up and list them here, but that was where I got the information.

The conclusions on the human studies are weaker than the animal studies.
The type of birth defects correlated with pot use are not consistent,
so it might be an artifact.  And it's difficult to sort out the effects
of pot vs. alcohol since many women who smoke pot may also drink.  But
it does cause birth defects in lab rats according to the authors. So
to be on the safe side, I think pregnant women should avoid it, particularly
in the first trimester.  It's important to note that lots of safe and
legal stuff causes birth defects: aspirin and coffee are two that come
to mind.

---

From: [email-masked] (broomstick)
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 1995 11:49:14

In article <[email-masked]> Scott Mattes <[email-masked]> writes:
>From: Scott Mattes <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: pregnancy (was: what do we know about pot?) 
>Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 14:40:48 GMT

>If so, it would be best to reduce its use before, during and after living.

Sugar - both the refined stuff AND things like honey, maple syrup, etc. - 
interfere with the immune system if the consumption is so high it pushes other 
nutrition out of the diet, or adds so many calories to the diet you become 
fat, which stresses the entire body.

MODERATE consumption of sugar - in any form - is NOT harmful.  Frankly, I 
can't imagine eating some things - such as oatmeal - without a LITTLE 
sweetner (about a heaping spoonful per 4 to 6 oz for me).  To this extent, a 
SMALL amount of sugar might help people eat things that they otherwise 
wouldn't.  Most sugar in the Western diet doesn't come from the table sugar 
bowl, anyway, but is hidden in processed foods.  Read your labels.  Remember - 
corn syrup, corn sweetners, sucrose, maltose, etc. are all sugars.

Needless to say, those with sugar metabolism problems such as diabetics and 
hypoglycemics should be EXTREMELY watchful about sugar consumption IN ANY 
FORM.  Because pregnancy can lead to altered metabolism and even 
pregnancy-dependant diabetes (which can cause birth defects) pregnant women 
should probably also be very cautious about sugar.

=============================================================================
			|
>---Broomstick---	| If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains,
			| however improbable, must be the truth.
			|				-- S. Holmes
=============================================================================