fanatic4488

Oh, yeah...there's a very good exchange going in on another message board that is related to this topic. You will find some very informative folks there:
http://www.chataboutdrugsnetwork.com...569-265-a.html

Higher Logic

Here's my situation. I have no problem dreaming actively when I smoke and have been smoknig cannabis. Then again, I keep dream journals so I also have no problem falling into trances and "controlling" (lucid) my dreams. Like Buzzy said, I can actively fall into the dream state during regular waking hours, which is almost weird sometimes.

When I quit smoking, usually after a week, I get really intense dreams that are just plain "whacked out."

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

Mamabudz

Well...I think we all know what this means...

If you or someone you love is a rat, a rabbit or a cat, injecting THC into your veins during REM sleep is going to seriously effect your dreams. Of course, one has to wonder what exactly a rat dreams about but that should be left only to those individuals with the proper educational background to ask those sorts of personal questions -- be it Freudian or Jungian rattus-psychoanalyst.

For the remaing members and posters on this site however, I beleive our new friend the Fanatic has reminded us of some very important points in American cannabis research. There really isn't any. And what little research that has been performed is so skewed to support the ONDCP that "any" effect is considered a "negative" effect.

Let's take a look at the "evidence" presented by Fanatic

A CB-1 receptor site is the name given to a specific area on a neuron's dendrite that recieves a particular the chemical "message" sent between neurons. Neuron is the name given a "nerve cell" by the way, and the chemical message "jumps the gap" between neurons -- the gap or space between neurons is called the synapse -- and then the receptor at the end of the dendrite -- simply the word describing the long arm and "hand" of the neuron that reaches and almost touches the next neuron dendrite -- catches the chemical and the chemical sets off a reaction that creates an electrical message that passes down the neuron to the next dendrite...switches to a checmical message, jumps the gap, get's picked up by a receptot ... and so on. These chemcials in the synapse are now referred to as Neuro transmitters.

CB-1 is a neuro transmitter. So is Serotonin and Dopamine. You may recognize Serotonin from all the talk about Depression as it was discovered not more than 25 or so years ago that a lower level of Serotonin appeared in individuals suffering from common depressive symptoms. A difficulty in the Dopamine neurotransmitter, or in the health of the nerve cell's use of Dopamine can cause conditions such as Parkinsons Disease (what Michael J. Foxx has), schizophrenia, and the palsy's associated with certain Muscular Dystrophys.

Serotonin and Dopamine naturally occur in the body and are called Endogenous chemicals. When there is a problem with these chemicals occurring in the body, medical science has discovered there are methods of increasing the levels and amounts of these checmicals by outside means -- often medications taken by pill form. In the case of L-Dopa, research has been ongoing for over 50 years.

CB-1 refers to to an Endogeous chemical -- naturally occurring in the body -- refferred to sometimes as Anadamide, but most often referred to as a naturally Occurring Cannabinoid Compound similar to THC, the component of cannabis (marijuana) that makes people feel high or stoned.

CB-1 receptor refers to that part of the dendrite of a nerve cell -- in this situation let's confine it to Brain Nerve Cells since CB-1 receptors have now been discovered all over the body -- that binds with THC, or mor speciffically the fat molecule of metabolized THC that is naturally created by the body and naturally occurs within the body for a specific purpose.

Scientists are only now discovering what that purpose -- the purpose of our naturally occurring THC -- is for. Initial findings show that THC protects the brain during brain injury trauma (concussion, stroke, blunt trauma) and during periods of heightened stress (lack of sleep, increased bodily stress). Rercent findings have noted that the levels of THC occurring in the mind of a schizophrenic have been found to be diminished compared to that of a non-schizoid affected brain.

There is a connection. But no one at this point knows what that connection is or if it is beneficial or detrimental.

Those who are anti-marijuana will state that simply because a response exists, that is bad.

I disagree -- vehemently -- A change in the way the body works -- using an adjunct to a pre-exisiting endogenous chemical well tolerated by the individaul to relieve a disease or distress is an adjunct that should be looked into seriously.

When the adjunct is cannabis - with a 3500 year written history of side effects more mild than willow bark tea -- excuse me, Aspirin -- and an anectdotal history 10 x that long supporting facts that medical science is only now proving as truth today is not "the Devil's Weed" to be hidden away, lest the chidren find out about it.

fanatic, if THC (aka, CB-1) is binding to THC (aka CB-1) receptor sites -- exactly what are the other chemcicals that are being barred from binding?

I know your example, but it has no point in this particular conversation ... moving on to your next point:

Pot kills brain cells? And these damaged brain cells that were the cause of your short term mmemory loss now are "permanently killed" so now heavy smokers have "long term brain cell" loss? And we are discussing those who use say, 2 or 3 joints a day, or more, every day for over 5 years?

Fanatic, your information is entirely out of date and I highly, sorry, seriously recommend you review the information found in the National Institute of Health's Report on the Use of Marijuana to update your information -- a link is available on the Marijuan.com home page. A review of Dr. Greenspoon's work (Harvard University) "Marihuana: The Forbidden Medicine", and perhaps a persual of Jack Herer's famous tome, available on Cyberspace "The Emperor has No Clothes" should bring you into the 21st century. What you just quoted as fact has been disproven a number of times throughout the world by numerous respected doctors and scientists.

But I must agree that those subjects in the test where students were given pot -- allowed to sleep and then woken and asked to describe their dream. Of course they had difficulty discussing (verbalizing) their dreams. They were stoned dude! Could have been worse -- if the test subjects had been chugging beer -- they'd probably of have barfed

Hugz,

Mama Budz

Buzzby

This immediately demonstrates your bias. According to the IOM report, Marijuana is about as addictive as coffee if it's addictive at all. Were you, perhaps, speaking of heavy habitual users? The difference between them and the average user are like the difference between a two-beers man and a gutter alcoholic. People who overindulge in mind-altering substances generally have an underlying psychiatric reason for doing so and the effects of any particular drug on their lifestyle is not nearly as significant as the fact that they spend their lives trying to escape some painful aspect of reality. This is especially true with Marijuana, which has so little potential for physical addiction.

I agree that drug abusers are highly prone to not seeing the reality of their situation. I don't agree that you can extend that model to recreational Marijuana users who have lives outside of getting stoned.


No one said it did. What was said is "Consider the possibility that the consumption of Marijuana may eliminate some of the need for REM sleep, which is why users produce less of it."

This was a speculation, not a statement, offered in support of your research's finding that Marijuana reduces REM sleep. Since most of us smoke Marijuana and few of us demonstrate symptoms of sleep disorders, it seems a valid conjecture that Marijuana reduces the need for REM sleep. If, as you say, the use of Marijuana reduces REM sleep to almost nothing, shouldn't Marijuana users generally display the psychotic symptoms of people deprived of REM sleep over long periods?

Note: We don't.

The studies you cite were done at a time when the only people permitted by the federal government to do Marijuana research were those trying to prove how harmful it was. When you start with that kind of hypothesis you tend to highlight the data that supports it. Scientists are people, too.


I've never noticed any prevalence of sleep problems among the many recreational Marijuana users I've known. Since I've been smoking Marijuana with other people for 35 years I'd think I would have noticed.

While any form of drug abuse is detrimental to a person's development and well-being, I can't say that's true for moderate recreational drug use. Most adults in our society use a moderate amount of alcohol and research shows that it does them good. I think a moderate use of Marijuana is beneficial because it gives you a window into a different angle on reality.

Life can contain a lot of valuable experiences that have nothing to do with being a good student or a good worker or even being productive. Avoiding the many interesting varieties of consciousness that are available to human beings will certainly tend to lock you into the producer/consumer framework that generates profits for the business community. I've found that a lot of Marijuana smokers have discovered the very personal nature of reality and through that have decided that the American Dream of infinite wealth, eternal youth, and unbending conformity is not nearly as interesting as its promoters would have them believe. They no longer want the same things as the mainstream and this is labeled as being somehow pathological.

My problem with producing far too much REM activity definitely is helped by smoking Marijuana before bed time. Prior to its use I would lie around in a hypnogogic state for hours, both dreaming and awake, aware that I was dreaming but unable to move. I'd dream all night (confirmed by a sleep study) and wake up exhausted. Marijuana allows me to go into true sleep quickly, dream for a while, and then get some serious deep dreamless sleep.

__________________

Buzzby

I feel no need to rationalize my Marijuana use. That would imply that I felt there was something wrong with it. You're not going to find much guilt like that on this site. I like to get high. It's fun and a great way to wind down from a day of doing very organized mental work. I've used it moderately for 36 years and have never experienced any kind of adverse effect other than a stuffy nose and getting busted for possession in 1970. The fact that it helps me sleep better is just icing on the cake.

I'm currently using two prescribed meds as well as smoked cannabis to help me get some restful sleep. They seem to work synergistically. I've tried each singly and in every possible combination. Each adds something to the mix.

Cassius

Picking nits perhaps, but... isn't decreasing latency a GOOD thing? And how can you eliminate something if you're decreasing its latency?

Latency = delay before something occurs
Decreasing = delay goes down

Therefore you're saying that THC makes REM sleep occur more quickly?

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

fanatic4488

Well, I have an extremely limited amount of time to respond, but I'll take a few stabs. First off, I am aware that the bulk of research on the effects of THC on REM is outdated. Most of it was done in the 70's and 80's. In fact, I criticized the research on this connection in my previous posting, so why it's being used critically against me now I'm not exactly sure. I made no attempts to hide that weakness. The reason many of my sources are outdated is because there really hasn't been much recent research on this topic. I did very thorough searches in databases such as Medscape, Psych Info, Science Direct, etc., and this appears to be all there is. That is why I concluded that more research is needed. Second, there are the concerns about rats, rabbits, cats, and monkeys being used in this research. Certainly, there is a flaw in that it is difficult to get approval from ethics commitees to do drug research on human beings. However, if you read carefully, you noticed that some of the research was done with humans, and the results were 100% consistent with the animal research. Keep in mind that mammals have sleep cycles just like humans do. You see the same brain wave recordings on EEG from rats, for example, as you do in humans, and the same 5 sleep stages (including REM). It is simple observable fact. Also, I want to make myself clear...I'm not a cannbis is the devil kind of guy. I am convinced that the truth lies in between the frantic, misguided "reefer madness" style propoganda and the desparate rantings of potheads who tend not to draw connections between use and effect even if it is proven otherwise (I can't even BEGIN to cite all the studies demonsrating that). Cannabis is, all in all, far less harmful than many other psychoactive drugs (e.g. cocaine, heroin, and yes....good ol' legal nicotine). However, I am convinced that, for a person such as myself who wishes to function at his greatest capability, THC use should be avoided. And yes, cannabis is highly addictive. It would be rare to see a long-term cannabis user build an actual physical dependence to the drug, but the psychological dependence is, in objective studies, equal to that of some of the more harmful drugs. I understand most of you will probably disagree with me. And the mere fact that I have worked with so many people who are highly psychologically dependent on this drug means nothing to you. In fact, you consider me biased because of it. Well, yes, I am biased...everyone is. But I would respectfully wager that I am far less biased than most of the people on this site. I do not use marijuana, so I have no hidden objective that will either consciously or subconsciously cause me to slip into that all-too-common human trap of confirmation bias. However, if THC could be proven to have far more to offer me and far fewer downsides, then I just might be the first one to want to legalize it. Also, I don't use government research in my papers (unless I want to mention what the government says about something specifically), and it is highly uncomon for me to use NIDA-sponsored or NIH-sponsored research. An exception would be the National Monitoring the Future study, because there really isn't a better national study to help us get a clear picture of how who uses what. Lastly, a challenge to those who have been smoking pot daily for decades. If you don't think cannabis is psychologically addicting, if you don't think that you are obsessed with chasing that high, then try this out...abstain for the next 30 days. You will likely experience the common withdrawal symptoms that we see in long-term cannabis users. After withdrawal, most of these side-effects will subside. However, I'm sure you will find yourself craving that high for quite some time (as most of my cannabis addicts with long-term use patterns do). Anticipation will probably transfer into preoccupation, and you will likely go right back to your use, even if it has led to negative consequences that you fail to recognize or try your best to rationalize. And that, my friend, is when you will know that you are probably an addict. Don't take my word for it, and feel free to disagree with me, but do try it for yourself. I REALLY got to go...

Higher Logic

The reason many of my sources are outdated is because there really hasn't been much recent research on this topic.

That is absolutely wrong. There are literally hundreds of recent studies, and new ones are constantly showing up. I urge you to utilize not only the resources on this board, but that of other sites.

However, if you read carefully, you noticed that some of the research was done with humans, and the results were 100% consistent with the animal research.

That's fine and all, but there's something called media literacy. It's being able to discern between good and bad sources, being able to know how the study was performed, who performed it, and for whom they were doing it for. There are countless medical studies done indepenedently that have all come to the same conclusion: that cannabis is a safe, non-addictive substance.

Cannabis is, all in all, far less harmful than many other psychoactive drugs (e.g. cocaine, heroin, and yes....good ol' legal nicotine).

Cannabis is actually much safer than many of the foods you consume daily. Not only does have it zero toxicity and zero deaths, but the health benefits regarding it are simply astounding. When's the last time someone argued for medicinal tobacco?

However, I am convinced that, for a person such as myself who wishes to function at his greatest capability, THC use should be avoided.

You're right, it isn't for everyone. But neither is alcohol, or anything else people do.

And yes, cannabis is highly addictive.

Plenty of research will disagree with you on that:

Check this out:

================================================== ==================================
Henningfield Ratings
================================================== ==================================
Substance......Withdrawal.....Reinforcement...Tole rance....Dependence....Intoxication
================================================== ==================================
Nicotine...........3..............4..............2 ..............1..............5.....
Heroin.............2..............2..............1 ..............2..............2.....
Cocaine............4..............1..............4 ..............3..............3.....
Alcohol............1..............3..............3 ..............4..............1.....
Caffeine...........5..............6..............5 ..............5..............6.....
Marijuana..........6..............5..............6 ..............6..............4.....
================================================== ==================================

================================================== ==================================
Benowitz Ratings
================================================== ==================================
Substance......Withdrawal.....Reinforcement...Tole rance....Dependence....Intoxication
================================================== ==================================
Nicotine...........3*.............4..............4 ..............1..............6.....
Heroin.............2..............2..............2 ..............2..............2.....
Cocaine............3*.............1..............1 ..............3..............3.....
Alcohol............1..............3..............4 ..............4..............1.....
Caffeine...........4..............5..............3 ..............5..............5.....
Marijuana..........5..............6..............5 ..............6..............4.....
================================================== ==================================

*Equal ratings

1 = Most serious, 6 = Least serious


Withdrawal Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.
Reinforcement A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.

Tolerance How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.

Dependence How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.

Intoxication Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.

I do not use Marijuana, so I have no hidden objective that will either consciously or subconsciously cause me to slip into that all-too-common human trap of confirmation bias.

You have a bias right there. You do not use cannabis. How can you honestly say it's addictive or anything else about it without actually using it?

If you don't think cannabis is psychologically addicting, if you don't think that you are obsessed with chasing that high, then try this out...abstain for the next 30 days. You will likely experience the common withdrawal symptoms that we see in long-term cannabis users.

And you would be proven wrong. 30 days is nothing. There are people on here who have absolutly no problem quitting for extended periods of time, 3 months, 6 months, a year. Myself including. What are "common withdrawl" symptons? The only thing I've ever experienced are my dreams get much more crazier than normal. Other than that, I have no problem falling asleep still, I have no problem eating, I have no problem getting motivated to clean the house, I have no problem studying, I have no problem doing anything else.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though on this one. Some people do experience some withdrawl problems, but that by no means you are highly addicted to something. Check out the Withdrawl Symptons listed here:

http://www.marijuana.com/marimed/ch3_t2.html

What do you see listed? Restlessness, irritability, sleep disturbance. That's pretty much it. That goes away in probably 4 days. Try quitting cigarettes, after 1 day you are like a female going through PMS on a heavy day

Also, check out this (from the same link above). It has some really helpful insights:

http://www.marijuana.com/marimed/index-2.html

And don't forget our good friend Jack Herer:

http://www.jackherer.com

You said you deal with people who are "addicted" to cannabis all day. May I ask what your job is? Are these people sent here from the courts to go through "rehab," or do these people do other drugs? You need to elaborate a little more.

I could have torn your reply down a lot more, but don't have the time because you will find the same thing over this site from most anyone else; we'll see what the others say about this though.

fanatic4488

Okay, where to start? First off, you stated, "That is absolutely wrong. There are literally hundreds of recent studies, and new ones are constantly showing up. I urge you to utilize not only the resources on this board, but that of other sites."

Great....please tell me what studies. Are they from good sources that I can acces? I have searched high and low and this is all I or anyone else I have talked to have found. I used some of the most reliable and well-established research databases in social sciences. I use only peer-reviewed, well-established professional journals. I am very familiar with good sources and bad sources, I have taken many a research class in the social sciences. I am reluctant to accept any government sources or studies funded by or afilliated with special intersts groups, such as NORML, which are groups that are far too biased to be a good source. I am very familiar with Jack Herer (who is afiilliated with NORML) and have been to his site many times and discussed The Emperor Wears no Clothes. He is a biased source, and his credentials suck (if I recall correctly, his training is in the legal field...he's not a medical doctor, a psyhchologist or social scientist, etc.). His data is highly misleading. For example, the statement that there are no marijuana-related deaths is extremely misleading. I have seen for myself medical reports in which chronic marijuana use was considered the cause of death. I have seen, for example, lung cancer deaths in which there is not evidence of nicotine use, but there is long-term cannabis use, and other common causes of lung cancer were eliminated. I know this is rare, partly because most cannabis users also smoke tobacco products (notice I certainly say most and not all). Also, if a person who is stoned crazy gets behind a wheel, wrecks, and dies, wouldn't you consider it possible that the delayed reaction and impaired judgement that certainly all of us agree are factors while you are stoned could be a contributor? I could go on with examples for hours....next point.

You stated, "You do not use cannabis. How can you honestly say it's addictive or anything else about it without actually using it?" That is laughable. Do I have to use heroin to decide it is addictive? Do I have to use cocaine to decide it is addictive? Do I have to smoke cigarettes to decide it is addictive? Of course not. I rely on empircal evidence. First-hand experience actually destroys the ability to be objective. Try telling the chronic alcholic that he has a drug problem, for example....he will rationalize and justify all over the place. Euphorical recall and confirmation bias are two of reasons why he can't draw this connection (among multiple others), even though to all the rational people who observe his life see it. A common cheap shot that I get from cannabis dependent clients is something along these lines: "If you haven't smoked weed, how can you tell me that I'm addicted? I usually flip to the medical section of their chart and find one of their medical problems. I might, for example, be talking to a diabetic. I will say something along these lines: "I see that you have been diagnosed with diabetes. Do you believe it?" The client will invariably say, "Yes." I will then ask, "Who provided you that diagnosis?" Eventually, I will ask, "When your doctor diagnosed you with diabetes, did you stop him and say, 'Woah, doc, are you diabetic? Cuz if you're not, how can you diagnos me with diabetes?"

Next, it is possible that 30 days is nothing to you. It is possible that you are not addicted to cannabis. It is also possible that you are in the early stages of addiction. I certainly don't know enough about you. I know that there are many people who smoke weed that aren't addicted to it. But I challenge long-term cannabis users to take the 30-day challenge (seriously). You may learn a lot about yourself in the process.

Next, you have to understand what addiction is. Addiction is not being a bum on the street who squandered his fortune getting high. First off, substance abuse, in simplest terms, is when your use is causing you a problem (any problem at all) OR is causing another person a problem (e.g. family argument about use). To put addiction in its simplest terms, I like Dr. Drew Pinsky's common statment (he's the psychiatrist and Certified Addiction Medicine Specialist that chills with Adam Corolla on Love Line): "Addiction is continued use despite negative consequences (i.e. problems). There is a DSM-IV diagnosis of substance dependence that gets much more detailed, and phsyical dependence and addiction, although related, are NOT synonomous. You'd be surprised how many people fit the diagnostic criteria of substance dependence without even vaguely considering themselves addicted.

Lastly, you seem to want to know more about my professional background. First off, I am still young and have a lot to learn. I am 24. I first started working in substance abuse treatment when I turned 19, although I had firsthand exposure to this disease before that. I have worked as a substance abuse educator and community liaison at a juvenile facitility. After that, I worked under a psychiatrist as a mental health technician at a reputable private (and EXTREMELY expensive) substance abuse and mental health treatment center. My on-the-side part time job was as an outreach team leader for the Department of Health, Childhood Lead Intervention Team (which dealt with lead poisoning), where I mostly did research and public education under an ARNP's supervision. I obtained my BA in Psychology from a state university, where I completed my directed study on THC's effects on the adult human body under a social psychologist's supervision. There, I also completed a correlational study on marijuana use and functioning in educational settings. I then worked as a substance abuse counselor for a multidisciplinary team of medical and psychological staff at a residential center for youth ages 16-26 who were under Department of Corrections-supervision but were identified as substance dependent by our screeners and assessors, and diagnosed prior to admit by a psychiatrist for dependence. I became a board-certified addiction professional, as well as a certified addiction prevention professional. I currently am working on my Masters in Rehabiltiation and Mental Health Counseling with a concentration in substance abuse counseling. I work 3 jobs...still substituting for counselors at the residential treatment center and still doing occasional research projects and presentations for the department of health. But my full-time job is as a senior vocational rehabilitation counselor, where I work with a variety of medical and psychological conditions. I'm not being boastful in any of this (like I said, I have a LOT to learn), but I'm not your typical 24 year old who just rants and raves on the internet from time to time either.

Mamabudz

The reason your research is xso old, is that research on marijuana was Prohibite -- yes science was censored -- by the government until just before the start of this new millenia. Most information was not available outside the universities where studies were done and the majority of work continued overseas.

The internet has brought a great deal -- but not all -- of this new knwoledge to the availability of folks -- like us.

For additional and future researc might I suggest:

* using scientific terminology -- rather than lay terminology
* Yahoo search or the new Google Scholar
* and do look at sources outside the US where research has continued -- BabelFish by Altavista is a program that can translate most Western European languages to American style English -- and is a free service.

By the way, your information on Cancer is pure propoganda you are being shown. Post mortem autopsy of lung tissue of long term marijuana users has shown pre-cancerous lesions; however, it has been indeterminate whether these lesions are causational (caused by cannabis use) or if in fact cannabis use -- with it's documented necrosis/apostosis abilities -- has in fact protected the tissues from becoming cancerous and mestastizing.

You show an interested mind and the ability to learn -- Before you disavow any knowledge from any location -- I suggest you do further research with an open mind.

That is the sign of a scientific thinking.

Have a cookie

Mama Budz