U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-26-2012, 01:34 PM
 
Location: New England
914 posts, read 1,535,911 times
Reputation: 925

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post

I suppose you're half right. I'm not fully agreeing! People have that major problem called "addictive personalities".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-26-2012, 03:23 PM
 
4,980 posts, read 7,758,835 times
Reputation: 2859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
The thing about pot is that there are different doses, some with more "stuff" than others...at least that's what I've heard. I remember when I was back in 1972 as a sophomore, there was a little discussion, in which there were people saying that pot was somewhat stronger than it used to be. Of course, now, it is still stronger still.

So in various places where it is grown, I wonder if it still gets stronger depending on who is grows it. Or, if it has leveled off or if it some are still working at getting the strength up.
A look at various articles on the Internet support the view that there are stronger forms today than there were back in 1960s and 70s. But there are also those that are not much different than those from decades ago. The reason has to do with a number of factors, including cross-breeding, selective cuttings from seedless female plants, and so forth. In effect, it's not much different in that sense than better forms of roses, fruit trees, and vegetable crops, where better strains are developed for fragrance, flavor, texture, better resistance to pests, etc.

With regard to MJ, there are growers who have managed to increase potency. Ironically, The Straight Dope () recently had an article on the question "Is marijuana stronger than is used to be?" That doesn't mean the article should be taken as being authoritative, but it's probably reasonably close. In general the answer is that, yes, there are stronger varieties available today, but there are also weaker varieties that aren't much different than those from 30-40 years ago.
The Straight Dope: Is marijuana stronger than it used to be?

It's no mystery that there are people who use MJ for recreational purposes to just get stoned. But there is more support today than in the past that it can provide valid benefit to some people for certain medical conditions. The problem with MJ is that there's no consistent dosing. That kind of variation can occur in identical strains or even from the same plant.

Not all patients are interested in getting bombed to the gills, but are more interested in just enough to provide a level of relief that's helpful. That too is bound to vary from person to person, which means a person needs to try different amounts to determine how much is going to work for their particular condition.

There are synthetic forms of THC, manufactured by pharmaceutical companies, but evidently it doesn't work as well as the real thing. The US government also grows MJ for research and provide free to a very small number of patients, but the quality has been claimed to be pretty weak.

Just for what it's worth, I'm no "expert" on the subject, but I have read up a little on it. I'm sure there are others who are far more knowledgeable than I am. However, I do feel that if it can be beneficial in helping a person relieve certain medical conditions, and can be beneficial in helping regain some degree in restoring the quality of their life, then it should be available as an alternative to some of the pharmaceutical meds if it is appropriate in certain cases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2012, 10:15 AM
 
1,092 posts, read 916,497 times
Reputation: 1653
Default And your point is...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
The problem with MJ is that there's no consistent dosing. That kind of variation can occur in identical strains or even from the same plant.

Not all patients are interested in getting bombed to the gills, but are more interested in just enough to provide a level of relief that's helpful. That too is bound to vary from person to person, which means a person needs to try different amounts to determine how much is going to work for their particular condition.
I have read that some DR's (links to big pharma maybe?) they have a problem with marijuana on two counts:

1) That there is not consistent potency, and therefore inconsistent dosing may occur.

There are two answers to that. a) It is a non-toxic substance, so unlike prescription drugs, like percoset, which can kill, if you take too much cannabis, you will either go to sleep or raid the fridge. b) Patients are perfectly capable of dosing themselves, and if they are using a state distribution center, will know what the potency is, and can learn which potency benefits them the most.

2) Dr's have a hard time accepting smoking as a drug delivery method, or so they say.

a) what they don't seem, to remember is that smoking, as a delivery method of a drug (nicotine), has been used in this country since it's inception. We may, as a society, object to second hand smoke and the smell, but the evidence is clear, smoking, as a delivery method for drugs, works very well. Also studies have shown that cannabs users who smoke only cannabis do not show the type of lung damage and cancer that you would expect, although the conbination of both cannabis and tobacco does show such damage.

b) there are many other ways to ingest cannabis (or nicotine for that matter) such as patches, foods, tictures, oils, vaporizers, etc.

Another thing to keep in mind, just because something is more powerful doesn't ascribe some evil power to it. Scotch is much more powerful than beer. We all know that. If we want to "get a buzz" we know how much beer to drink, and how much less scotch you need, to get to the same place.

Likewise cannabis users know how much they need to use based on strength too. They are cannabis users, not stupid, and they don't need anyone to protect them from themselves, or a plant.

Not all use is abuse!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2012, 10:48 PM
 
4,980 posts, read 7,758,835 times
Reputation: 2859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beaconowner View Post
I have read that some DR's (links to big pharma maybe?) they have a problem with marijuana on two counts:
It's possible some physicians are influenced by "big pharma". I'm more inclined to think the problem is probably related to being influenced by the antiquated 'Reefer Madness' propaganda point of view. There are physicians who think like that, but it's also clear there are physicians who view the use as a valid alternative medication to certain pharmaceuticals that may have more risky side effects.


Quote:
1) That there is not consistent potency, and therefore inconsistent dosing may occur.

There are two answers to that. a) It is a non-toxic substance, so unlike prescription drugs, like percoset, which can kill, if you take too much cannabis, you will either go to sleep or raid the fridge. b) Patients are perfectly capable of dosing themselves, and if they are using a state distribution center, will know what the potency is, and can learn which potency benefits them the most.
I agree with both points. While dosing can be inconsistent, as I said, a patient needs to try different amounts (or different varieties) to know how much will work best for their particular condition. Some might require more and some might require less to reach a suitable level.


Quote:
2) Dr's have a hard time accepting smoking as a drug delivery method, or so they say.

a) what they don't seem, to remember is that smoking, as a delivery method of a drug (nicotine), has been used in this country since it's inception. We may, as a society, object to second hand smoke and the smell, but the evidence is clear, smoking, as a delivery method for drugs, works very well. Also studies have shown that cannabs users who smoke only cannabis do not show the type of lung damage and cancer that you would expect, although the conbination of both cannabis and tobacco does show such damage.

b) there are many other ways to ingest cannabis (or nicotine for that matter) such as patches, foods, tictures, oils, vaporizers, etc.
The only part in point a) that I would add is that not only has tobacco been used in this country since its inception, but so has MJ. Hemp was grown by the founding fathers for the production of fiber, although I don't know if they ever smoked it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they indulged now and then.

You're quite right. Although smoking it usually provides a quick delivery, there are other methods that can be used. The thing about smoking is that it delivers ash particles and tars into the lungs, which may not be desirable for some people. Vaporizers are probably as quick as smoking. Other methods may take longer to achieve results, but are said to last longer. It really depends on whether a person wants the results to be quicker or not. With vaporizers or traditional smoking, you have more control over the dosing, which is harder to do with patches, foods, oils, etc.


Quote:
Another thing to keep in mind, just because something is more powerful doesn't ascribe some evil power to it. Scotch is much more powerful than beer. We all know that. If we want to "get a buzz" we know how much beer to drink, and how much less scotch you need, to get to the same place.
That's neither here nor there. It's up to the individual. But I do agree that there's no 'evil power' to it. I still think the article in the OP is pretty strange in terms of the trials of providing Gabapentin to "help" people kick the habit. Some some people think it's some kind of out of control habit, I'd be inclined to think it's probably not the MJ that's the real cause of their problem.


Quote:
Likewise cannabis users know how much they need to use based on strength too. They are cannabis users, not stupid, and they don't need anyone to protect them from themselves, or a plant.
It's not about stupidity, etc. For people who are more experienced, I agree that they pretty much know how much to consume to achieve the desired results. That's not necessarily the case for first time users. They may need to try different amounts to determine what seems suitable for themselves.


Quote:
Not all use is abuse!
Agreed! However, there are some (not all) who do abuse it. For example, it's not a good idea to hop in the car to run to the store for some munchies while you're under the influence. There's a risk that such an action can be a hazard to other people. Same thing goes for other meds or alcohol that can cause drowsiness and slow alertness. It should be used responsibly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top