# Nick Diaz Explains Why Weed Is Good For You.



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

> “Well, people’s problem from what I see is they can’t stop taking pain pills once they start. And you’re not too good all pilled out, you know? Nobody does good all, you know, I mean I can’t say because I don’t take the shit, but I see them. I have a lot of friends who do a lot of drugs. There’s a lot of people everywhere that do a lot of drugs”.
> 
> “Everybody, everybody, is on drugs dude. If they’re not, they’re an alcoholic or something. I don’t know if you noticed that or whatever, look around. The thing is, you know?, it’s just, it would be a lot healthier for people to think, you know?, it could be, shit, this sort of thing could be the healthiest thing someone does out of their day. Let’s take for example a person whose laying in bed, a cancer patient, a fat person, if you will”.
> 
> ...


Source......http://www.matratz.com/2009/04/03/nick-diaz-expalines-why-bud-is-good-for-you/

Hmm. Thoughts...


----------



## ZeroPRIDE (Apr 12, 2006)

wtf on the first to quotes. doesnt weed fill your lungs with water? atleast thats what ive heard. ir was always tough for me to breath after. the stuff about tobacco is spot on though. overall pretty interesting.


----------



## faustus34 (Jul 17, 2007)

There are plenty of so called natural substances that are not only not good for you, but that can kill you. This guy has fried way too many brain cells. Ever see him talk? Wow, just wow! He would be great for a scared straight program, lol.


----------



## D.P. (Oct 8, 2008)

I don't even know what to say lol.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ZeroPRIDE said:


> wtf on the first to quotes. doesnt weed fill your lungs with water? atleast thats what ive heard. ir was always tough for me to breath after. the stuff about tobacco is spot on though. overall pretty interesting.


weed does not fill your lungs with water. the problems you experience are the hot smoke causing discomfort to your lungs.


----------



## LV 2 H8 U (Nov 7, 2006)

Thanks Nick, now they'll never legalize it:confused03:


----------



## Combat Soul (Oct 2, 2008)

Um...was he high during the interview? He might have a point somewhere in there about tobacco and the chemicals that are added to it but other than that he sounded like a bumbling idiot.

Are him and Nate a little bit retarded? Did they drop out of school really young too?


----------



## Freelancer (Jul 5, 2007)

I'm not sure I understood a single thing he said.:confused02:


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Weed is a hell of a lot better for you than the tobacoo they sell in shops, but that doesn't make it healthy lol.

Inhaling smoke is never healthy, no matter where it comes from, I don't care if you set a pice of brocolli on fire.


----------



## MooJuice (Dec 12, 2008)

hey guys i work and study in the area of medicine, and i also have more experience with recreational drugs than probably most people in my city. I dont use much at all these days, but my interests in drugs let me to study pharmacology, and my interests (and contacts ) in pharmacology led me to study more drugs, and from there i've gone into meicine, and for the most part had my fun with drugs and am now focussed on work etc.

anyway, the point i'm getting to is that no, weed is not good for you. In fact, in all my experiences with drugs (which include drugs that dont even have street names yet) i can probably say that weed is my *least* favourite. it just doesnt mesh with me. But for many of my friends it's their drug of choice, and it has an interesting culture surrounding it. Because it's so popular, especially amoungst people who "dont do drugs" (who consider weed not to be a drug) there is lots of misinformation out there about how safe and how "good for you" weed is, etc etc. I'm not going to get out my textbooks or anything, but here's the lowdown:

weed is not good for you. weed is bad for you. weed, however, is not as bad for you as many other things. Yes, weed can be beneficial to some people..but those people pretty much always have chronic illnesses, and the weed doesnt make them healthier directly, it is simply used to counteract some unhealthy side effects of their other treatments. (eg weed can be used to make cancer patients who have lost their appetite feel like eating again, etc)

the reason weed is bad for you is primarily because any hot particles that you are inhaling into your lungs aren't going to be good for you. Your lungs are not just big balloons; your alveoli (the things that expand and pass oxygen into ur bloodstream) have the form of broccoli sortof, and are amazingly thin and fragile. simply inhaling super hot air regularly would also be bad for you; having it filled with smoke just exacerbates the problem. 

as for psychosis and whatnot, that is a much longer explanation and is dependant on many issues. to be stupendously succinct, research basically concludes that smoking pot cant give you schizophenia unless you are pre-disposed to it, however it can **** up your motivation, energy levels and lower level brain functions if you abuse the hell out of it and get high every day. 

It is not addictive in the chemical sense; few substances are. but everything in this world can be addictive psychologically, (such as eating certain foods etc) and weed certainly falls into that category. As such, quitting weed after a really long time of heavy use can cause u some issues, BUT - and here is the important part: in terms of brain functions, unless you are pre-disposed to schizophenia, essentially all issues that weed can cause (lack of motivation, etc) will go away in time after you stop smoking (or eating) weed. but for the most part these issues are rarely a big deal anyway; we get more severe symptoms from breaking up with our girlfriends etc (another form of psychological addiction  )

so, in conclusion, weed isnt good for you. it hurts your lungs, because anything hot and filled with particles will hurt your lungs - they were made for air and air only. cigarettes are worse in the physical damage sense. In terms of mental damage, it's (usually, and i stress USUALLY) all temporary anyway, and not that severe unless you are getting permastoned for months on end.

finally, just to wrap up about diaz's comments on cigarettes, yes, people would still get cancer even without the chemicals. look at rolling tobacco, or even better, look at handmade cigars. they still give you cancer. maybe not as fast as tailormade cigs, but they still do. why? for the same reason i've said before, and so did someone else i think - any pariculate smoke that isnt air that is going into your lungs regularly is not good for you.

anyway i could do another giant post on why diaz's comments on pain pill were half wrong and half right, but i wont for now. i just figure that i love mma, but a lot of people here know more about it than me; so i mostly just read and rarely post. but when it comes to medicine, drugs or both, i figure i can at least contribute there, in order to give back some of all the education i get every day from reading everyone else's great posts on MMA.

thats all for now  goodnight.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

This makes me think Nick Diaz has been hit in the head WAY to many times, lastly Weed is not good for you, there is something like 8 times as much tar in a joint as in a cigarette, the only people who still try to convince anyone weed is better than cigarettes is people who smoke to much weed, the truth is its just as bad and considering most people who smoke pot also smoke cigarettes......


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

Toxic said:


> This makes me think Nick Diaz has been hit in the head WAY to many times, lastly Weed is not good for you, there is something like 8 times as much tar in a joint as in a cigarette, the only people who still try to convince anyone weed is better than cigarettes is people who smoke to much weed, the truth is its just as bad and considering most people who smoke pot also smoke cigarettes......


 
When did Nick develop this notion that he makes any kind of logical sense or that he should express his uneducated points of view??????:confused02:


----------



## jcal (Oct 15, 2006)

You gotta love nick diaz as fried as he is, he can still fight. In 2007 there were approximately 4 million deaths associated with smoking complications and as for pot they dont have the statistics but we can assume its nowhere near 1000. Moo juice is right though, it is not good for your lungs to smoke pot at all. Pot doesnt have the same toxins in it as tobacco so it is far less dangerous though. And nobody could smoke 20-30 joints a day but they do that with cigs everyday. So Nick aint completely wrong, just doesnt really know.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

jcal said:


> You gotta love nick diaz as fried as he is, he can still fight. In 2007 there were approximately 4 million deaths associated with smoking complications and as for pot they dont have the statistics but we can assume its nowhere near 1000. Moo juice is right though, it is not good for your lungs to smoke pot at all. Pot doesnt have the same toxins in it as tobacco so it is far less dangerous though. And nobody could smoke 20-30 joints a day but they do that with cigs everyday. So Nick aint completely wrong, just doesnt really know.


 
one joint of "regs" equals the same amount of tar from one pack of cigs....TOXIC was right......:dunno:

Now myself, I only smoke the best weed....period and i usually use a gravity Bong.....lot worse than one joint, but I also train everyday........


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

I read about 3 sentences of this and my brain started to cry. It's like listening to a puppy that was given the ability to speak.


----------



## box (Oct 15, 2006)

That was hard to read, its one thing to listen to him talk like that.

Anyway, I smoked alot of weed in my day, I wouldnt say its good for you at all, other than getting you high. But people abuse alcohal alot worse than weed and noone says much about it. They need to legalize weed, so its on the same level as alcohal.


----------



## aimres (Oct 16, 2006)

coldcall420 said:


> When did Nick develop this notion that he makes any kind of logical sense or that he should express his uneducated points of view??????:confused02:


Sounds like your average American.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

I like how people try to say weed isnt bad for you, I want all of you who think Weed is better for you than ciggarettes to go an cut the filter off a cigarette and put it in the end of your next joint, take it apart after you smoke it and look how black and covered with resin it will be as compared to one from a cigarette butt.


----------



## jcal (Oct 15, 2006)

Tobacco have nicotine which is a potent poison and highly addictive. It also may contain radioactive elements from the fertilizers that are used on the plant. It is believed by some that the radioactive elements within the fertilizer may be one reason tobacco have a high association beside lung cancer.

Marijuana contains THC which has anti-tumor properties. The most recent research by Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA (the ascendant expert on the subject) found that marijuana smokers actually own a LOWER incidence of lung cancer than average. This may be due to the anti-tumor properties of marijuana. You can find newspaper articles chitchat about this research by penetrating http://www.mapinc.org

As for the fertilizers used on marijuana, those will vary according to who is growing it but I own met a large number of growers and every one of them expressed great diligence about choosing the correct (and safe) fertilizers for their product. They put slightly a bit of work into each plant so they tend to examine these things very obligingly. (This would not apply to ordinary Mexican weed.)

Tobacco also cause emphysema, while marijuana does not.


----------



## MooJuice (Dec 12, 2008)

jcal said:


> Tobacco have nicotine which is a potent poison and highly addictive. It also may contain radioactive elements from the fertilizers that are used on the plant. It is believed by some that the radioactive elements within the fertilizer may be one reason tobacco have a high association beside lung cancer.
> 
> Marijuana contains THC which has anti-tumor properties. The most recent research by Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA (the ascendant expert on the subject) found that marijuana smokers actually own a LOWER incidence of lung cancer than average. This may be due to the anti-tumor properties of marijuana. You can find newspaper articles chitchat about this research by penetrating http://www.mapinc.org
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, but in every case of a public issue like this there will ALWAYS be scientists on either side who claim one extreme or the other. Unfortunately, you can't just pick the guy who's on your side and only spout forth his views. It's better to look at clearly unbiased studies, if ur *actually* looking for the truth. Unfortunately tho, as is so often the case, the truth is more than often somewhere in the midle, and not nearly as super exiting as everyone thinks. 

So in this case, let me just pause you there and explain that i too, could find studies and articles about how even one joint can give you mental illnesses. As with studies that say that smoking pot actually lowers your chance of lung cancer than those who dont smoke at all and exercise well, etc etc....It just sounds a little...influenced, doesn't it? You gotta face the facts here man. 

If weed smoke was anti-tumour, would they not be isolating the exact agent that's lowering the instances of lung cancer, and use it as a cancer vaccine/treatment/cure? Because it surely would be such an amazing find that scientists all over the world would jump on it and, it would be discussed in unbiased, respected scientific forums and much, much more testing would be done.

Unfortunately tho it seems that it's probably just a flawed study that i've actually seen touted on other forums too. And often, when a study is flawed and has results like this, interpretations of it are twisted to end up saying outrageous things to support the people who truly have a point to make. 

So basically either tashkin is a pro marijuana campaigner who has let his own motives influence what should have been an unbiased study, or he did a study that had unforseen influencing factors and now pro-weed campaigners are jumping on it and saying that weed is the cure for cancer. (anti-tumour and less cancer implies anti malignant tumour, which implies anti-cancer.)

*edit: i've done some quick research using my uni sources (enables me to access online peer reviewed articles etc) and surprisingly, i havent found a seemingly neutral study on weed yet. there arent even many to begin with. and then i realised that it makes a lot of sense; research studies are funded by research grants, research grants are supplied by governments, governments have political agendas when it comes to drugs. Every single bit of pro-weed study that wud be available to the public (eg via a quick google search) always quotes tashkin for some or all of their material. Ideally, i wud be multilingual and would have access to european studies on the matter - as many european countries seem to be more neutral (and thus properly scientific; science should never be political) on the topics of drugs. Nearly every successful opiate substitution program has originated in europe, because in america, giving drugs to drug addicts would be crucified in the media before it ever gained any credebility - and then it wud become apolitical argument and much less of a medical one. i suspect the same has happened here, but i dont have time to go trawling through european medical studies, so just take it from me that weed (nearly certainly) isnt good for you; nor does it cure cancer. 
(i say nearly certainly because i cant get all high and mighty about being neutral and open without acknowledging that all i have learned may be wrong, and anybody else may be right. However...i doubt it.)

anyway sorry to rain on your parade but i just wanted to clear that up. altho on the same note i have never heard from a reputable medical source that one joint has the tar of an entire pack of cigarettes either...All i know for sure is that weed smoke is worse because it is smoked unfiltered and often smoked closer to the roach, which means hotter and harsher air is entering your lungs. saying that one joint would have the tar from a PACK of cigarettes seems to me like the perfect example of the extreme other side of the weed debate.

anyway just trying to shed some truth on all this, as i've said it;s one of the few areas where i actually know what im talking about


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

It would not be the first substance that has been shown to reduce probability of a certain type of cancer.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

I love this thread, I smoke cigarettes and used to smoke weed, the only diffrence between the two is every single person who smokes cigarettes acknowledges its bad for them and most know they should quit, the pot head will argue he isnt really addicited (they are) and that its "only weed" and its not bad for them to somehow justify it, but the truth is that it is detrimental to there heath, although admittedly I think a water bong is probably considerably heathier than a joint inhalation of smoke is never gonna be heathy I dont care what your burning.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

I agree, no smoke inhalation is harmless. But its also true that a ton of commercial ingredients are added to cigs that usually aren't added to weed. and additionally i'd say there are potential medical applications for THC (they prescribe marinol and weed after all) that really just dont exist for nicotine/cigs. In fact nicotine's primary use outside of tobacco is as a pest control spray.


----------



## MooJuice (Dec 12, 2008)

HexRei said:


> It would not be the first substance that has been shown to reduce probability of a certain type of cancer.


Yeah, you're right. I editted that out of my post as soon as i read it myself, because i realised it was wrong.




> I love this thread, I smoke cigarettes and used to smoke weed, the only diffrence between the two is every single person who smokes cigarettes acknowledges its bad for them and most know they should quit, the pot head will argue he isnt really addicited (they are) and that its "only weed" and its not bad for them to somehow justify it, but the truth is that it is detrimental to there heath, although admittedly I think a water bong is probably considerably heathier than a joint inhalation of smoke is never gonna be heathy I dont care what your burning.


As with so many other posts in this thread, you too are on the ball. on all of your points.


it's actually great to see threads and replies like this, because it shows that so many MMA fans are not the bloodthirsty ******* fools who we are so often portrayed as, but actually (from what i can see on mmaforum) pretty high on the bell curve when it comes to topics outside of MMA too.

makes me a little happier inside, really.


----------



## MooJuice (Dec 12, 2008)

HexRei said:


> I agree, no smoke inhalation is harmless. But its also true that a ton of commercial ingredients are added to cigs that usually aren't added to weed. and additionally i'd say there are potential medical applications for THC (they prescribe marinol and weed after all) that really just dont exist for nicotine/cigs. In fact nicotine's primary use outside of tobacco is as a pest control spray.


yes, cigs have a tonne of commerically added chemicals that are added to preserve the tobacco, and to control the burn rate of the cigarettes, as well as many other things. so you are definitely on point there.

as for theraputic uses of nicotine, you are slightly off. because of nicotine's properties as a cognitive stimulant, it does actually have uses in older patients with deteriorating cognitive ability. these arent peer reviewed studies, but a quick public google search gave me this: 
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=39963

I wont go into it more, but yeah. just remember; there are two sides to almost *every* coin.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

For the most part we got a really good group of intelligent regular posters here we get the occasional troll but they ussually get themselves weeded out pretty quickly.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

good, point, didnt know about that 

^ that last at moojuice, i know we got tha smarties around here


----------



## jcal (Oct 15, 2006)

Toxic said:


> I love this thread, I smoke cigarettes and used to smoke weed, the only diffrence between the two is every single person who smokes cigarettes acknowledges its bad for them and most know they should quit, the pot head will argue he isnt really addicited (they are) and that its "only weed" and its not bad for them to somehow justify it, but the truth is that it is detrimental to there heath, although admittedly I think a water bong is probably considerably heathier than a joint inhalation of smoke is never gonna be heathy I dont care what your burning.


If you smoke cigs than I can imagine your cardio must suck and if your cardio sucks you cant fight for shit (FACT) So I guess hard core training is out for you toxic


----------



## The Horticulturist (Feb 16, 2009)

wow. I like everyone here, but there are some dummies comparing tobacco to cannabis. Sorry, I smoke from a vaporizor always, and I can still hold my breath for 80 seconds when im diving. Cavemen smoke joints, people who are realistic about the possible consequences know how to level things out, and how to get the THC into your system without inhaling tar and paper. Once I got older I decided to not smoke it ever unfiltered, and the furthest I will ever go is using my bong with ice in it (there goes the hot air theory). I have no problems with cardio at all in anything I do. the only thing that suffers is short term memory, for instance I'll pour a glass of milk, and walk away and not remember for 15 mins, but I hardly think its a big deal, since I remember. ANYWAY, thats an unnecessary run down of myself, Nick Diaz is like the thousands of idiot stoners I've had to deal with, Im sure in his mind he feels like he has a great point, but I can't believe at his age in this world he hasn't matured enough to shut up.


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

All this really explains in why Nick Diaz needs about 28 more years of education.


----------



## 70seven (Mar 5, 2007)

Well you know man, its like, I dont know, weed is not that bad you know, for like people that are sick and do nothing, weed is like somehting good for those who are like that and its like healthy you know. 

yeah right, I'm with MooJuice on this one, he seems like he knows what he's talking about. No one will ever convince me weed is good for you. I use to smoke every now and then when I was in college, laughed my ass off. But then I grew out of it and its not for me. I've seen some friends completely change after they started using weed regularly, I have some friends that are addicted to weed and they just change, for the worse. We all get addicted to stuff and form habbits. I'm addicted to Coffee and my BlackBerry, anyone who smoked as many joint as I drink coffee would be addicted. Weed can be good in some scenarios, those cancer patient and things like that. But I think its bad for almost everyone else. Medicinal Weed is far different than the hydroponic baggie people buy off the streets.


----------



## HeavyRob (Nov 3, 2008)

haha, you know? that's funny.... you know?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

70seven said:


> I have some friends that are addicted to weed


No you don't.





70seven said:


> I'm addicted to Coffee and my BlackBerry,


No you are not.





70seven said:


> anyone who smoked as many joint as I drink coffee would be addicted.


No they wouldn't.


Stop misusing the word addicted.


----------



## Robbsville (Sep 13, 2008)

I love Nick Diaz the guy is total class, I think we could all learn a thing or two from listening to him.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

ZeroPRIDE said:


> wtf on the first to quotes. doesnt weed fill your lungs with water? atleast thats what ive heard. ir was always tough for me to breath after. the stuff about tobacco is spot on though. overall pretty interesting.


No, smoking THC actually cause your lungs to expand for a brief period of time. The damage caused from inhaling the smoke, however, is definitely worse than any short term benefit from the expansion.

If you were to eat marijuana there is no known negative side effect long term.



TheNegation said:


> No you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Partially correct. You can become addicted to caffiene. It is actually highly addictive. You cannot become physically or mentally addicted to marijuana, but that doesn't stop it from becoming habit forming and hard to stop.



faustus34 said:


> There are plenty of so called natural substances that are not only not good for you, but that can kill you. This guy has fried way too many brain cells. Ever see him talk? Wow, just wow! He would be great for a scared straight program, lol.


It is physically impossible to kill brain cells with pure marijuana.



TheNegation said:


> Weed is a hell of a lot better for you than the tobacoo they sell in shops, but that doesn't make it healthy lol.
> 
> Inhaling smoke is never healthy, no matter where it comes from, I don't care if you set a pice of brocolli on fire.


Truth. It doesn't matter whether somthing is natural or not. Inhaling any smoke into your lungs is bad for you, no matter what it is.



MooJuice said:


> thats all for now  goodnight.


As usual, lots of good info from you Moo. You know your stuff.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

*Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows*


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Toxic said:


> This makes me think Nick Diaz has been hit in the head WAY to many times, lastly Weed is not good for you, there is something like 8 times as much tar in a joint as in a cigarette, the only people who still try to convince anyone weed is better than cigarettes is people who smoke to much weed, the truth is its just as bad and considering most people who smoke pot also smoke cigarettes......





coldcall420 said:


> one joint of "regs" equals the same amount of tar from one pack of cigs....TOXIC was right......:dunno:
> 
> Now myself, I only smoke the best weed....period and i usually use a gravity Bong.....lot worse than one joint, but I also train everyday........





Toxic said:


> I love this thread, I smoke cigarettes and used to smoke weed, the only diffrence between the two is every single person who smokes cigarettes acknowledges its bad for them and most know they should quit, the pot head will argue he isnt really addicited (they are) and that its "only weed" and its not bad for them to somehow justify it, but the truth is that it is detrimental to there heath, although admittedly I think a water bong is probably considerably heathier than a joint inhalation of smoke is never gonna be heathy I dont care what your burning.


Marijauna smoke does cause more tar, but the amount is highly debatable. 

The only factor you guys are forgetting, no matter how you look at it, is that the average marijunana smoker (at least among my friends) *split* 1 joint like 3/4/5 ways, and only do it on friday and sat nights.

I don't know too many cigg smokers who have less than half a pack a day, but I know alot of people who say "I smoke weed", and only do it on the weekends, and in tiny portions.

Most of them can't even handle doing it more than once a night cause they are drinking the entire time (very excesively).


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Yeah, pot smokers generally smoke much less than tobacco smokers. the amount of tobacco in a pack of cigs (which many cig smokers go through in a day) would be a truly marathon session for a pot smoker, not to mention extremely expensive.


----------



## box (Oct 15, 2006)

Thats a great point. Even when I was smoking weed alot, we'd smoke a few bowls a day between like 5 people. While people smoking cigs are having a few before class, during lunch, break between class, after school, on the drive home....As with anything, the amount plays a big factor in how good/bad it is for your health. 

Life is bad for your health, mmmkay.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Ape City said:


> Marijauna smoke does cause more tar, but the amount is highly debatable.
> 
> The only factor you guys are forgetting, no matter how you look at it, is that the average marijunana smoker (at least among my friends) *split* 1 joint like 3/4/5 ways, and only do it on friday and sat nights.
> 
> ...



Most pot heads I know smoke 4-5 joints a day minimum and mostly by them selves, there is varying degrees but most adults who smoke weed have long passed the "recreational use" that is done by damn near everyone when they are younger.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Toxic said:


> Most pot heads I know smoke 4-5 joints a day minimum and mostly by them selves, there is varying degrees but most adults who smoke weed have long passed the "recreational use" that is done by damn near everyone when they are younger.


and there are 20 cigs in a pack. and i know a ton of people with a pack a day habit. Besides, just because you're an adult who smokes regularly doesn't mean you are an addict. An addiction isn't something you simply enjoy doing frequently. I like to work out, but I am not addicted. An addiction is something you have real difficulty stopping even when it is having a negative effect on the rest of your life.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Toxic said:


> Most pot heads I know smoke 4-5 joints a day minimum and mostly by them selves, there is varying degrees but most adults who smoke weed have long passed the "recreational use" that is done by damn near everyone when they are younger.


What I am saying is that the majority of the earths marijuana consuming population does not smoke 4-5 joints a day. I'd consider that a pothead. 

But that is partially where the difference lies. I know people who have been recreationally using weed for 10-15 years, and still only enjoy the odd joint once a week or so (usually a few rounds off someone elses joint).

You will be hard pressed to find people who recreationally smoke ciggs on the weekend and give it up 5 days a week.

But I am not arguing with you. You are correct that most potheads smoke alot, and by themselves. I was just pointing out that many people have no issue using weed every now and then for fun.




HexRei said:


> and there are 20 cigs in a pack. and i know a ton of people with a pack a day habit. Besides, just because you're an adult who smokes regularly doesn't mean you are an addict. An addiction isn't something you simply enjoy doing frequently. I like to work out, but I am not addicted. An addiction is something you have real difficulty stopping even when it is having a negative effect on the rest of your life.



It really comes down to the fact that people use the word in two different ways. Traditionally (and in my mind correctly) the word addict, or addiction is used to refer to a physical or psychological dependancy, and withdrawal from this dependacy causes severe chemical or physical consequences. 

When people say "I am addicted to nicotine, morphine, alcohol, caffiene etc, they are using the word in that sense.

It seems the word is used lately (incorrectly imo) to refer also to obsessions such as "addicted to video games, addicted to shopping," and such. 

Marijuana also falls into the latter category, as it is not chemically addictive. But that won't stop it from making you lazy, unmotivated, and out of shape if you let it.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Weed is adictive, dont think it isnt just because it doesnt have strong physical reactions people overtime develop a mental dependancy, my old roomate was a big pothead and always argued this with me so I bet him $500 he coulnt go two weeks with out smoking weed, 3 days in he came home threw $500 at me pulled out an ounce of weed and started rolling while I laughed my ass off.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

you can develop a mental dependency to chocolate or tv. or LOVE


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Not the same way, Weed is a depressant and is commonly used as a form of self medication lets not compare drugs and chocolate.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

chocolate has known neurochemical effects which can include addiction.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002822399003077

TV actually also has an effect on neurochemistry and in fact many activities like that can form psychological dependencies of the type that you claim marijuana can, including gambling, sex, etc.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Come on Hex, its one thing when people use the alchohol comparison as an argument for legalization because at least it has a leg to stand on but comparing it to chocolate and TV is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

maybe my link didnt work? i see now that it seems to be malfunctioning. let me find another, as chocolate definitely has strong neurotrasnmitter effects and can be addictive.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Slaughter.html

Interestingly that article even cites a study that found chocolate has chemicals that mimic some of the effects of marijuana.


----------



## box (Oct 15, 2006)

Props to your friend, Toxic. Most would just be like...haha **** you, i'm not paying. 

When i'm old and in pain, you can bet i'll be smoking weed everyday instead of taking asprin. It has great pain killing effects, and at that point who cares if its good for you or not .


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

I didnt realize chocolate was so addicttive but I still think comparing it to weed is a big stretch because it doesnt cause the same high, interesting kinda out of nowhere fact about chocolate and weed though, I can barely eat chocolate without feeling ill, this started after my first experiance wih mary jane, I was about 15 and got high and went for "munchies" it was around easter and the store had 1lb chocolate bunnies that looked very good at the time so I purchased one and ate all of it in one sitting, alchohol has nothing on the head ache a pound of chocolate will do to you, Ive never been so sick.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

I hardly smoke any more b/c it makes me get cravings. Primarily chocolate.

I was a regular user in my last couple of years of high school and all through college, and watched many a movie high after I got married.

I don't smoke tobacco. That's booze money FFS!


----------



## fjurado (Oct 23, 2008)

Wow, if he is a professional athlete in the young publics eye. Why would he even speak about it? What you do behind closed doors should be kept there, not out in the open specially when you have fans. That was bad publicity on his part.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

he has a legal medical prescription. since when do athletes need to lie about that?


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Toxic said:


> Weed is adictive, dont think it isnt just because it doesnt have strong physical reactions people overtime develop a mental dependancy, my old roomate was a big pothead and always argued this with me so I bet him $500 he coulnt go two weeks with out smoking weed, 3 days in he came home threw $500 at me pulled out an ounce of weed and started rolling while I laughed my ass off.


Again, technically weed is not addictive. That doesn't mean you cannot form a serious habit that is very hard to quit. It also doesn't mean they won't change the meaning of the word addiction to include things like chocolatea nd weed and gambling and porno. People claim to be addicted to these things too, so much so that porn, for example, may consume their entire life. They may even feel terrible when they don't watch porn.

But that doesn't mean it is addictive int he true sense.

Not when you compare it to real addictions like opiates (morphine, heroin) or amphetamines (like cocaine). Even legal drugs like alcohol can cause severe withdrawal in extreme cases.

These are drugs that cause real physical changes in the brain and body that are long term. Opiate withdrawal will cause severe physical pain, vomitting etc. Withdrawal from amphetamines will cause severe clinical depression (the brain will actually not be producing enough dopamine).

I think it is unfair to people that are really addicted to somthing that is very hard to quit to compare it to somthing like weed. People get hooked on that warm blanket around their brain, so much so that it can control their lives, but that doesn't make it the same thing from a scientific point of view.

I have taken a few neurology classes and even took one class called "addiction", a class that actually tested me on this exact subject. 





Toxic said:


> Not the same way, Weed is a depressant and is commonly used as a form of self medication lets not compare drugs and chocolate.


Weed is classified as a despressant, pschadelic, and stimulant. Sometimes a textbook will list it as all of them, sometimes just one. The reason for this is that people react differently when they take it. Weed does not cause the release of dopamine, a neurotransmitter not only responsible for life, but also very important in addiction.

In fact, every single drug that can be called truely addictive, causes the release of dopamine. Cocaine, heroin, ciggs, alcohol, E, and yes, even chocolate (but this release is NORMAL amout compared to the exccesive release or re-uptake blocking that occurs with the first 4)causes the release of dopamine. 

Two drugs curiously do not cause the release of dopamine and therefore it is hard to prove they are addictive. Weed is one, and magical mushrooms are the other.

Mushrooms are a great example of how some drugs are not addictive. They do not cause the release of dopamine which is what causes the euphoric feeling on most drugs. They instead alter serotonin levels (and work on hundreds of other neurotransmitters as well) causing an altered state of reality.

But you can also have really bad trips on mushrooms, because it is all in how you percieve it. You will also be hard pressed to find someone who claims to be addicted to mushrooms.

Weed is really the same way. Stereotypes tell us how we should act and feel when we smoke weed. But in the end, there is no dopamine release to cause euphoria. Some people laugh alot, some people feel paranoid, some people feel relaxed. But the only base line is the stereotypes created for the drug. There is no euphoric rush. We create the experience based on an altered state of reality. This is completely different that drugs like nicotine or alcohol, that directly causes an increase in dopamine release in the brain. Remember when you first started smoking ciggs? That head rush? That's the dopamine.



Toxic said:


> Come on Hex, its one thing when people use the alchohol comparison as an argument for legalization because at least it has a leg to stand on but comparing it to chocolate and TV is a bit of a stretch.


It is a stretch.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

its not a stretch. chocolate affects your brain in many ways similar to other drugs, and is addictive.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

"Research investing both the physiological and psychological basis of chocolate cravings is pretty inconclusive. It is most likely a combination of both. If chocolate cravings were entirely physiological people would not eat chocolate for psychological reasons. Most researchers believe chocolate's sensory qualities, chemicals, cultural values, social values and hormonal influences all play a role in chocolate cravings. It is the complete chocolate bar that people crave. Not one single chemical or quality can be solely responsible for satisfying a chocolate craving"

That is the conclusion they draw from the evidence presented in the article.

Like I said, everything effects dopamine to some degree. Eating cereal will cause slight pleasure, and slight dopamine release.

Eating choclate, as described here, can be very pleasurable, and therefor, as they describe it right in the article, can induce a craving for chocolate. 

But there are not severe withdrawal symptoms.

The aricle also states "chocolate craving can be attributed to its aroma, texture, sweetness and psychological associations with chocolate," which suggests people also enjoy it for the taste and the fact it is food, not just for the chemical properties that come with it.


I will not argue with you whether it is a drug because I have not been taught a single thing about chocolate in my neurology courses. 

I really don't know much about choclate lol.  But even this article states that this research is inconclusive based on the fact it is food and we already crave biological neccesities. No one starts off craving crack, except crack babies.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Ape City said:


> Two drugs curiously do not cause the release of dopamine and therefore it is hard to prove they are addictive. Weed is one, and magical mushrooms are the other.


I dont know when you took your classes but all recent studies state that Weed causes the realease of dopamine especially in heavy users. Ive studied addiction pretty thouroughly trying to rap my head around it due to having to deal with a couple drug addicts in my family. Also you highly are undersestimating the mental dependency that is built up by someone who is constantly living in an altered state, for somebody who studied addiction I cant believe your ignoring them this way since most rehabilitation centers will not even start an addict in conselling until detox is complete which means the physical addiction has been completly minimized (not completly eliminated) addicts who have been to rehab relapse due to there mental and not there physical addiction although drugs like crystal meth are the exception as they completly change the chemistry of the body and the levels of diffrent neurotransmitters that will leave and addict with a permmanant severe chemical dependancy.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Ape City said:


> No one starts off craving crack, except crack babies.


And Toxic


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Marijuana causes an indirect release of dopamine as it is pleasurable experience (when you are smoking a joint you are doing somthing you want to do, and you are about to feel the effects on your GABA receptors, of which there are 10-20 times more in the brain than opiate receptors). 

Like I said before, Dopamine is essential to life, and everything you do that is even remotely pleasurable will release dopamine.

"THC and other cannabinoids act via a distinct set of receptors. THC inhibits the intracellular enzyme adenylate cyclase and that inhibition requires the precense of G protein complex, similar to an opioid receptor....

AS a result, activation of cannibinoid receptors inhibits the release of other neurotransmitters, primarily the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA....endogenous cannibanoids are 'retrograde messangers' ...the release in turn inhibits GABA release.

...Ameri and colleuges verified that anandamide acting on hippocampal cannabinoid receptors controls neuronal excitability while reducing excitatory neurotransmission at the presynaptic site."

Taken from *A Primer of Drug Action, Tenth Edition, Robert Julien*

I attended Carleton University for Psychology.

What this is saying is that THC acts as as a partial agonist to reduce, but not block, excitatory transmission, which is the relaxation weed smokers experience.


I really feel as though you are getting the wrong idea from my posts, Toxic. I have said several times that weed can ruin your life if you let it. I am not underestimating the dependacy. I am arguing over the use of the word addiction. Like I said in a previous post, many people feel the definition should be changed to include all obsessions that can consume someones life.

Also, I am not denying that there could be new research with regards to THC. This is an evolving field, and my profs/textbooks could have been wrong. Easily.

But until I see a peer reviewed article from a university I am gonna stick with textbook and my notes. But like I said, they could eb wrong. I do not claim to know 
all.




Didn't take me long to find an article saying it does:

"The influence of cannabis on mental health receives growing scientific and political attention. An increasing demand for treatment of cannabis dependence has refueled the discussion about the addictive potential of cannabis. A key feature of all addictive drugs is the ability to increase synaptic dopamine levels in the striatum, a mechanism involved in their rewarding and motivating effects. However, it is currently unknown if cannabis can stimulate striatal dopamine neurotransmission in humans. Here we show that Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive component in cannabis, induces dopamine release in the human striatum. Using the dopamine D(2)/D(3) receptor tracer [(11)C]raclopride and positron emission tomography in seven healthy subjects, we demonstrate that THC inhalation reduces [(11)C]raclopride binding in the ventral striatum and the precommissural dorsal putamen but not in other striatal subregions. This is consistent with an increase in dopamine levels in these regions. These results suggest that THC shares a potentially addictive property with other drugs of abuse. Further, it implies that the endogenous cannabinoid system is involved in regulating striatal dopamine release. This allows new directions in research on the effects of THC in neuropsychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


This really is an emerging field, and researchers will be debating alot of these points for years.


----------



## MooJuice (Dec 12, 2008)

Wow, thread went pretty far while i was away.

I'm glad that everyone is remaining civil in this discussion, because i actually like everyone involved. but i must state a few things:

Hexrei is absolutely right. chocolate, or any habit, can be medically described as habit forming and thus addictive. The description posted by ape city i think that addiction is a habit that one cannot stop even when it is having a negative effect on their lives is a decent layman's definition.

ape city however, what i do not understand (considering your tertiary education) is how you have not acknowledged the clear existence of psychological addiction. Even in my first year of a now coming on 6 year medical degree (and at least 2, possibly 7 more to go) we learnt about habit forming behaviours and how psychological addictions can be present for almost any action or behaviour. 

Yes, in your psychology degree you would have realised the different between a 'habit forming' and a 'compulsive' behaviour - and this i think is where you are getting mixed up. (the two terms are very often confused) Suffice to say, things like eating chocolate and whatnot can be compulsive and can be addictive, and often both.

to keep things on a laymans level, look at the bigtime TV show, "biggest loser" - it is essentially rehab for people addicted to bad diets. By your own definition, they all know that their diet is killing them, they all wnt to stop, but they cant. why? because they have a psychological addiction to junk food, or more often than not sodium and sugar.

In light of all this, i have to point out the flaws in negative1's post as well - addictions can be present for almost any substance or compound, and this includes weed. to say that nobody can be addicted to weed is either to be incredibly naive or to have a simple misunderstanding of the bredth of the term 'addiction'. 

Psychological addiction has been easily proved in blind scientific studies. Off the top of my head, i can remember one lecturer in my second year, during the topic of pain management, explaining the unlikely success of placebos in many cases. He went on to also explain that when these studies were continued, patients who had noted relief from the placebos were then told that they had to stop taking them. (which they believed to be synthetic opiods) Following on from this, patients reported muscle tension, chills, and even had lowered dopamine and seratonin levels in their brains. 

Not only this, but i'm sure we have all heard stories of junkies coming free of the grasp of opiate addiction, but unable to kick the habit and ritual of preparing and injecting themselves. Thus they continue to inject themselves with water etc. (i have not seen any scientific articles on this topic but i believe it nonetheless.)

On topics like this, i have the advanatage of not only being 6 years into my tertiary education in the field, but also having been into a 24hr full care rehab facility 3 times before in my life. Trust me on this one. Weed, as well as many other seemingly benign substances, can be addictive. No; not physically like opiates or benzodiazepines. But psychological addiction is addiction nonetheless, and should be recognised as something that people still need to be aware of.

Thats all for now.

*edit, just to clarify, all of my stints in rehab were for opiates/opioids, so i do not want to give the impression that i was addicted to weed, nor that i ever met anybody in there who was. (i didnt) - I am simply illustrating that i am by no means a "theory only" medical student.


----------



## leifdawg (Jan 1, 2008)

Toxic said:


> I like how people try to say weed isnt bad for you, I want all of you who think Weed is better for you than ciggarettes to go an cut the filter off a cigarette and put it in the end of your next joint, take it apart after you smoke it and look how black and covered with resin it will be as compared to one from a cigarette butt.


I wouldn't say weed is good for you, although it does have a lot benificial properties. However, compared other legal drugs (Alcohol, cigareetes, coffee) marijuana is harmless. Also I think you are confusing tar and resin which are not the same thing. Tar is something that is added to cigarettes. Also that filter that you think is protecting you is actually contains fiberglass. Some of which breaks off and when inhaled literally causes microscopic laserations to your lungs.



MooJuice said:


> If weed smoke was anti-tumour, would they not be isolating the exact agent that's lowering the instances of lung cancer, and use it as a cancer vaccine/treatment/cure? Because it surely would be such an amazing find that scientists all over the world would jump on it and, it would be discussed in unbiased, respected scientific forums and much, much more testing would be done.


Big Phama has been trying to do exactly this for years. Unfortunately they have been mostly unsuccesful. Most of these studies have been funded the the Pharmasutecal industry, so they will obviously have a negative slant because if Joe Public knew the truth, the execs would be out of a job. Marijuana got the nickname weed, because that's what it is a weed and it's pretty damn easy to grow. How much money would the drug companies lose if people could easily grow in their backyard something that can help the treatment of pain, nausea, glaucoma, poor apetite (due to cancer treament), etc. with minimal side effects.



> anyway sorry to rain on your parade but i just wanted to clear that up. altho on the same note i have never heard from a reputable medical source that one joint has the tar of an entire pack of cigarettes either...All i know for sure is that weed smoke is worse because it is smoked unfiltered and often smoked closer to the roach, which means hotter and harsher air is entering your lungs. saying that one joint would have the tar from a PACK of cigarettes seems to me like the perfect example of the extreme other side of the weed debate.


I remember hearing that same argument in grade school, and even at 10 I sniffed that out as being ignorant propaganda.



SuicideJohnson said:


> wow. I like everyone here, but there are some dummies comparing tobacco to cannabis. Sorry, I smoke from a vaporizor always, and I can still hold my breath for 80 seconds when im diving. Cavemen smoke joints, people who are realistic about the possible consequences know how to level things out, and how to get the THC into your system without inhaling tar and paper. Once I got older I decided to not smoke it ever unfiltered, and the furthest I will ever go is using my bong with ice in it (there goes the hot air theory). I have no problems with cardio at all in anything I do. the only thing that suffers is short term memory, for instance I'll pour a glass of milk, and walk away and not remember for 15 mins, but I hardly think its a big deal, since I remember. ANYWAY, thats an unnecessary run down of myself, Nick Diaz is like the thousands of idiot stoners I've had to deal with, Im sure in his mind he feels like he has a great point, but I can't believe at his age in this world he hasn't matured enough to shut up.


Ditto this. Pot should be treated like alcohol. Kids shouldn't do it, and you should drive while under the influence. Otherwise if you are a consenting adult and want to get high in a residence or a designated public location (i.e. hash bar) more power to you. All outlawing it does is turn honest hardworking people into criminals.



Ape City said:


> I really don't know much about choclate lol.  But even this article states that this research is inconclusive based on the fact it is food and we already crave biological neccesities. No one starts off craving crack, except crack babies.


I don't have any facts in front of me right now, but I do know that coffee, cacao (chocolate) and, coca(cocaine) are very closely related plants. So a lot of the effects when imbibing them are similar. Obviously some of the effects seen from using these products is a result of the production process. But in their natural plant form they are probably closer related than humans and chimps (98.7% if I recall).


----------



## cmbutts6263 (Jun 17, 2008)

LV 2 H8 U said:


> Thanks Nick, now they'll never legalize it:confused03:


LMAO!!!!


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

leifdawg said:


> I wouldn't say weed is good for you, although it does have a lot benificial properties. However, compared other legal drugs (Alcohol, cigareetes, coffee) marijuana is harmless. Also I think you are confusing tar and resin which are not the same thing. Tar is something that is added to cigarettes. Also that filter that you think is protecting you is actually contains fiberglass. Some of which breaks off and when inhaled literally causes microscopic laserations to your lungs.


Your reading one to many legalize marijuana pamphlets because Tar isnt added to cigaretes, hell an actual cigarette contains zero tar, Tar is a product of an incomplete burn its the natural chemicals in the plant that become tar when they burn to form a residue or resin that is called Tar, yes the resin you clean out of your pipe and smoke is Tar,


----------



## leifdawg (Jan 1, 2008)

I don't know if it still does, but at one point Cigarette packs used to clearly state that this product contains tar. Tar contain polymers which for all intents and purposes don't break down. The resin build up from marijuana smoke eventually will break down and clear out of your system.

You know what else is in commercial cigarettes? Cyanide. Yes cyanide, you know the stuff Astronauts are given in case they are left adrift in space and need to kill themselves as quickly as possible.

Basically the worst permenant harmful side effect of smoking marijuana is the hot air particles. And this can be reduced or eliminated by using a bong with ice, a vaporizer or by ingesting it.



Toxic said:


> Your reading one to many legalize marijuana pamphlets because Tar isnt added to cigaretes, hell an actual cigarette contains zero tar, Tar is a product of an incomplete burn its the natural chemicals in the plant that become tar when they burn to form a residue or resin that is called Tar, yes the resin you clean out of your pipe and smoke is Tar,


Btw show me one study that links smoking pot to lung cancer. Heck show me one study shows a direct medical link between marijuana smoke and any type of death.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Im not saying all kinds of nasty shit isnt added to cigarettes but Tar exists anytime vegatation is burnt, if you burn a bunch a wood that is still green (freshly cut moist wood) your chimney will become lined with the same tuff (tar rather than soot), hell go roll up some grass off your lawn and smoke it and there will be tar and the same goes for your weed.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

MooJuice said:


> Hexrei is absolutely right. chocolate, or any habit, can be medically described as habit forming and thus addictive. The description posted by ape city i think that addiction is a habit that one cannot stop even when it is having a negative effect on their lives is a decent layman's definition.
> 
> ape city however, what i do not understand (considering your tertiary education) is how you have not acknowledged the clear existence of psychological addiction. Even in my first year of a now coming on 6 year medical degree (and at least 2, possibly 7 more to go) we learnt about habit forming behaviours and how psychological addictions can be present for almost any action or behaviour.
> 
> ...



Well I did mention psychological addiction in one of my posts. Perhaps I am misunderstanding its proper use.

I think what I may be confused on, or people may be confused by the way I am wording it, is this notion of psychological addiction versus a bad habit.

Or perhaps I am misusing the word (I am only a third year student).

What I was refering to when I discussed psychological addiction is that when, for example, an amphetamine addict goes cold turkey they expereince clinical depression in the form of extremely low DA and SA levels. I had always refered to this as psychological addiction since it is happening in the brain, but would you refer to this is physical?

And what I was saying, from my understanding, is that an addiction to chocolate could not produce severe clinical depression. That the despression of DA within the synapse for a chocolate addict would instead be within a somewhat normal range.

Perhaps I misunderstood my prof, though. He may have meant that severe clincal depression is much more likely to occur, and will occur more quickly in people addicted to "harder" drugs.

That's kinda what I was trying to say, please correct me as there is a good chance I may have misunderstood somthing in my books.

But I think I understand how anything could be construed as addictive, since to some degree being withdrawn from whatever the obsession is would cause some degree of depression which could prompt impuslive, addictive like behavior.

And to comment on the study you cited; amazing the power of mind over body, isn't it?



leifdawg said:


> I don't know if it still does, but at one point Cigarette packs used to clearly state that this product contains tar. Tar contain polymers which for all intents and purposes don't break down. The resin build up from marijuana smoke eventually will break down and clear out of your system.
> 
> You know what else is in commercial cigarettes? Cyanide. Yes cyanide, you know the stuff Astronauts are given in case they are left adrift in space and need to kill themselves as quickly as possible.
> 
> ...


Does anyone know why ciggs contain cyanide? I am really quite curious as I have never heard it discussed. I would assume it is just a by product of the tobacco curing and smoking?

Oh, and in Canada there are still "ingredients" listed on the side of packs, including tar. But this is the average amount of tar that will come off of burning the smoke, not somthing that is added to the cigg.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

Is the chemical compound in chocolate that affects our brain like THC anandamide, and does it bind to the cannabinoid receptors, if there even is such a thing? I think there is but I'm not sure.


----------



## leifdawg (Jan 1, 2008)

Ape City said:


> Well I did mention psychological addiction in one of my posts. Perhaps I am misunderstanding its proper use.
> 
> I think what I may be confused on, or people may be confused by the way I am wording it, is this notion of psychological addiction versus a bad habit.
> 
> ...


I'm no expert either, but I think you misunderstood. I look at any addiction like opiates, amphetamines, nicotine, etc. that actually alters the chemical balance in your body/brain as a physical addiction. Anything else that becomes habit forming and is difficult to stop doing is a psychological or mental addiction because really it's all in your head. Maybe the word your proffessor said/meant was physiological as opposed to psychological.

But again, I'm no expert. I was a computer science major and never took anything over the intro level in psych.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

swpthleg said:


> Is the chemical compound in chocolate that affects our brain like THC anandamide, and does it bind to the cannabinoid receptors, if there even is such a thing? I think there is but I'm not sure.


From ym understanding chocolate works primarily on dopamine for that "good feeling" you get when you eat a piece. I would also assume that DA is the primary cause for people feeling hooked on chocolate.

But yes there are cannabanoid receptors in the brain. Lots, and lots, and lots of them. In fact, as far as I can remember, there are 10-20 times the number of cannabinoid receptors in the brain as there are opiod receptors! Apparently they are even found in the spinal cord!

Anandamide activates about 50% of these receptors, THC about 20% only.

I remember my prof even joking about how THC is a lazy drug and it only works so well ebcause there are so many receptors! Not sure if he was serious or not...




leifdawg said:


> I'm no expert either, but I think you misunderstood. I look at any addiction like opiates, amphetamines, nicotine, etc. that actually alters the chemical balance in your body/brain as a physical addiction. Anything else that becomes habit forming and is difficult to stop doing is a psychological or mental addiction because really it's all in your head. Maybe the word your proffessor said/meant was physiological as opposed to psychological.
> 
> But again, I'm no expert. I was a computer science major and never took anything over the intro level in psych.


Wow, I am having a real /facepalm moment here. Pretty sure he was saying physiological. That would make alot more sense. :shame01:


----------



## leifdawg (Jan 1, 2008)

swpthleg said:


> Is the chemical compound in chocolate that affects our brain like THC anandamide, and does it bind to the cannabinoid receptors, if there even is such a thing? I think there is but I'm not sure.


From what I understand chocolate effects are more closely related cocaine and coffee than marijuana. When I lived in Hawaii we had both cacao (chocolate) and coffee trees on our property. And the beans were almost identical and tasted very similar. Chocolate beans do contain some amount of caffeine. 

This was from a movie so take it for what it's worth, but at the end of The Devil's Advocate, Al Pacino states, "Love is overrated. Physiologically it's no different from consuming large amounts of chocolate." This may or may not be true, but it definitely seems logical if you consider the stereotype of woman (and men) consuming large amounts of chocolate after a breakup.


----------



## Red Baron (Jul 17, 2008)

i'm not gonna get too into it but here's my side 

if i drink i fight...anyone.. so i don't drink
what do i do to relax? smoke weed

if i'm in pain i refuse to take pain killers unless i have no choice, i smoke a joint, the pain goes away. my girlfriend is addicted to excedrin and can't go through a day without it or headaches get very bad, i would much rather be addicted to weed then any pill.

i don't have any motivation in the first place so weed isn't affecting that - i actually use it as a reward - bike 10 k then i get to get high and not until i've done my bike ride or my run. so rather than taking away my motivation i motivate myself with it

anyway..you guys are lame.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

years ago my brother's roommate was dying of spinal cancer, it was a semester of school he wanted to finish b/c he knew afterward he was going to go home to die, and the only thing that brought back his appetite and helped the pain was pot. For what it's worth. Idk if it's good for you but it definitely has a few benefits.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Red Baron said:


> i'm not gonna get too into it but here's my side
> 
> if i drink i fight...anyone.. so i don't drink
> what do i do to relax? smoke weed
> ...


Did you read the thread before you posted? Just curious, cause I am not sure who you are talking to, or about.


----------



## MagiK11 (Dec 31, 2006)

Wow, that was pretty hard to read. The dude can't even speak let alone write.

On a serious note, the healthiest way of smoking weed in my opinion is with a vaporizer. You don't inhale smoke, instead you inhale the thc in a form of vapor and it reduces your chances of developing health related issues caused by smoke and the huge amount of tar. 

But Nick is just nuts, and needs to go back to grade school in order to learn how to be more articulate. :confused03:


----------



## Red Baron (Jul 17, 2008)

Ape City said:


> Did you read the thread before you posted? Just curious, cause I am not sure who you are talking to, or about.


i scanned through it at work
i wasn't really to to or about anything other than why i think weed is alot better than alcohol and/or painkillers


----------



## LivingDedMan (May 10, 2007)

Tobacco in cigarettes is just flavoring and paper scraps? WTF? I'll have to look into that...not that I smoke anyway, but that's weird and a rip off if it's true.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Red Baron said:


> i scanned through it at work
> i wasn't really to to or about anything other than why i think weed is alot better than alcohol and/or painkillers


Gotcha.


----------



## randyspankstito (Sep 25, 2006)

Okay, so I read the first two pages and then skipped to respond, so if I missed anything sorry. 

But has anybody brought up eating pot? You can make a mean pesto sauce with it, not to mention brownies and just about anything else with oil or butter in it. That get's rid of the "it's bad for you because you smoke it" argument. 

Plus you get a nice body high when you eat it. 

Just figured I would throw that out there.


Oh yeah, and Nick is a ******* idiot, great fighter, but man, what an idiot.


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

faustus34 said:


> There are plenty of so called natural substances that are not only not good for you, but that can kill you. This guy has fried way too many brain cells. Ever see him talk? Wow, just wow! He would be great for a scared straight program, lol.


I think it has more to do with Nick Diaz being stupid, not so much weed.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Damone said:


> I think it has more to do with Nick Diaz being stupid, not so much weed.


smart enough to TKO your hero


----------



## nissassagame (May 6, 2008)

He may be braindead but he sure as hell is a talented fighter and fun to watch. ALL HAIL DIAZ!


----------

