• H&R Moderators: streaM Freak

Health Benefits of Recreational Drugs

GHB, read into that. Lots of health benefits! Check out www.biopsychiatry.com for more info.

Opiates - Less pain! ;)

Regarding weed and tumours, it was brain tumours it was shown to reduce the size of. I'm not sure about other forms of cancer.
 
>>^ What about getting over things such as depression, social anxiety, mental disorder / tendencies? Isn't that something?

I'd say that's a health benefit.>>

I'm not sure how this relates to my post. Regardless, I wouldn't deny that people have such experiences, but I wouldn't explain them in terms of receptor-downregulation/upregulation.

ebola
 
VelocideX said:
Higher release of neurotransmitters causes downregulation of receptors, not upregulation.
There's the flaw :)

thanks for the clarification but that fucks up my whole theory! :D

this is getting off topic but, is the result of decreased receptors upregulation of transmitters? If so, how does one stop this vicious cycle...besides quitting drugs of course ;)
 
subdefy said:
^ What about getting over things such as depression, social anxiety, mental disorder / tendencies? Isn't that something?

I'd say that's a health benefit.

True. Of course drugs also tend to CAUSE these things in some. I know for me if I smoke pot I get social anxiety so bad sometimes I cant even speak to people. :\
 
Mark - Why do so many people who smoke weed have huge lung capacities and participate in physically demanding sports. Lets not forget the SCORES of professional atheletes who are pot heads (and coke heads too..). This is not a provable cause and effect, but the anecdotal evidence is there.

BA - I read over some of those articles and am more inclined to think that smoking marijuana can contribute to lung cancer. However, I'm far from convinced. I still haven't seen any cases of lung cancer in marijuana only smokers..only pre-cancerous changes in their lungs. (I have no ideas about sample selection and/or other factors in these studies. These are important things to know when assesing the validity of their outcomes.)

anyways...here are some highlights from the google pages that BA posted

Here is one from onlinepot.org

POT DOESN'T CAUSE LUNG CANCER, RESEARCHER SAYS

Also Doesn't Seem To Cause Emphysema Or Birth Defects, Senate Hearing Told

OTTAWA ( CP ) - Smoking marijuana does not seem to cause lung cancer, emphysema or cause birth anomalies in fetuses, a prominent U.S. researcher told a Senate committee Monday.

John P. Morgan of City University of New York Medical School said heavy marijuana smokers do show some symptoms of lung damage, such as coughing, frequent colds and bronchitis, but not the life-threatening conditions seen among tobacco smokers.

''We are some 30 to 40 years into this marijuana epidemic and still have not seen evidence of pulmonary cancer in marijuana smokers.''


From thesite.org

"However one recent health scare associated with cannabis use has very sobering connotations, its alleged link to lung cancer. There is still a wide-scale debate raging in the medical community over whether there is any link between lung cancer and smoking cannabis. No overwhelming proof of this link has been discovered and a general conclusion has yet to be reached.

The main problem lies the fact that most people who smoke cannabis do so in conjunction with tobacco, which is known to be carcinogenic. Cannabis smokers also hold the smoke in their lungs for much longer to obtain the maximum hit from the smoke, which could put them at greater risk to any pollutants in the smoke."

Remember the "one coughs out marijuana tar more quickly than ciggaret tar theory" on this on. However, I would agree that this suggests that marijuana might contribute to lung cancer. sarnia.com

Benzopyrene - Lung cancer causing carcinogen
more prevalent in marijuana than in tobacco
A breakthrough report published in the journal Science, October 18, 1996, provides the first true molecular evidence conclusively linking components in tobacco smoking to lung cancer. A chemical found in tobacco smoking, benzopyrene, causes genetic damage in lung cells that is identical to the damage observed in the DNA of most malignant tumors of the lungs.

Although scientists have been convinced in the past that smoking causes lung cancer, the strong statistical associations did not provide absolute proof. This paper absolutely pinpoints that mutations in lung cancer cells are caused by benzopyrene.

An average marijuana cigarette contains 30 nanograms of this carcinogen, compared to 21 nanograms in an average tobacco cigarette. (Marijuana and Health, National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine report, 1982.)

This potent carcinogen suppresses a gene that controls growth of cells. When this gene is damaged, the body becomes more susceptible to cancer. This gene, P53, is related to half of all human cancers and as many as 70% of lung cancers.

Clearly marijuana smoke contains more of the potent carcinogen benzopyrene than tobacco smoke. Furthermore, the technique of smoking marijuana by inhaling deeply and holding the smoke within the lungs presents a chance of much greater exposure than a conventional
tobacco cigarette.

this one from
umm.edu is definately more alarming, but doesn't show that marijuana is causing the change.

Other Contributors. Toxic particles leading to precancerous changes in the lung are also found in marijuana. In one study, 53.8% of cigarette smokers, 66.7% of marijuana smokers, and all of those subjects who smoked both substances showed evidence of precancerous changes in the lungs.

peace
 
Last edited:
In light of realizing that my upregulation theory is completely false, I still feel that drugs can and do make people smarter.

If you do a drug, you see the world from a different point of view. Cognitively speaking, through druge use one can assimilate more into his or her life scripts (knowledge of the world), which makes their world view broader, deaper, and more comprehensive.

The down side is possible physical/psychological/emotional harm..IE nose/organ damage, damaged neurons, unstable brain chemistry, triggering latent psychological disorders, and the creation of new psychological disorders/complexes to name a few.
Once in highschool I started to trip on some strong acid just I began to read a page from a book in front of my class. The words started floating around the page and my heart jumped out of my throat as I stamered through the first couple of sentences. I had to tell my teacher that I couldn't read the rest. I had instantly developed a fear of reading and speaking in public. Before this one single experience, I would LOVE reading in front of people and had no problem doing it. After the experience, I couldn't read or talk in front of a big group period. It took me a full year of desensitization therapy (not in a clinical setting, I just did it my self) to read infront of a group again.
This shows the double edge of drugs perfectly because while they harmed me by destroying my public speaking abilities for a year, they taught me a whole lot about the consequences of traumatic experinces, as well as effective ways of overcomming phobias.

I think the bottom line is this; if you don't abuse drugs to the point of physical, emotional, psychological, and/or social ruin, they can actually make you smarter, stronger, and healthier.

^^^Me rapping some personal philosophy on drug use..take it as you will :)
 
Last edited:
I think the more ego-driven drugs can definitely make you smarter, although most of this increase in intelligence seems to come from chronic abuse, which brings with it a whole new set of problems.

I heavily abused Adderall and Ritalin for about a year and it has seemed to "reprogram" my brain. By that I mean that I can think much faster now and visualize things better. However, I am anxious and on edge more than I was before, and my stomach lining was torn up by regularly abstaining from food and from massive doses of acetaminophen and ibuprofen that I took daily in some attempt to help me sleep.

Now, for hallucinogens (including cannabis), doing one just once can open your mind up to a whole new reality, and definitely make you question the world around you in a good way.
 
Last edited:
Defining the line between recreational usage and therapuetic usage should be defined if this conversation is going to take place. Of course moderation is the key or the possible beneficial effects of the drug get reversed into detrimental.

Moderated MDMA, mushroom, and benzo use has done amazing things for my psychological well being.
 
MynameisnotDeja said:
Well marijuana smoke wouldnt have all the horrible chemicals in it..its more natural so maybe that has something to do with that...?

tobacco is natural... datura is natural... many poisons are

the natural-synthetic distinction means nothing

the plant you are smoking didn't evolve for you to get high, it evolved for its own purpose.
 
qwe said:
the plant you are smoking didn't evolve for you to get high, it evolved for its own purpose.

It's psychoactive chemicals fit our own receptors perfectly. Humans have been consuming and cultivating it for (at least) thousands of years. From an evolutionary standpoint, strains that were pleasing to humans would have had a better chance of propogating themselves than non-psychoactive strains. This is certainly true when you are talking about modern marijuana cultivation.

While the overall "purpose" of cannabis might not be 100%, "getting people high"...getting people high IS one of its purposes.

Also, in the cigarette smoking population, Europeans have lower lung cancer rates than Americans. This may be due to the more natural contents of European cigs.
 
t's psychoactive chemicals fit our own receptors perfectly.
Doesn't mean we were meant to get high.
Also, I always here the argument that people have been using it for thousands of years, so fuckin' what??! Doesn't make it any less harmful, or mean we were meant to use it. People have been pickling their livers with alcohol for a long time as well!! Either way, cannabis is a harmful drug in some ways, there is no getting around that!
 
t's psychoactive chemicals fit our own receptors perfectly.
Doesn't mean we were meant to get high.

The odds of a random chemical fitting our receptors perfectly, and producing profound cognitive and physical changes, are surely very, very small.
This doesn't mean we are supposed to get high, but it does mean our bodies and brains have evolved in a way that allows us to get high.
Since physical/biological traits (discounting genetic diseases etc.) always have a role in aiding the evolution of a species, I think its safe to say that humans should get high from time to time.

Also, I always here the argument that people have been using it for thousands of years, so fuckin' what??! Doesn't make it any less harmful, or mean we were meant to use it. People have been pickling their livers with alcohol for a long time as well!! Either way, cannabis is a harmful drug in some ways, there is no getting around that!

Alcohol is NOT harmful when used in moderation. In fact, it has know health benefits.
Besides questionable correlations between minor/reversible lung damage caused by SMOKING pot, I would love to see scientific evidence that confirms marijuana is harmful (aside from the perils of addiction and bummer trips. IE panic attacks etc.).
 
^I know a few old-time tokers who are freakin idiots, and they have only ever used pot....they used to be sharp as tacks too.......
 
^anyway, I think this argument about pot should end, you are right and had several good points, and I was right on maybye one or two. Either way it's definitely not as bad as those drug-free america comercials and ad's make it out to be. Cheers...:D
 
Ximot is right, any smoke is carcinogenic. Smoking tobacco causes lung cancer, smoking marijuana can cause lung cancer, smoke emitted while barbecuing food can cause lung cancer. Smoke essentially consists of volatile aromatics and gaseous saturated and unsaturated short-chain hydrocarbons, all of which are known carcinogens. Smoking causes cancer, 'nuff said. However, there are individual differences in susceptibility to certain types of carcinogens, so everyone reacts differently--there exist outliers that smoke like chimneys and do not get lung cancer, but they are rare.
 
qwe said:
tobacco is natural... datura is natural... many poisons are

the natural-synthetic distinction means nothing

the plant you are smoking didn't evolve for you to get high, it evolved for its own purpose.


I understand its still a poison. I was talking about all the other extra chemicals that are put into ciggs to make them more addictive.
 
Top