Health Benefits of Recreational Drugs

[Jimmy the Gun]

I think controlling stress and increasing "social interaction ability" should be considered positive health benefits of recreational drugs. Both of these (stress control and positive social interaction) have been linked to disease prevention and a general increase in health.

 

[StagnantReaction]

Cannabis stunts cancer growth, though.. so one might conclude that any chance of lung cancer might be negated by the beneficial effects..

BTW- our swim team's star is a serious pot head. He stole all the regional medals from the locker room and passed them out when he was blazed at a party.

 

[fizzygirl]

I think controlling stress and increasing "social interaction ability" should be considered positive health benefits of recreational drugs.

Unless, of course, you then feel that you have to have these things to control stress or increase that social interaction, because then you can become even more stressed out when you're without them in a social or stressful situation. Using things as crutches isn't ever really healthy.

 

[Jimmy the Gun]

^^I was thinking in terms of an experience by experience basis. Kind of like the drugs might desensitize someone to the given environments.

I.E. Someone hates socializing but drinks two beers and realizes that its not so bad. The next day, they try again with one beer..again, not so bad. They drink their beer the next couple times and eventually try with out the beer..turns out they kind of like socializing, maybe they just didn't know how to do it right.

with the stress control, I know that certain drugs have taught me to be less stressed in general. For instance, I don't even need to be high to feel like a laid back pot head all of the time.

It's kind of like chemical assisted desensitization therapy. However, you are definately correct in saying that if drugs turn into permanant crutches..well, that's a bad thing.

 

[Jamshyd]

You people and your marijuana are boring hehe.

I believe that Ketamine has been shown to have a lot of health benefits, including neuroprotection.

I am too lazy to dig out research on Ketamine's goodies right now... there are literally thousands of them.

I can say from a personal pointof view, however, that ever since I started using Ketamine (responsibly*), I have been a much better person both physically and mentally.

* well, most of the time

 

[HypnotiQ]

Originally posted by BlueAdonis




Medical reports suggest that marijuana could cause cancers of the mouth and throat. But because marijuana is an illegal substance it is not easy to gather information about its effects on the body. ( source )

^^

My Uncle who has been smoking for 30+ years just came down with cancer a few years ago in his throat, but hes beat it since then.

 

[Zappa]

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.

What was the percentage of NBA players that smoke pot again?

http://www.hempevolution.org/media/rocky_mountain_news/rmn050217.htm

 

[jus blaze]

It relieves stress

 

[qwe]

^in that article (btw hte link goes to http\, you have to copy paste the link into the browser address bar to goto it) "The average figure given by those players is 30.1 percent. The mean figure, the number in which half the percentages are below and half above, is 20 percent." isnt that the median? anyway i doubt the players would give accurate percentages, they dont want the public and their coaches and sponsors thinking most of them are potheads do they?

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.

with one chemical the odds say it shouldnt fit into any of our receptors

there are billions of chemicals. our brain evolved using organic chemicals, as did plants and animals. hence, out of ALL of the chemicals, there is a VERY good chance many fit into our receptors, and some of those get to the receptors before being destroyed or excreted, and of course, some of those harm the receptors or the body

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.

again, how natural something is is no indicator (AT ALL) of its harm. america could be putting more natural or unnatural chemicals into cigarettes, it doesnt matter

Alcohol is NOT harmful when used in moderation

ive read in an article (not literature) low-moderate doses of alcohol are significantly neurotoxic to show up on studies




anyway i think most depressants can be helpful for their part in relieving stress, lowering heart rate. basically like mini vacations, very good for health (responsible use) of course addiction and then withdrawal is not

marijuana and other psychedelics and dissociatives can get you thinking about meaning and your mind, and spark your curiosity

ecstasy, and opiates for me, and cannabis+most drugs for most poeple, show you how being sociable is only a matter of mindset

drugs can be wonderful when you use them to train your mind or for mini vacations. not when you use them daily or regularly as a crutch, as stated before

 

[Jimmy the Gun]

with one chemical the odds say it shouldnt fit into any of our receptors

there are billions of chemicals. our brain evolved using organic chemicals, as did plants and animals. hence, out of ALL of the chemicals, there is a VERY good chance many fit into our receptors, and some of those get to the receptors before being destroyed or excreted, and of course, some of those harm the receptors or the body

True. In light of this, the cannabinoids in marijuana are analogues of the neurotransmitters in the bodies's cannabinoid system (which are neuroprotective and help regulate many bodily functions including mood and perception). Therefore, I would say it's safe to assume that marijuana's cannabinoids do not damage their receptors when use is moderated. Clinical studdies with animals support this claim. (except for the chimpanzees that they turned into hardcore pot heads for seven years...they suffered some hippocampus damage.) (Also, I'm sure there are examples of neurotransmitter analogues that do harm receptors...I'm just talking about pot)

ive read in an article (not literature) low-moderate doses of alcohol are significantly neurotoxic to show up on studies

I've read the opposite. If someone has access to pubmed etc. maybe they could clear the matter up for us

About the european cig issue, I said the natural contents MAY have to do with the fact that euro cigs seem to be "healthier". Of course, the issue might not be related to the contents of the cig at all...

anyway i think most depressants can be helpful for their part in relieving stress, lowering heart rate. basically like mini vacations, very good for health (responsible use) of course addiction and then withdrawal is not

marijuana and other psychedelics and dissociatives can get you thinking about meaning and your mind, and spark your curiosity

ecstasy, and opiates for me, and cannabis+most drugs for most poeple, show you how being sociable is only a matter of mindset

drugs can be wonderful when you use them to train your mind or for mini vacations. not when you use them daily or regularly as a crutch, as stated before

good call!

 

[ebola?]

>>(Also, I'm sure there are examples of neurotransmitter analogues that do harm receptors...I'm just talking about pot)
>>

And that's the thing. The fact that a substance is a functional analogue of an endogenous chemical says nothing of whether it will be harmful or not.

>>About the european cig issue, I said the natural contents MAY have to do with the fact that euro cigs seem to be "healthier". Of course, the issue might not be related to the contents of the cig at all...>>

It could be that Europeans eat a healthier diet and get some damned exercise...

ebola

 

[qwe]

True. In light of this, the cannabinoids in marijuana are analogues of the neurotransmitters in the bodies's cannabinoid system (which are neuroprotective and help regulate many bodily functions including mood and perception). Therefore, I would say it's safe to assume that marijuana's cannabinoids do not damage their receptors when use is moderated. Clinical studdies with animals support this claim. (except for the chimpanzees that they turned into hardcore pot heads for seven years...they suffered some hippocampus damage.) (Also, I'm sure there are examples of neurotransmitter analogues that do harm receptors...I'm just talking about pot)

the damage could also be due to lack of oxygen for 7 years. the researchers strapped masks to the monkeys then filled the masks with smoke

 

[Jimmy the Gun]

ebola - can you think of any chemicals that produce profound cognitive changes (I'm sure you get kind of high from a snake bite...that sort of thing doesn't count), yet cause bodily harm when dosed moderately? I can't think of any examples. From an evolutionary standpoint, neurological damage occuring from the use of ritualistic/medicinal substances doesn't seem probable. What I'm saying is...the fact that these substances are psychoactive should seperate them from the poisons that exist in nature.

Clinical evidence definately supports this..IE they haven't found any natural/semi-synthetic drugs that cause damage with moderate use

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

the damage could also be due to lack of oxygen for 7 years. the researchers strapped masks to the monkeys then filled the masks with smoke

GOD thats sick. FUCK THAT.

 

[ebola?]

>>ebola - can you think of any chemicals that produce profound cognitive changes (I'm sure you get kind of high from a snake bite...that sort of thing doesn't count), yet cause bodily harm when dosed moderately? I can't think of any examples. From an evolutionary standpoint, neurological damage occuring from the use of ritualistic/medicinal substances doesn't seem probable. What I'm saying is...the fact that these substances are psychoactive should seperate them from the poisons that exist in nature.

Clinical evidence definately supports this..IE they haven't found any natural/semi-synthetic drugs that cause damage with moderate use>>

1. MPTP -
fits into dopamine receptors. A single exposure can elicit parkinsons almost instantly.
2. Phenylcylcydine
3. Most things in the amphetamine family
4. Most NMDA agonists (exitotoxins).

oh...you're thinking "natural substances".
1. Fugu toxin - Is similar to Sarin nerve gas. It can kill before you feel that you've touched the fish.
2. Ethanol (do you think of it as "natural"?)
3. Datura

ebola

 

[Jimmy the Gun]

As far as I know, ethanol and datura are not neurotoxic in moderate doses (heard this in a psychopharmachology class). Fugu toxin is a poison and is not psychoactive. Please read my post again.

The reason I differentiate between natural and synthetic is because it makes a difference from an evolutionary standpoint..ie we evolved with cannabis, mushrooms etc.

 

[ebola?]

I read your post.
I brought up fugu toxin in particular because it is indeed psychoactive. It disrupts acetylcholine transmission in the brain. Also, I would argue that the dammage threshold for ethanol has not yet been established. Granted, though, moderate drinking will not cause observable behavioral deficits. I would also argue that ethanol is a synthetic anyway...

ebola

 

[Jimmy the Gun]

I believe ethanol is considered to be semi-synthetic. It's the same catagory as cocaine and heroin. Also, it occures in nature when fruit ferments in its own skin. Make of that what you will...

If fugu toxin kills you before you know you touched it, I wouldn't imagine it to be that good of a trip :D Srsly though, would a fraction of fugu's LD50 be psychedelic and/or dissasociative? Would it cause permanant damage?

anyhow, thanks for the info. you make some good points

 

[ebola?]

Well, nerve toxins like fugu or sarin aren't psychedelic. They cause severe confusion.
Anyway, your theory stands up to the evidence before us, but it makes little logical sense (which may just be something I have to get over)...why would there be severe evolutionary pressure against substances that are mild neurotoxins? Wouldn't humans continue to use them anyway?

ebola

 

[Jimmy the Gun]

why would there be severe evolutionary pressure against substances that are mild neurotoxins? Wouldn't humans continue to use them anyway?

It seems like there is evolutionary pressure propogating these substances (despite the fact that they may be mild neurotoxins). Look what human consumption has done for the evolutionary pace of marijuana, psylocybin mushrooms and the plants used to make alcohol. I'm sure all three of these areas of biological life have been altered greatly (in both their genomes and phenomes) over the past 10,000 years or so. Direct human interference with these plants' and fungus's reproduction (selecting certain traits and pollinating accordingly etc.) probably had a lot to do with this. Also, one should note that while these organisms have evolved in their own right, because of human interference, they have evolved in relationship to human needs and desires. IE more psychoactive, able to grow in many different regions etc.

My point is that if these organisms cause significant harm (enough to out weigh their benefits...the brain can heal from very minor damage), humans wouldn't breed them to be so potent. This is especially true in areas of the world where the drug using population is in the majority.

With something like fugu toxin, it has evolved in a way that kills humans as a defense mechanism. It hasn't been raised by humans for psychedelic exploration. Perhaps this explains why it too fits the human neurotransmitter system perfectly.

peace