Tip of the iceberg

[chilli]

Good vaporizers are about as efficient as bongs, if not moreso, and they seem quite similar methods of administration to me as far as rapidness of onset... is there some other element that makes people crave the bong so much, apart from routine?

I should point out that some kinds of weed seem to work better in a vaporizer than others. Also, what about hot knives? Does anyone have any idea as to how this method would compare to bongs, vaporizers etc with regards to carcinogens and junk, as well as onset?

For background info, even bongs weren't enough for me when I was younger, and I usually used buckets... but discovering an effective vaporizing method was an awesome discovery for me, and I practically stopped using buckets overnight!

Crap, this is all SOOO OT, sorry MindExpansion, but I did intend to say this as well, in fact I typed something like it earlier, and then accidentally closed the page, got slightly depressed and walked off:

I think the fact that you are worried about psychosis is a good sign, really... something common to most psychotic episodes is lack of insight into the illness, and you seem to be not only aware of the possibility of your thoughts misleading you, but also of the biological factors that contributed to your experience, such as using lots of marijuana and LSD for instance.

You don't seem to see yourself as holding special powers or secret knowledge, delusions of grandeur etc. which are further hallmarks of psychosis... basically, I'd say your experiences could definitely be attributed to what happens when a keen mind trips balls, but I think it's important that you also talk about this stuff with a trusted medical professional, if you can find one... just to be on the safe side and get the opinion of an expert who is actually talking to you face to face etc.

As far as beginning to 'decode' messages with darker themes, I think that is also quite normal if you are truly more sensitive to people's underlying emotions and unspoken cues etc, as most people are pretty messed up beneath the carefully maintained social veneer... the world is a pretty dark place in some ways (I mean world in the Biblical sense of kosmos, not the actual Earth... but I suppose Gaia has some fairly depressing systems in place as well!)

Also, the link between cannabis use and marijuana is a problematic bundle of questions and interrelated factors really, I'd be suspicious of any info that makes a causal link between the two, as this is simply unproven and IMO very unlikely... kind of like the fabled cutting of the Giordan knot.

Anyway, good luck, and for the record you don't sound psychotic to me at all.

^It's not every day I get to make statements like that.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Sublime Crime

[MindExpansion]

Cheers Sublime, They're not so worried now that theyve stopped their MJ use because their thoughts are getting less dark and more back to what they were before. I'm really glad to hear this:

As far as beginning to 'decode' messages with darker themes, I think that is also quite normal if you are truly more sensitive to people's underlying emotions and unspoken cues etc, as most people are pretty messed up beneath the carefully maintained social veneer

Because it certainly makes them feel less like a crazy person and more like someone who has gained some valuable insight.

As far as seeing a medical professional, they certainly considered it in depth for a long time but unfortunately they have some reasons why they dont think they should go and see someone to talk about drugs, They're all for counselling and having psychiatric evaluation and they think its unfortunate that they can't do this (won't go into too much detail here). If it ever gets worse they will just have to risk it and go though, and they realise this.

As far as the discussion of bongs, I think it's mostly the routine and the experience. To many I just dont think vapo's are the same, not the high, but the actual taking of the hit is different and people seem to enjoy the smoke, but one look at the effects that smoking will have on your lungs, and trachea (You actually force a morphogenesis of the epithelium lining your trachea so they are no longer ciliated cells, and it is those cilia that stop dust and other crap getting into your lungs) is enough to make it worth making the change.

Never heard of hot knifing bud.

Also, the link between cannabis use and marijuana is a problematic bundle of questions and interrelated factors really, I'd be suspicious of any info that makes a causal link between the two, as this is simply unproven and IMO very unlikely... kind of like the fabled cutting of the Giordan knot.

If you meant to say that the link between cannabis and schizophrenia (? is this what you meant? Ill continue as if it was just for interest anyway, but correct me if it wasnt) was not yet well proven, I sort've have to disagree sorry man. I had to do some research on this for a creative writing piece a while ago, (one day I might put it up somewhere, it was about drug use and schizophrenia in a high school aged kid whos family had broken up, he started to hallucinate contact with his father when there was none and when approached with the truth he breaks down, anyway thats well OT) and all the info I found made it seem to me quite obvious that there certainly was a fairly well established causitive link between the two. Perhaps if i get time i will try to find a meta analysis to post up... Anyway, while a lot of the science we are working with atm is not totally proven, working with what we have, it does seem that there is quite a strong link between the two, but genetics in most if not all cases are also involved.

Peace, and cheers for the 'keen mind' compliment and the reassurance of my friend's sanity.

Mind

[ThunderIdeal]

well... yeah maybe there is proof of that.... but try proving there is a link between cannabis use and marijuana. go on i dare ya.

[MindExpansion]

Dammit Thunder, i think you might just have me there, sounds like one of lifes great philosophical problems...

Peace,

Mind

[chilli]

If you meant to say that the link between cannabis and schizophrenia (? is this what you meant?

:D Yes, that's what I meant... but what I wrote is a lot funnier, so I'll leave it like that for the entertainment value, I kept reading it and then laughing out loud at how inadvertently funny I am.

...all the info I found made it seem to me quite obvious that there certainly was a fairly well established causitive link between the two.

The fact that so many intelligent, informed and sincere people can disagree about how best to interpret the data we have is itself a strong indication of how open to debate the issue still is. If all the info you found made it obvious that there was a well established causal link between cannabis use and schizophrenia, then I'm forced to think you either have misunderstood something, or reading selectively, as a reporter or a politician might. It seems that you've done a fair bit of research, so I'm thinking maybe you have overlooked one key issue, which is that it's crucially important to understand the fundamental difference between a causal link and a statistical one... this is also the mistake most media reports make, as well as politicians and various moral crusaders. Statistics need to be interpreted, and are infamously prone to being distorted to suit various agendas, usually financial or political. Research is funded by people with agendas, and researchers themselves have biases and agendas. Certainly, there are some studies that lean towards a causal link as the best explanation, but my own research leads me to think that most do not, and really I think this is the only viable conclusion to arrive at at this stage. As I said, it's a very complex issue and I'm in a bad headspace and can't really be bothered typing too much at the moment. I do think it's a very important issue though, and will go into more depth later, unless someone else can be bothered jumping in and explaining what I can't be bothered but could have done already by now if I hadn't spent so much time explaining in excruciating detail that I don't really have time to explain anything...

*crickets chirping*

Edited May 28, 2008 by Sublime Crime

[MindExpansion]

I know what you meant about the stats differing from the causal link, but my interpretation of the stats is that there is a causal link, and from my friends experience I can really see it being a causal link. Like i said, no doubt genetic play some role and perhaps other things do too, but at least IMHO there is a causal link between the two. The thing about science is that a lot of things are always debated. This is how we develop good science. This is still an issue of debate but the statistics do seem to lean in a direction. I also understand that much of the research is often funded by people with an agenda but as to wether the scientists doing the studies let this influence them...well if they are good scientists they shouldn't but who knows, financial pressure is a major source of leverage. These things will be debated for many many years, it seems like you have dont some research, and your saying that in your opinion the statistical data doesn't suggest to you that marijuana may play a significant role in the development of schizophrenia? I suppose this will be like any other scientific topic, I hold my opinion and you hold yours, perhaps one day one of us will be proven right or wrong or even both of us may be right or wrong, but if that happens I'll be glad to say that my opinion was wrong, and I'm sure you feel the same. It is unfortunate that we can't fully rely on any data revolving around drugs because of the agenda's behind the researchers. I think an excellent foundation would be one dedicated to performing neutral research, who, even if funded by people with an agenda ensure that they experiment in a non-biased way (including bias towards a pro-drug sentiment), perhaps a foundation like this exists, but I doubt it, given the beurocracy the government would probably never allow the researchers access to the substances because they would fear the fact that in many cases (e.g the psilocybin reasearch recently noted on these forums) the research would show that their opinions on many substances are way off.

Would try and right more but am way too busy...shouldnt have spent the time writing that lol but oh well.

Peace,

Mind

[herbologist]

Here's an imaginary theory thats just for fun-

The before mentioned insights into interpretations of others actions and hidden meanings, is quite valid. The paranoia that seems to go with excessive MJ or cid use is due to

an overload of these quite valid interpretations but, most affected people cant cope with their new found "ability". Much like on smallville when clark gets a new power and

he can't control it for about a third of an episode, but he can't quit his super powers so he has to deal with it and sort it out.by the last half of the show he's got it under

control. Im in no way implying that MJ or cid will give you super powers but what other logical explanation is there?

[The Dude]

Im in no way implying that MJ or cid will give you super powers but what other logical explanation is there?

Hehe. superman is an esoteric parable of a young kid experimenting with drugs?... obviously!

[nabraxas]

i agree that it's a fallacy to say:

'more aborigines are committing suicide + more aborigines are smoking pot = smoking pot causes aborigines to commit suicide', & that no direct causal link has been found between MJ & psychosis.

However, i think the view that MJ is completely harmless fun needs revision-- & i'm not implying that anyone has stated such a view.

Personal experiences don't, & shouldn't, count as any kind ov authority, but my own mind was changed on this subject way before i started to have difficulties coping w/MJ myself.

A friend ov mine who was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic, but was managing to cope without medication, came round to my flat. We chatted for awhile & they seemed fine. I mulled up & we had a couple ov bongs each. Over the next 15 minutes my friend completely lost it. The stuff that came out ov his mouth was totally crazy. He became agitated & agressive, & demanded more cones.

i told him i didn't think it was a good idea & when he tried to grab the bag ov dope off me there was a tussle, which ended up w/me throwing a quarter ov primo grass down the toilet & him storming off.

I came to the opinion that for some people w/mental issues MJ probably isn't harmless.

Edited May 29, 2008 by nabraxas

[Big George]

A good trip / bad trip has a lot to do with your state of mind before you start, and your general level of contentedness with life as a whole. The state of mind you leave with to begin your trip, sets the tone for the whole scene.

Long term use of pot, in my experience, leads to paranoia, which is not the right state of mind to be opening your mind up to the universe to entertain and enlighten for 12 hours.

Short term, infrequent use of pot is generally ok, and keeps it fun.

Having ridden the paranoia bus once or twice and going on trips thru the universe, I really don't recommend mixing the two. I am talking 3+ weeks either side, and especially not simultaneously.

If you want to mix, the letter e might be a great start to a trip, maybe drop the letter e first and the trip 10-20mins later you are sure to be in the right state of mind for a good trip. If doing this with friends, I recommend you park your butts in a cocktail lounge and pay someone lots of money to keep bringing you various multi-coloured, expensive, tasty drinks... :D

My advice is to lay off the smoko for 6 months to let the paranoia thing go completely. Your friend's head will return to normal, but your body needs to clear it out and the mind needs to heal.

I can not think of a worse state of mind to be in, ever... un-necessary paranoia is a really awful thing.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Big George

[chilli]

I think it's generally in the best interests of those with a mental illness to steer clear of psychedelics such as marijuana, in much the same way that I think responsible use of any substance is important. Responsible use for me means that when the drugs you use have an overall negative effect on your life, there is a problem that should probably be addressed. I also believe that for most people, the proper correction to abuse is not non-use, but proper use... again, there are obviously some people for whom proper use is non-use with certain substances, such as alcoholics. I also think anything used to excess will usually affect one negatively... and if someone doesn't stop something that is having an overall negative effect on their life, the issue is again one of being personally responsible and making wise decisions.

I find these general principles much more useful than rules or laws for particular drugs, simply because everyone is so different. I know people that have smoked pot practically every day of their life for 30 or 40 years, and they are mentally sound, intelligent, positive people without a hint of paranoid thinking, with good jobs, happy family, house cars and all the other important measures of success... others I know who after a couple of years sit around in front of a bong and TV all day, are constantly paranoid and agitated and generally dickheads. Again, I think a lot of it is due to personality, character and chemical makeup.

I think our society has an extremely unrealistic and distorted view of what a healthy mind is. I read someone recently bemoaning what they called the "false revelations" marijuana gave them, but in my own journey, despite difficulties, I have overall found it to be a very powerful "ally." Maybe that's the best way to look at it, through the animistic analogy of plant allies: various plants and medicines are beneficial for various people in various situations at various times. The trick is developing the wisdom to know what is best for me personally at any given time and situation, and then resisting the desire to project what is best for me onto the experiences of others, something I am only very slowly learning (hanging around here has helped, believe it or not!)

[kindness]

really, people... you are all such great minds and people of heart.

Thankyou for the reading and in depth, open discussion about a topic I'm sure a gnome in a sister's garden's slug friend's uncle's group of friends on an internet forum are well qualified experientially to ponder. ( I reckon I lost half the reading audience in that last statement

I agree with certain plants being allies. For me they have changed as I have grown. And I've got some not so subtle hints to stop some saying hello to some plants.

<please ignore my banter and continue, just wanted to say good reading folks>

[MindExpansion]

I understand the reasoning many people have for the lack of a causal link between pot and mental illness which is... we all know people who have been long term smokers and are fine, but I personally, and I'm sure many of you, know people who have developed psychosis, and even schizophrenia, and in many of these cases I believe drugs played a critical role. I'm in no way saying that perhaps one day the disease wouldn't have shown itself anyway, nor am I saying that everyone who smoked pot/uses psychedelics is going to develop it. My personal belief, and there seems to be some evidence for this (as we've discussed this evidence must be evaluated on an individual study by study basis to determine validity), is that while schizophrenia is probably often if not always related to a genetic predisposition, there is a higher rate among those who regularly use marijuana. Does this mean that people who are going to develop schizophrenia anyway are more attracted to MJ? This may be possible but to me, and this is just my opinion, to each their own (but still I hope people, and from what is being said it seems clear that all are, basing their opinions on evidence not just disagreement with the proofs), it seems more probable that it is the MJ/psychedelics which ignite the manifestation of the genetic predispostion to cause the mental illness. I'd also like to add, and im not trying to criticise, that it is more difficult to admit the possibilty of a causal link if you may be affected by that link, i.e if you are a regular MJ user, it is harder to admit the possibility of a causal link/accept evidence of a potential link since that link may indeed effect you, where someone who doesn't use may find it easier, this is an important barrier of personal bias, even if not conscious, to recognise. I also find that then people who don't use and do suggest the link may be accused of being biased in an anti-drug manner.

Again I'm not accusing/criticising anyone here, just raising what I think is qutie a contextually important matter. Loving the discussion btw, really interesting stuff.

Peace,

Mind

Edit: Dont know how to get rid of the little exclamation mark post marker because I am using my computer without a mouse. Peace

Edited May 30, 2008 by MindExpansion

[MindExpansion]

Opes, just read what i typed last night

On the issue of causative effect, I have not yet formed my own opinion on whether MJ/psychoactives CAUSE mental ilness, I hold no doubt that they have the ability to precipitate the illness in someone with a disposition, but this isn't really a causative link. Whether or not there is a causative link...well maybe one day when we better understand the full actions of the illness we can form a better opinion on this.

Peace,

Mind

[chilli]

Opes, just read what i typed last night

On the issue of causative effect, I have not yet formed my own opinion on whether MJ/psychoactives CAUSE mental ilness, I hold no doubt that they have the ability to precipitate the illness in someone with a disposition, but this isn't really a causative link. Whether or not there is a causative link...well maybe one day when we better understand the full actions of the illness we can form a better opinion on this.

Peace,

Mind

So, I'm glad you at least seem to have grasped the point I was making now, it makes discussion so much more interesting! ;)

My skepticism towards a causative link between cannabis and marijuana is based more on the lack of supporting evidence than the analogical evidence or personal motives you seem to think may explain it. Really, I think the most obvious hidden agendas are political, financial and religious and occur on the part of those who selectively use research to preemptively claim a causal link. Keep in mind that the risk factor for alcohol abuse is twice as high as that of marijuana, but you don't hear about claims for a causative link for that because it isn't politically convenient. Same goes for other risk factors like smoking tobacco, moving to a new country, living in a city, having a dysfunctional family and so on.

One of the most persuasive things to consider, which you surely would have come across in your research, is that the incidence of schizophrenia is similar throughout history and between different countries worldwide. There are proportionally very similar numbers of schizophrenics in any given population at any given statistical period, despite comparably massive fluctuations in the statistical use of cannabis.

As I said, there are so many interrelated confounding factors, and given the seemingly undeniable causal genetic link, I think these factors are more elegantly explained as contributing to the unmasking and/or exacerbation of a latent congenital disease, than as all of them in conjunction being causative. Also, I think this approach is more able to explain all of the research, rather than a few studies, and it seems to be the view shared by most of the medical community, including the authors of the studies most often misrepresented in the media as proving that pot use causes schizophrenia.

I'm open to the idea that marijuana can cause schizophrenia, but I find it difficult to take seriously those making this claim because they are so inconsistent. What I mean is, going by the statistics then at least twice as much of the media brainwashing and political campaigning should be devoted to prohibition of alcohol, or living in cities, or dysfunctional families!

Like Nabraxas said, personal experience is not good evidence, but given some of your earlier remarks I think it may help you to know that although I used marijuana heavily for many years, it wasn't until after I quit nearly four years ago that I actually began to take the view that I have now.

Also, it isn't very reasonable or useful to make those kind of insinuations in a gentlemanly discussion, however delicately you put it.

Sometimes it's fun though, I'll admit that.

[MindExpansion]

As I said, there are so many interrelated confounding factors, and given the seemingly undeniable causal genetic link, I think these factors are more elegantly explained as contributing to the unmasking and/or exacerbation of a latent congenital disease, than as all of them in conjunction being causative.

This is essentially what I was getting at, just took me a while to realise that I was using the wrong term, i.e causative.

I, at current, don't believe that MJ alone will ever just cause schizophrenia in an individual who doesn't have a genetic predisposition. New research may one day change my opinion but at current I agree with what you said (quoted above).

I haven't read on the effects on risk of developing schizophrenia due to alcohol etc so I can't comment on this, what I do find interesting, and this is a throw away comment because it's off topic, but perhaps discussion for another time, is that alcohol and tobacco certainly appear to have more negative effects than MJ, actually, I have discussed this in another topic so no need to get into that again, but yes, I haven't seen papers on the link between schizo and alc/tobacco but that is no doubt because I wasn't looking for them, if they are twice as high then I suppose one would have to consider how accurate those figures are, as one does when considering the risk factor associated with MJ because true risk factor numbers are always very difficult to accurately ascertain due, as you said, to the difficulty to consider the confounding factors, and with an illness as poorly understood as schizophrenia it is difficult enough to even know what is likely to be a confounding factor...it could be intake of cheese (Unlikely I know but I am using an exaggerated example to show the point).

I really believe that the media does blow almost every scientific study they report on far out of proportion. They report on a single report as if it's findings have definitevly PROVEN something when often it's not PROOF but perhaps just evidence. The media does this with research of all kinds, recently an example of skin cancer being effected by a genetic predisposition, which for one has been known/suggested for a while now, and for two this means essentially nought because there is very little one can do about it anyway. THe media reported it like it was some brand new potential miracle solution. Another example of the media reporting on something way beyond their knowledge (By which I mean when a reporter reports on something in a field which requires expertise to understand, like medicine as a particularly good example.), the lady who tragically miscarried in a toilet in a Sydney hospital a few years back and sparked a massive inquiry which has led to Rudd proposing a multi-million dollar scheme to prevent this happening. The real circumstances were that the lady was at week 13 of pregnancy. About 1 in 4 pregnancies will end in miscarriage, and early on as in this case, it is particularly common, also, the bathroom is a particularly common place for a woman to miscarry. I only recently found out these details because to me the reports in the news made out like the lady had gone in to give birth and been rejected to go on and miscarry in the bathroom. The media blew it out of proportion, yes it is tragic, but there was ABSOLUTELY nought anyone could've done about it. Rudd probably knows this, and those who wrote the report, but he has to be seen to do something because the public would be mighty pissed if nothing came of it.

The same sort of thing applies to the news relating to schizophrenia and drugs, as you say, it is certainly convenient for the government to propose anti-drug 'evidence' to justify their tough and often somewhat unreasonable drug laws, while ignoring the links to ill health related to the substances they earn money from (Have discussed this in more detain in the 'Kava soon to become S4' thread.

One of the most persuasive things to consider, which you surely would have come across in your research, is that the incidence of schizophrenia is similar throughout history and between different countries worldwide. There are proportionally very similar numbers of schizophrenics in any given population at any given statistical period, despite comparably massive fluctuations in the statistical use of cannabis.

I haven't come across this but would be interested to, because from my understanding the definition of schizophrenia is changing and also the illness is typically quite hard to identify, so I would like to read how they determine if people in the past had the illness.

Also, as we agree that there is probably a genetic relationship here, what you say brings up the idea that perhaps some nationalities have a more common occurrance of these predisposing genes. (This may be due to the accumulation of a particular genetic mutation which leads to a higher chance of developing schizophrenia in one particular area) and this may as such be a confounding factor in looking at the relationship between MJ and the development of the illness because in some counties, use may be lower but predisposition may be higher, where in other areas use may be higher but predispostion may be lower.

This is all specualtion but god its and interesting topic!

Also, it isn't very reasonable or useful to make those kind of insinuations in a gentlemanly discussion, however delicately you put it.

Sorry but I just thought it would be relevant, we have talked about the agendas and bias of politicians, scientists, the media, so why not the users? Didn't mean to be out of line.

Peace,

Mind

[chilli]

Sorry but I just thought it would be relevant, we have talked about the agendas and bias of politicians, scientists, the media, so why not the users? Didn't mean to be out of line.

Fair enough then if that was how you meant it, I just got a different impression from what you wrote.

Probably paranoid from all the pot.

[MindExpansion]

Hehehe no I think it is because I put in all the cautious "im not trying to criticise" lines that made it seem like I was.

But I intended it to be included so we had mentioned all those involved and the biases that may effect them

Peace,

Mind